DEEPENING CRISIS OVER VIETNAM
[The following statement was issued by the - United Secretariat of the Fourth International May 4.]
Johnson's "measured escalation" of the war in Vietnam passed another milestone with the announcement April 29 that the Australian government will send a battalion of infantry to join the American occupation forces. The action of Prime Minister Menzies constitutes a victory, if a minor one, in Johnson's efforts to involve his allies openly in the conflict.
The rate of escalation is most ominous. The New York Times admitted April 26: "The pace of the war in Vietnam is accelerating. Time is a relative factor, so that 10 days in this April have been like 10 weeks last year and 10 months in previous years. There is an awareness now...that the drama is building toward its climax. There is a sense of grim determination on one side and defiance on the other. And there is also the sense that the world may be moving toward a still distant holocaust that is, however, visible on the horizon,'
‘To this must be added increasing pressure from the most reactionary forces in the United States to employ nuclear weapons. The New York Daily News came out flatly April 17 for dropping the "hydrogen" bomb on Hanoi. Former Senator Goldwater said April 27 in Paris that he had been praying that China would provide a “pre« text" for massive bombing of its nuclear installations, Pentagon spokesmen have not lessened world-wide fear by their assurances that
use of nuclear weapons is not contemplated “at present."
The need to mobilize effective opposition against the aggres- -sion of U.S. imperialism thus becomes clearer each day. The fate of all humanity is involved, Do "Negotiations" Point the Way Out?
Certain pitfalls must be noted by opponents of the dirty war which Johnson is escalating in Vietnam,
A dangerous trap is the cry for “negotiations” rather than immediate withdrawal of American troops. One of the sources giving weight to the appeal for "negotiations" as the "only possible" way to end the war comes from a. sector of the American imperialists «= the bourgeois opposition inside the United States.
Besides prominent members of Congress, the views of this opposition have been voiced principally by the New York Times. This influential newspaper has printed truths about Johnson's course and has helped to restrain repression of critical voices. Its fundamental position, however, does not differ essentially from that represented by Johnson. It insists on keeping troops in Vietnam for the present, It ignores the right of the Vietnamese people to determine their own fate. It is merely critical of Johnson's relying exclu-~ sively on military rather than political means in his efforts to win in Vietnam. By political means the New York Times refers to a policy of maneuver in which an attempt would be made at the conference table to win what American imperialism and its puppets have lost to the revolutionists of the National Front of Liberation in. the long civil war.
This bourgeois opposition, harking back to the policies employed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in his relations with Stalin, favors utilizing the services of Stalin's heirs in trying to cheat the Vietnam revolutionists of their hard-won victory.
- A similar bourgeois opposition current exists outside the United States, particularly in the so-called "Third World" of semicolonial countries. Its outstanding representative is General de Gaulle, who hss pressed for "negotiations" to reach a "settlement" in Vietnam, De Gaulle's aim is to restore French prestige and. influence in the colonial world. He is also seeking a decisive . voice in European affairs, playing the role of an opponent of American domination the better to achieve this, Inside France, his stance has undercut the oppositional role of the French Communist party. It is noteworthy, for instance, that despite its huge size and influence in the labor movement, the French CP has done virtu-' ally nothing in organizing demonstrations over Vietnam,
Bourgeois opposition currents of this kind both in the United States and abroad are a source of embarrassment to the Johnson admin-
istration. Such opposition is symptomatic of the deep division within the country, the unpopularity of the war, and the international isolation of the United States. It foreshadows the. rise of a substantial opposition on a class basis, both at home and abroad, and helps to facilitate its appearance. Never in American history has an administration moved toward a war of such fateful import in the face of such doubts and resistance among the population at the outset.
The bourgeois opposition to Johnson's course is superficial, being concerned with tactics in defending the capitalist system. Not the slightest political. confidence can be placed in it, although it would be a mistake to simply dismiss it; since, in accordance with the Leninist method, revolutionary Marxists must not only note but seek to utilize whatever divisions — are to be found in the enemy camp.
