“$-dipl “in UN $-diplomacy’ in pcr has not been lacking that in certain U.S. rul- ™ ing circles in both Republican and Democratic camps there has been a growing desire to scuttle the UN. The reasons for such a desire are also becoming widely obvious. In the coldwar language of the Pentagon what cannot be “ruled” has got to be “ruined:”’ Numerous provocation moves have been designed to achieve that end? the latest from the U. S. State Depart- ment being an attempt to deprive the USSR of a vote in the General Assembly on the spurious argument that the Soviet Union is delinquent in its “membership dues” as provided in Article 19 of the United Nations Charter. This crude provecation should fool no one. Under the provisions of Article 19 the financial obligations of the So- viet Union are paid in full, in 1963 to the tune of $14-mil- lion, compared to Britain's less than $6-million. What the USSR flatly refused to pay for, which has got nothing to do with Article 19, is the unauthorized” ex- penditure of millions of UN dollars in the Congo and Mid- dle East to preserve and promote the neo-colonialism of U.S., British, French, Belgian and similar imperial inter- ests. To that brand of illegal “peace-keeping” for which the UN has been utilized, the USSR says “not a kopeck”’. It is quite in keeping with Liberal kow-towing to Washington to hear Canada’s External Affairs Minister Paul Martin parroting the U.S. “line” in this respect, and voicing “approval” to the application of “veto” upon the Soviet Union in the UN General Assembly should it fail to “pay-up” for these imperialist war adventures for the pre- servation of colonialism, and which have brought the UN to the brink of “financial insolvency”. No wonder the “image” of Canada in the eyes of many A PRAYER UNANSWERED ... Truly Canadian’ Du the past six weeks, at Charlottetown, PEI, and: in Ottawa the premiers and attorneys-general of Can- ada’s federal and provincial governments have “unani- mously’”’ reached agreement on a “formula” to make our “constitution”, the BNA Act, “for the first time . and wholly Canadian.” .. truly Since this “formula” provides that no constitutional Life and experience have taught US —How limited is the independence © a country when a part of its land is 0% cupied by a foreign power. : How unsound is the liberty of 4 small nation when a foreign force rooted in the soil of its country and eM circles it. : How difficult is the realization ‘ friendship with neighboring peoples, when our land is being used as 4 - for possible aggression against them. Life and experience have taught that our national sovereignty is nothing but an illusion when foreign powe® can decide on war and peace in country at any moment. —AKEL News Letter, Central Com mittee Progressive Party of Working People of Cyprus, SOPace tember, 1964. We said it before she came, 990) we'll say it now that she’s gone Queen should have stayed at home Not that we’re against the perso” — age, or even the institution, of - monarchy It is simply that the purpose and ideals of Canadian unity at this time would have been better served by absence. The royal presence failed—if, ince such was planned — to amelion) grief of division threatening Canaee —THE UBYSSEY, UBC editorial) Oct. 14-64. changes can be made (even after the British Parliament has conceded that “right”’) without the consent of at least seven provinces representing 50-percent of the population, past performances of federal-provincial disunity on such questions indicates that the process of re-writing will be slow. Andrew Brewin MP-NDP (Toronto) has already de- nounced the “formula” itself and declared his party will oppose much of its restrictive provisions. This amount, as government penditures go, is a fleabite if you SY scribe to the “‘what’s-a-million” se os of thought. But to look at its anote’ — way, $5,600,000 could pay for 5 : university scholarships of $1,000 ea¢™ — so why should we let it be pov! down the drain? states begins to resemble a puppet which dances when the string is pulled. ex: Running parallel with this latest U.S. move to pres- sure the USSR into footing the bill for imperialist intrigues carried on under the ageis of the UN, is a move to “pack”’ UN administrative and clerical staffs with an ever-increas- ing number of American personnel, already more than top- heavy when compared with other member states. The old game of “administrative” control played at staff level, and highly “complimentary” to higher-level U.S. intrigues within the UN. Thus the “unanimity” around the “formula” will pro- bably come a cropper in a continuation of the long interne- cine political