~

‘PHYSICIAN,
HEAL THYSELF’

By LESLIE MORRIS

to warn Canadians about the plans and ideas of world com-
munism. He specializes in ideological warfare against socialist
ideas, and uses his knowledge of Russian and his reading of
Soviet journals to palm off “expert” opinions on the Soviet
Union, much as does Mark Gahyn: in the Toronto Daily Star.
He has been a CCF candidate, for some obscure reason. Ob-
secure, because he has nothing in common with the aspirations
of CCF members.

NCEVICH’S latest essay into world politics is a letter to the

Glove and Mail on Jan. 7. He sets out to advise “the West-

ern world” to “carefully study the documents of the Moscow

Summit outlining the new outlook of the international Com-
munist movement.”

One can only reply, ‘Physician, heal thyself!”, because An-
cevich’s letter shows that he himself is in sore need of studying
the documents.

For example, he sets out to show that “for the first time
in history of (the) modern Communist movement, the Russians
and Chinese, exponents of ‘pure’ Marxism-Leninism, have made
a unanimous decision to abandon their idea of world-wide
social revolution by world war, because a Third World War
would be equally fatal and catastrophic for both of the existing
social'systems of today.”

The casual reader (not in possession of “the documents’’)
could draw the conclusion that if modern warfare were not
thermonuclear then Communists would be in favor of it, be-
cause it would lead to revolution.

This “careful” student of “the documents” then ascribes the
following quotation to the Moscow Conference: “in the absence
of a world war, all capitalist countries will ultimately, as a
result of the efforts of their people, take the socialist road
through socialist revolutions. To safeguard the life and security
of all peoples and spare the world the disaster of a nuclear
war, we must redouble our efforts to prevent the imperialists
from using war adventures in a desperate struggle.”

: * * *

CLOSE examination of the Statement of the Moscow Con-

ference fails to produce any such wording; neither is it a
free translation of the Russian text. There is an official English
text available to everybody and it is not in there either.

Apart from the patent dishonesty of ‘quoting’’ non-existent
ents,” the idea contained in Ancevich’s own formula-

: \ 2 at
ay seem to be a fair summary of the Communist position;

he development of nuclear war which has changed the
nist position from their former efforts to seek revolu-
tion through war. :

Let us quote the actual Statement: “The imperialist reac-
tionaries, who seek to arouse distrust of the Communist move-
ment.and its ideology, continue to intimidate the masses by
alleging that the Communists need wars between states to
overthrow the capitalist system and establish a socialist system.
The ‘Communist parties emphatically reject this slander. The
fact that both world wars, which were started by the imper-
ialists, ended in socialist revolutions by no means implies that
the way to social revolution goes necessarily through world:
cae
of socialism. Marxist-Leninists have never considered that the
way fo social revolution lies through wars between states.”
(World Marxist Review, December, vac Page 20. My emphasis.)
2 *

HE STATEMENT goes on to “— out that sOcialist revolu-

ion is not an item of import and cannot be imposed from|

without"—this in answer to Ancevich’s claim that it is Moscow
and Peking which decide the day in non-Communist countries.
_ Qn the contrary the Statement says:
_ firn

will the course of their daily siruggle ultimately come io

in thi Statement:. “The Communist parties, which guide them-
4 by Marxist-Leninist doctrine, have always been against

the export of revolution. At the same time they fight resolutely
inft imperialist export of counfer-revOlution.” It is the
fight fgainst counter-revolution, in Cuba, Laos and the Congo,
in 19§6 in Hungary and in the early days of the Soviet Union,

whiclt brings into being the international solidarity which An-
cevich twists into charges of “interference” in the internal|
affairs of countries.

‘be the case.

‘| Russians the benefit of the

pecially now that there exists a powerful world system |

“Marxist-Leninists are |
convinced that the peoples in the capitalist ‘countries.!

$stand that only scialism is the real way out for them.”| &
cevich also, and quite deliberately, ignores these words|

WASHINGTON CHANGEOVER

indicated

S the United States admin-
A istration: changed hands
some indications of possible
changes in U.S. foreign policy
could be seen.

Statements by representa-
tives of both the incoming
Democrats and outgoing Re-
publicans — one by former
President Eisenhower himself
— gave hope that such would

Strangely enough, a state-
ment by an outgoing Repub-
lican provided the most stri-
king evidence of the need for
a reassessment of American
foreign policy.

Admission that the Soviet
Union is sincere in pressing
for disarmament came from
James J. Wadsworth, chief
United States delegate to the
United Nations under the
Eisenhower administration.