-Trade-union bureaucrats like George Meany in the United States and Social-Democratic leaders like Harold Wilson in Britain and Paul-Henri Spaak in Belgium stand to the right of the bourgeois opposition on Vietnam. A curious result is that a centrist publication such as the British Tribune points to de Gaulle as an enviable example in the conduct of foreign policy in contrast to Wilson, This does not prevent the Tribune from echoing Wilson in its view that what is needed — is _ to get the “contestants” to "the conference table. .
An ambitious move in this direction was the appeal of seventeen "nonaligned" countries which was initiated by Tito after Johnson launched the imperialist war on Vietnam, What was called for was the strongest condemnation of. the aggressor and the mobilization of maximum moral-and material aid for the colonial victims of the imperialist attack. To demand "negotiations" instead was of service to the aggressor, whatever the intentions of the signers of the appeal,
Negotiations in a struggle between revolution and counterrevolution cannot be exciuded in principle, of course, any more than negotiations can be excluded in a strike struggle with bosses out to smash a union. But it is up to the revolutionists themselves to decide whether or not to enter into negotiations. It is the business of their supporters to do their utmost to weaken the enemy -- in this case to compel his withdrawal from an area where he is nothing but a bandit, attempting to shoot his way into a position of "negotiating from strength" with the victim. Up to now, however, the Johnson administration has refused to negotiate with or even to recognize the National Front of Liberation as the legitimate representative of the south Vietnamese people,
A prime example of how the pressure for "negotiations" at the expense of the Vietnamese revolution has debilitated the struggle
ambhu
against the imperialist aggressor in Vietnam is provided by Great ~ Britain. In return for American support in maintaining the pound and the still existing outposts of empire, particularly Malaysia, the British bourgeoisie rallied to Johnson. The. mass news media, playing on the insularity of British public opinion, have handled the war in Vietnam as if it were a mere local struggle, not an issue of life-and-death concern to all of humanity.
The Wilson government has played its part by issuing reassure ing hints about taking “secret" steps through diplomatic channels. "No nation has played a greater part than Britain in trying to get them round the table," Wilson has boasted. Since "negotiations" were presumably being conducted in secret to reach a deal, public apprehension was allayed.
The centrists carried this game further by coming out strongly for "negotiations" -- as against Johnson's warmongering -- and by publishing tidbits about the secret moves and secret diplomatic feelers, This helped to heighten the public impression that however reprehensible the American role might be, still there was no immediate danger of an enormous and sudden rise in radioactivity in the British Isles.
As a consequence the protest movement in Britain remained at a retatively low level while the worst crisis since the end of World War II steadily grew worse and the danger of a nuclear disaster rose,
The Vietnamese Position
In the theater of war itself, the Vietnamese revolutionists have stood up heroically against the American military colossus, All reports, including those from correspondents in the imperialist camp, indicate that their resistance has been stiffening instead of | crumbling despite the rain of high explosives, noxious gases and napalm,
Their response to Johnson's April 7 speech offering "“uncon-= ditional discussions" was formulated by the government of the Demo cratic Republic of Vietnam and approved by the National Assembly in a session held in Hanoi April 8-10. This stand is as follows:
"(1) Recognition of the basic national rights of the Viet namese people which are independence, sovereignty, unity and terri-~ torial integrity. In strict conformity with the Geneva agreements, the U.S.Government must withdraw its troops, military personnel and weapons, ammunition and war materials of all kinds from south Viet Nam, dismantle the U.S. military bases there, abolish its military alliance with the south Viet Nam administration and at the same time stop its policy of intervention and aggression in south Viet Nam. The U.S.Government must stop all its acts of war against
7130"
north Viet Nam and put a definite end to all acts of. encroachment upon the territory and sovereignty « of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam.
"(2) Pending the realization of the peaceful reunification of Viet Nam, while Viet Nam is still temporarily divided in two, the.. military provisions of the 1954 Geneva agreements .on Viet Nam must be-strictly respected: the two zones must refrain.from. joining any military alliance with foreign countries, there must be no. foreign. military bases, troops or: military personnel in their respective territory.
