The Quantitative Theory

Canada's External Affairs Chief Lester Pearson, who had declared a fortnight ago that Canadian neutrality would be "unthinkable" if the U.S. were at war, was evidently thinking hard about it last week --and making a few qualifications. Pearson's afterthought came out in a foreign-policy debate in Parliament, when he was under attack by opposition CCF (Socialist) members for following the U.S. too closely, and by Tory and Social Credit critics who feel that Canadian support of the U.S. is not forthright enough.

One situation in which Canada might conceivably remain neutral, Pearson said, would be a fight by the U.S. to defend the islands of Quemoy and Matsu. He said: "I do not consider a conflict . . . for the possession of these Chinese coastal islands [to be] one requiring any Canadian intervention."

Watered Down. Then what did he mean by his earlier statement that Canada could not remain neutral if war came? "I have said that it would be impossible for either the U.S. or Canada to be neutral if the people of the other country were engaged in a major war," Pearson explained, putting special emphasis on the word major. "It does not mean . . . that whenever the U.S. is engaged in any kind of war, we are at war ... It certainly does not mean that we must participate in limited or peripheral wars."

If Pearson's new quantitative theory of war was meant to make his policy more acceptable to the opposition, the strategy was a failure. Tory Foreign Affairs Critic John Diefenbaker sprang up as soon as Pearson finished and charged that the minister's original speech had been "watered down." Diefenbaker rapped Pearson for creating the impression that defense of Quemoy and Matsu would be a "bush fire" of no concern to Canada. Said he: "It is but fantasy to say that what might happen over there would not become an all-embracing conflict."

Comfort to the Enemy. CCF Leader M. J. Coldwell was equally critical for a different reason; he thought Pearson had gone too far in support of the U.S. "I do not want to see this country dragged into a war by [U.S.] policies," cried Socialist Coldwell. "It is about time that this government.. . spoke out against [them]."

Social Credit Leader Solon Low first denounced Coldwell's attack as "a speech that will give comfort to the enemy." Then he turned back to the key question of Quemoy and Matsu. "They are important to Red China only as a jumping-off place for an attack on Formosa," Low said. "The U.S. should be given moral support . . . because of the importance of Formosa for the defense of the free people of southeastern Asia and even of America." As the other M.P.s spoke, Mike Pearson alternately twirled his horn-rimmed glasses and sprawled in his seat with hands in his pockets. He made no immediate reply to his critics. For the time being, at least, he evidently intended to stand by his rule-of-thumb for Canadian action. The rule: yes, if it is a big war; no--or maybe--if, by Mike Pearson's definition, it is a small one.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.