In a farewell press confer-
ence, Wadsworth said:

“TY think generally, by and
large, that the Russian gov-
ernment has every intention
of living up to any agreement
they may make from the
standpoint of nuclear tests or
the larger areas of disarm-
ament.”

Editorially, the Toronto
Globe and Mail asked if this
statement was a “deathbed
repentance” as it was “in
marked contrast to the official
line” of the U.S. which “has
never been willing to give the

doubt” and which claimed
that “the Russians were inter-
ested in forestalling, rather
that promoting, real disarm-
ament.”

Of the statement itself, the
Toronto paper declared:

‘Tt is a tragedy, however,
that Mr. Wadsworth has wait-
ed until his power and influ-
ence in office have gone to

Possible shifts in poli

RANK Ancevich often writes io the Toront© Globe and Mail| @

in United

make widely known his own

opinions, -born of long exper-,
ience of negotiating with Rus-,
The course of disarm- |
ament negotiations might have,

sia.

gone more smoothly these past
few years if U.S. public opin-
ion had been educated by men
like Mr. Wadsworth to put a
little more faith in Russian
sincerity.”

A day before Wadsworth’s
statement was reported in the
press, the Toronto Daily Star
carried a review of a book by
UPI correspondent Merriman
Smith in which former Presi-
dent Eisenhower admits that
he should have stopped the
U-2 flights over the Soviet
Union before the summit con-
ference last May.

In his final press confer-
ence, Eisenhower is also re-
ported to have warned against
the danger of granting undue
influence to the military es-
tablishment in peacetime. He
called for “the proper mesh-
ing of the huge industrial and
military machinery of defence
with our peaceful methods
and goals so that security
and liberty may prosper to-
gether.”

Certainly Eisenhower's
warning against the militory
taking over in the U.S.—and
action to prevent it — would
have been more opportune
had it come a long time earii-
er during his term of office.
But it is to be hoped that the
incoming Kennedy administra-
tion — committed, in fact, by
pre-election speeches to an
even greater military estab-
lishment than was Eisenhow-
er’s — will take the former
president’s warning to heart
and do something about it.

Indications that this may be
the case are found in the tes-
timony of _Kennedy’s. ambas-

which produces special steel.

North Korea torges Keene :

The Sungjin Steel “Work:

* %

*
Perhaps Ancevich could write another letter to the Glo’
and Mail explaining why Communist world conferences alwa:
eall for peace, while capitalist conferences like NATO, alway

call for more armaments.

/

February 3, 1961- ~

‘trality was

cy
States

sador to the UN, Adlai Steven-
son, and his secretary of state,
Dean Rusk, to a senate cOm-
mittee which passed on their
appointments. x

Stevenson warned that U.S.
foreign policy must be prepar-

|; ed to accept rebuffs and dis-

appoiniments, but that the
U.S. should not use the UN

| : .
|“as a device in the cold war

. . « but affirmatively to ad-
vance” iis policies.

That these policies must
still’ basically conform to the
aims of U.S. imperialism, Ste-
venson made clear. But some
difference from the past
emerged.

Stevenson said that the U.S.
would “have to face the possi-
bility” of China being admit-
ted to the UN, that “support
for our position has been de-
clining in recent years” and
that admitting China to the
UN might be “impossible to
prevent.”

He also stated that the U.S.
“must maintain its obliga-
tions to preserve the independ-
ence of Formosa”  glossing
ever the fact that under U.S.
puppet Chiang Kai-shek, For-
mosa (Taiwan) has no inde-
pendence, and that it is in fact
a legitimate part of mainland
China.

Dean Rusk added to Steven-
son’s testimony on China that
“the presence on mainland
China of a large and powerful
force is one of the facts of the
modern world which we can-
no: ignore.”

Re‘errine to the neutralist
policies of the newly inde-
pendent countries of Asia and
Africa, Rusk stated: “I do not
believe that we should insist
that anyone who is not with
us is against us.’

As the Toronto Globe and
Mail indicated, this “is in
sharp contrast to Mr. Dulles’
famous s'ateméent that neu-
‘an immoral and
short--i~h*ed conception’.”

These are not revolutionary

statements in ‘terms of mark-
ing an ab-upt departure from
-the. Renublican policies for
war, and the composition of
Kennedy’s . cabinet is clear
proof *>°* monopoly capital —

and its im»erialist aims is still
in power in the U.S.

But,
some .*h's in. U.S. foreign
nolicy * yv. take place, and
that the ““ennedy administra-
*ten ho ‘ready had to, recog-
riz? ‘he’ srowing demand,
from “>in “the: U.S. -ande@
Re Ruste the world, for 2 —
nhahes nolicies which will —

i abd

ae ate

‘ng world peace.

~TBUNE—Page 8

they do indicate that a

to easing tensions