(3). The affairs of south Viet Nam must be settled by the south Vietnamese people themselves in accordance with the programme of the South Viet Nam National Front for Liberation without any foreign intervention,
t(4) The realization of the peaceful reunification of Viet Nam must be settled by the people in the two zones without foreign intervention,
"The National Assembly and Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam hold that the above stand constitutes the basis for the most correct political settlement of the Viet Nam problem, Only when this basis is recognized can there be favoyurable conditions to achieve a peaceful settlement of the Viet Nam __ question and is it possible to consider the convening of an international conference (of the type of the 1954 Geneva conference on Viet Nam,"
The National Assembly appealed to all the parliaments in the world to communicate this stand, as well as the facts about the U.S. aggression, to "the deputies and people of all strata in their countries so that everybody can see the sinister aggressive design of the U.S. imperialists..." The National Assembly also appealed to the assemblies of other countries "to take appropriate actions to support our just stand vigorously and at the same time to raise their voices to demand resolutely that the U.S.Government end at once its aggression in south Viet Nam, stop its provocations, air and naval attacks against the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam,'
This four-point stand is presented as being in accordance with the Geneva agreement, which was violated by Washington. However, the argument leaves unexplained why Johnson, too, refers to. the Geneva agreement in talking about “unconditional discussions. The truth is that while the Geneva agreement recorded the victory gained by Vietnam over French imperialism, it also registered heavy. losses suffered in negotiations. The country was arbitrarily divided in half; a counterrevolutionary regime was installed in the south; and the entry of American imperialism on the scene was facilitated. Thus was the time bomb planted that exploded in the present
dangerous conflict. The principal responsibility for this lies with Khrushchev and Bulganin who utilized the relative weakness of the north Vietnamese forces to practice "peaceful coexistence" with Eisenhower. The Peking leaders are silent about this deal because of their own role in it.
When Johnson talks about the Geneva agreement, he is refer ring in reality to a new sell-out, which he would find acceptable, The Vietnamese and Chinese, on the other hand, specify that by "living up to the Geneva agreement" they mean complete: withdrawal of American imperialism. This, in fact, would register the new relation of forces in south Vietnam gained at immense cost to the Vietnamese people. It corresponds with the determination of the freedom fighters not to lose their victory at the conference table. That is one of the reasons why Johnson is trying to change the relation of forces by escalating the conflict,
"Aggression Against China”
On April 20 the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China adopted a resolution approving the four-point Vietnamese stand,
"We hold," the resolution stated, "that the necessary condi-~ tions for a political settlement of the Vietnamese problem can be created only by resolutely putting an end to U.S. imperialist aggression against Viet Nam and forcing the United States to withdraw all its armed forces from Viet Nam. Together with the Vietnamese people, we firmly oppose the U.S. imperialists! ‘peaceful negotiations! plot, and firmly oppose all despicable collusion with the U.S. imperialists to betray the fundamental interests of the Vietnamese people,"
The resolution reaffirmed the position that “aggression by the U.S. imperialists against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam means aggression against China."
"The Chinese people will absolutely not stand idly by withs out lending a helping hand. In accordance with the requests of the Vietnamese people and with the needs of the joint struggle against U.S. imperialist aggression, the Chinese people have done and will continue to do their utmost to assist the Vietnamese pcople to defeat the U.S. aggressors completely."
The Standing Committee called for a number of actions, including making "full preparations to send our own people to fight together with the Vietnamese people and drive out the U.S. aggressors in the event that U.S. imperialism continues to escalate its war of aggression and the Vietnamese people need them."
