Canada’s Attitude To Cuba Changes

Press, Volume C, Issue 29498, 27 April 1961, Page 22

Canada’s Attitude To Cuba Changes

[Specially written fur the N.Z,P.A. by

MELVIN SUFRIN]

TORONTO, April 25. Four months ago Canada was being rather angrily attacked in the United States press for its decision to continue normal trade relations with Cuba. Today the Canadian Government's attitude has swung around until it appears closer to the American position that at any time in the last year.

The switch was signalled a few days ago when the Prime Minister (Mr Diefenbaker) told Parliament that the Communist bridgehead in Cuba represented a threat to the whole of Latin America and that “the internationalisation” of the Cuban revolution had become a danger to the Western Hemisphere that Canada could not ignore. Government spokesmen in Ottawa have hastened to make clear that the Government does not necessarily support the idea that Americans have the right to invade Cuba to overthrow Fidel Castro.

They suggest that Mr Diefenbaker’s administration is simply worried about increasing Communist influence in Cuba, particularly in the wake of the statement by the Soviet Premier (Mr Khrushchev) that “we shall render the Cuban people and their Government all necessary assistance in beating back the armed attack on Cuba.” Aside from this obvious conclusion there is speculation about other possible motives behind the new Canadian position. One might be the Government’s wish to improve relations with the United States. Another could be that the new stand would have a vote-getting appeal among Canada’s strongly anti-Communist European population. Mr Diefenbaker’s remarks came at a time when it was evident that the latest efforts to overthrow Castro were doomed. It was therefore evident that Mr Diefenbaker was not just trying to jump on to the American “band waggon.” Late last year Mr Diefenbaker indicated that in spite of American pressure, Canada would not follow the example set by the United States and place an embargo on trade with Cuba. At that stage he said; “It is our wish, consistent with our relations with other countries, to maintain the kind of relations with Cuba which are usual with the recognised Government of another country.” The United States was angry and there was considerable criticism of Canada in American newspapers. The general feeling was that the Canadians were, in effect, stabbing Americans in the back.

What most Americans did not seem to realise was that, even with the trade embargo,

the United States was still doing more business with Cuba in one month than Canada does in a whole year. The Canadian Government apparently had hopes of substantially increasing trade with Cuba in non-strategic goods. In fact there was a small increase during the last few months of 1960. But no figures on trade have been released from Ottawa for several months. . In the absence of hard information there is a suspicion that business between Canada and Cuba has been disappointing. If that is the case then the Government may feel there is relatively little for Canada to gain economically from its role of careful neutrality, and perhaps little to lose from the decision to attack Castro’s policies. Canadian banks in Cuba have been permitted to continue operations while American assets were being seized, but it could well be that, regardless of relations with this country, Cuba would not seize the banks because they represent one of the few remaining means of making internatioal transactions. Five Canadians were arrested in Cuba last week but the arrests were regarded more as symptoms of confusion than of a deliberate policy of unfriendliness toward Canada.

Assuming. then. that Canada stands to suffer little from a stiffening of attitude toward Cuba, what could she gain? One possible dividend is better relations with the United States. Canada’s economy is so closely intertwined with the United States that it is obviously to Canada’s advantage to be in Washington’s good graces, especially at a time when the Kennedy Administration is considering means of curbing American investment abroad.

Another possibility is that Mr Diefenbaker may see this as a chance to win supnort for his Conservative Party from immigrant voters, some of whom were disturbed by the Government’s tolerance of Castro in the face of his close ties with the Communist bloc.

If, as is expected, there is to be a general election in Canada late this year or early next year, then the Government would be looking for support from this element of the population, particularly since recent public opinion polls indicate that the Conservatives are trailing the Liberals.