warfare between federal and provincial gov- ernments on the issue of respective “rights”, which have served as an obstruction to social progress for nearly a cen- tury. All financial considerations aside, if this civil defense nonsense does ae thing, it does harm, not good, by yi tering false feelings of security at by discouraging Canadians from ye : cepting the reality that the only it fense against nuclear war is fo keep t from starting. ; Canada’s efforts should be directed towards enlarging the UN, rather than giving “approval” to a U.S. attempt towards gagging one of its most effective mainstays on a trumped-up charge of financial “delinquency”. Mr. Martin We can only hope that in its re-writing, the “village- pump” outlook will be decisively abandoned—and Canada emerge the beneficiary of this historic step towards inde- —MACLEAN’S MAGAZINE, — should be told so in no uncertain terms. Tom — McEWEN | n Canada and Britain the political “analysts” of the Queen’s ill-starred visit to Canada have been going the whole hog on who and what to “blame” for this major fiasco? Under lurid headings we now read about “The shame of Quebec”, Quebec, the Hate City” and so forth, Obviously Quebec has been picked as the “culpit”. Tories, Liberals, Socreds and other political hybirds are quiv- ering with “indignation” like a bowl of animated jello at this “insult” to the Queen, and calling for popular manifestations of “love and loyalty” to our sov- reign Lady. With mixed feelings the “Fourth Estate,” better known as the monopoly press, hasn’t yet made up its collective mind as to ~just who is to “blame,” but indicates a willing readiness to pile it onto Quebec, Having sown the “wind” with startling tales of Quebec “sep- aratist” machination almost from the day the Queen’s visit was first announced, tales in- cluding possible “assassination,” the kept press now cloaks itself with pious “indignation” at the end results of its own manufactured hysteria; a hysteria which found its highest expression in an un- precedented state “security” build-up, and with a police brut- ality unexcelled in the annals of preserving “law and order,” So we smugly “blame” Quebec hold Ottawa up as a scintillating example of “bi-lingual and bi- cultural” loyalty and devotion to pendence, progress and national unity. the Throne, dispose of Quebec’s century-old grievances under an uncompleted Confederation, “de- plore” our club-swinging police brutality against an allegedly small * minority” of peaceful non- conformists, thus diverting our’ attention from the real instiga- tors of this Royal fiasco — the Liberal hierarchy of the Pearson -Lesage governments, As the Queen’s “advisers” in Canada these Liberal pundits, for purpose best known to them- selves and their immediate col- leagues, not only engineered the royal visit, but turned a deaf ear to all advice on its “inoppor- tuneness” at this particular mo- ment in Canadian history. All such advice fell on deaf ears, The Queen was to be their political *trumph” at the historic celebrations in Charlottetown and Quebec City, andanything that got in the way would be handled by “massive security” and club- swinging police, The basic question is not how many or how few Quebecers are “separatists”, but the fact that for nearly a century has fought for full and sovreign equality as a nation within an uncompleted Canadian Confederation and a made-in-Britain constitution, But the Liberal “planners” and political “analysts” of the Queen’s visit make one’ major error; the assumption that Que- bec’s “separatists” upon whose heads the bulk of the “blame” as well as the police clubs fell, are an insignificant “minority” and hense not to be associated TOLER, November 2-64 with Quebec as a whole. In this context and atthispare icular moment in Canadian his- tory, the Queen’s visit, desig?” by a Liberal hierarchy who seek to create a new Canadian “CO federation” upon an old and 0b solete blueprint, wasa deliberat : insult and provocation to French Canada, For this there is no one to “blame” other than Pearson-Lesage Liberal hiet archy. To try and affix “blame” on Quebec is merelY — to evade the truth, iz bi es nh UG ny p i if Ed Vancouver 4, B.C. of postage in cash. Associate Editor — MAURICE RUSH Circulation Manager — JERRY SHACK Published weekly at Room 6 — 426 Main Street Subscription Rates: ee Canadian and Commonwealth countries (except Australia): $4.00 one year. Australia, United States and all other countries; $5.00 one year. Authorized as second class ae by the Post Office Department, Ottawa and for payment — Phone MUtual 5-5288 — — : ve, October 23, 1964 PACIFIC TRIBUNE—PO9?