The extreme caution displayed in formulating this statement
370
has been singled out for comment. in the Western press, The Johnson, administration has even interpreted the cautiousness as indicating that the statement is mere verbiage and that the war can safely be . escalated still further without. provoking an eifeotive defensive reactions :
But the caution in this ‘formulation is “understandable. The clear threat exists that Johnson will order. hydrogen: bombs dropped on China's nuclear reactors. Perhaps he is even.seeking a "pretext" such as Goldwater has prayed for; Most likely China, as yet, lacks the military means to offer effective defense against a nuclear attack. In fact, the People's Republic of China,- faced with the rapid buildup by the Pentagon of what amounts to a major military beachhead on. the continent of Asia, is herself in need of military guarantees, a os Defense of the Soviet Union at Stake
Thus attention inevitably centers on the Soviet Union,.. But. -the bureaucratic ruling caste there, despite :the considerable con= cessions granted the workers under hao-Stalinization," has not changed essentially since Stalin's time. After almost three months of Johnson's "measured escalation," Khrushchev's heirs still appear to be hoping for a last-minute. mipacle that would open the road for a deal with the White House at the expensa of the Vietnamese mqvo~ lution, ee me ee wel .
The eagerness of the Kosygin-Brezhnev team to escape from the imperialist pressure through a deal at someone else's expense is clearly one of the essential premises in the Pentagon's calculations. The White House is moving rapidly to take advantage of what it considers to be an "opening" provided by the Sino-Soviet dispute and the: replacement of Khrushchev by weak figures of an interim regime,
However, Khrushchev'!s heirs can scarcely persist indefinitely in such a self-defeating course any more than their teacher and master Stalin could in face of the aggression of .German imperialism. At a certain point, the defense of the Soviet Union, even from the circumscribed outlook of the bureaucratic caste, will require action. Besides, they are under stiffer pressures than those felt by Stalin. In addition to the pressure from China and the other workers states, there is pressure from the Soviet people of weightier kind than could be mounted on the eve of World War II.
While he was “in Paris, undoubtedly discussing the possibility with de Gaulle of utilizing a proposed conference on Cambodia as an opening wedge for "negotiations" over Vietnam, Soviet Foreign Minis~ ter Andrei Gromyko was reported to have.said that "the Soviet leaders have reached the point where their reserve on the Vietnam affair is becoming seriously damaging to their personal position in their own
ib
country as well as the Socialist world as a whole." (In Le Nouvel Observateur, April 29.) ~
The heads of the Chinese bureaucracy, however, have failed: to exert the most effective possible pressure on the Kremlin. They have not spoken out clearly about China's defense needs in facing the monstrous threat of nuclear war. They have not publicly asked Moscow for defensive weapons against the fleet of long=range bomb . ers, capable of carrying nuclear weapons, already assembled by the United States in Vietnam. They have not publicly asked Moscow for allocation of nuclear ."deterrents" to "dissuade" the military strategists of American imperialism from launching a nuclear | assault. They have not publicly asked Moscow to reaffirm the Sino- Soviet military treaty, or to announce that any nuclear attack on China will be considered equivalent to an assault on the USSR that will at once get a corresponding answer.
Instead they have resumed their attack on the "revisionism" of Khrushchev's heirs ~- as if this needed any fresh demonstration} They insist on "return" to the "1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement,'t and the necessity for Khrushchev's heirs to "publicly and solemnly admit before the Communists and the people of the world" a whole series of errors and crimes such as Khrushchev's "revisionism, great-power chauvinism and splittism."”
The Chinese also demand that the Kremlin publicly admit that the "revisionist line and programme adopted at the 20th and 22nd Congresses of the C.P.S.U. presided over by Khrushchev are wrong," But besides advancing the revisionism begun by Stalin, Khrushchev also exposed some of Stalin's crimes and started the process of "de-Stalinization" which the Soviet people hailed with universal relief after the nightmare years of the "cult of the personality." The continued defense of Stalin by the Chinese undermines whatever appeal the demand to "publicly admit" revisionism might have among the Soviet people.
This approach evades the concrete question of what to do about the immediate problem created by the military aggression of U.S. imperialism, The Peking leaders ought to publicly and solemnly -make a series of concrete proposals about the joint defense of the: two giant workers states and the smaller ones like Vietnam and Cuba that are being singled out for the first morsels in the banquet of death prepared by U.S. imperialism,
Fidel Castro was completely correct in criticizing the substitution of "Byzantine" disputes for a united front in action and in declaring, “We must show the imperialists that we are not afraid ‘of them. When you don't resist them, they continue further; but when you resist them, they stop."
' The bureaucrats of both Peking and Moscow would do well to
if ‘ .
e take..a-.few lessons in Havana on how to defend a workers state,
--There is some evidence that material aid may now be arriving in Vietnam from Moscow and Peking. Nothing is to be gained. from trying to keep this secret. It would be.far better to give it maximum publicity. One gain would be to counteract the impression that the aid is insufficient and not of a kind to cause deep hesitation in the Pentagon and to stir the White House into reconsidering its present course toward a nuclear catastrophe. Mobilization of Revolutionary Opposition
on April 14 Johnson took. ‘another big step in escalating the war by initiating * nound=the=c lock" bombing. This was accompanied by revelations about the use of fiendish new "antipersonnel" weapons in Vietnam, a rifle, for instance, that fires bullets of a velocity such that on impact whole sections of the human body are exploded or torn off. =:
Vietnam begins to be reminiscent not only of Korea but the Spain that served German and Italian fascism as a proving ground on the eve of World War II. The Pentagon is testing all its latest contrivances for mass butchery on the revolutionary freedom fighters and civilians of Vietnam. The American people in turn are getting a glimpse of some of the "achievements" made possible by the $50 billion a year or so spent by the Pentagon during the past several decades in preparing for World War TII. The sight has sickened them as it has sickened the entire world.
The first reaction internationally to the launching of the war on north Vietnam was a great wave of protest. This appeared, however, to temporarily subside, The masses of the world acted as if they could not really believe that Johnson would persist in his war course in face of the universal disapproval, They even gave the appearance of turning their eyes away from the fearful perspective visible at the end of Johnson's brinkmanship, as if somehow the image could be wiped out by refusing to look at it.
Nonetheless a rather broad spectrum of leaders grasped the danger and spoke up. Mobilization began for a second wave of more effective protest actions, These have flared on all continents and have been growing in volume and seriousness,
One of the most hopeful developments: is the appearance of a big opposition movement among students and faculties inside the United States itself. The mobilization of 20,000 demonstrators, mostly students, from all parts of the United States in Washington on April 18 was a tremendous achievement that has had international repercussions, serving to hearten and inspire the opponents of American imperialism throughout the world. The leaders of this demonstration, which was sponsored by the Students for a Democratic
Society, very wisely invited all political tendencies to participate. As a result, the demonstration was an extraordinary success in size, in singleness of sentiment, and in the radical character of the slogans. These hinged on the demand for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam.
In other countries significant demonstrations have been organized, particularly in connection with antinuclear marches, In London, for instance, it was estimated that about forty per cent of the slogans in the annual Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament march dealt with the war in Vietnam. In Belgium the antinuclear march was extraordinarily successful, more than 25,000 turning out. The slogan "Hands Off Vietnam!" was centrally displayed due to the action of the pro-Chinese Communist party and the left Socialists,
Such demonstrations are an excellent beginning. They must be repeated and extended in the effort to make the madmen in Washington grasp more clearly what the world thinks about their course in Vietnam,
In the imperialist countries, the key problem that faces the. vanguard is to link this opposition with the mass organizations of the working class, That is where the "heavy battalions" are to be found. The most energetic work is required to make a breakthrough. in organizations under the grip of reactionary bureaucracies, but | avenues can be opened to reach the rank and file who view the war in Vietnam with foreboding. Every revolutionary~socialist party should place this problem at the top of its agenda in the struggle to help Vietnam,
Everywhere in the colonial countries the freedom fighters in continuing their own struggle must hold up the magnificent example of the Vietnamese heroes, The Vietnamese are following in the path blazed by the Algerians and Cubans. The best way to help Vietnam is to carry through and complete the revolutions already begun, Give Washington one more Cuba, one more Algeria, another Vietnam!
Get the American Troops Out of Vietnam!
Hands Off the Vietnamese Revolution!
Let the Vietnamese People Decide Their Own Fate!
Forward to the Socialist World of Enduring Peace!
Directeur-Gérant: Pierre FRANK, 1'éditeur).