The’ meéeting. was an enthusiastic one. As it progressed, the feeling. grew that perhaps unity could. be achieved after all in opposing the complicity of the British. government in the war in. Vietnan. The | first speaker, Tariq Ali, received a rather lukewarn. reception. from. SLL: supporters. in.the audience, although his speech about how a person in the colonial world.looks at America's actions was a good one. But it became evident in the actual course of the © meeting that the factional lines drawn by the SLL were breaking down. For instance, John Palmer, whose name is anathema in SLL circles, got a long round of applause. Laurence Daly, too, was given a good reception.
_It wasn't until the discussion period opened that the first discordant note was sounded -- and it was indeed.a grating one. Several excellent contributions..had been made from the floor, further inspiring. hopes that a: fruitful exchange of views might occur on how to build an effective opposition in England to the escalation of the war in Vietnam. Gerry Healy himself then took the floor.
‘The, national secretary of the SLL launched a vitriolic attack against ‘John Palmer, and then -- by allusion -- against all other tendencies, including the Communist party, the "fake lefts" and the Chinese and Russian bureaucracies.
To counter the effect of Healy's bitter remarks, the chair- :
man appealed to the meeting to refrain from factionalism, urging that the platform of the meeting should not be converted into an arena for a tendency struggle, and that everyone should bear in mind the need to unite in support of the Vietnamese struggle for liberation. :
It rapidly became clear, however, that Healy's speech was a signal. The very next SLL speaker took up where Healy had left off.
The chairman at once called him to order; and, evidently angry over the way Healy had violated the agreement, gave the floor to other speakers. When they tried to speak, they were howled down by the SLL and could not be heard in the din that was set up and the screams of "We'll smash your" "Fake lefts!" and so on.
The meeting broke up in the disorder created by the support— ers of the SLL,
An attempt was made by the organizers of the program to assemble the participants outside the hall in order to carry through with the scheduled torchlight parade. The less experienced and less hardened members of the gathering, however, were already leaving in disgust over the antics of the SLL.
Out came a huge SLL banner and off marched the SLL supporters behind the slogan, "Victory to the Vietcong." be
Why did Healy engage in a maneuver of this kind, so discrediting to the SLL? Perhaps a sector of the SLL is uneasy over the extreme isolation to which Healy's policies have brought the organization and would genuinely like to find a way to open at least normal relations with the rest of the left. Perhaps some of them ~ realize the need for a united front at least in the case of opposing : the war in Vietnam. Did Healy come to the conclusion that he had to make a concession to these feelings?
It is difficult to determine what goes on in Healy's head. Perhaps he’ decided to engage in a united front tactic in order to "expose" the "fake lefts" -- in a single meeting!
The deduction appears plausible in the light of the way The Newsletter handled the August 6 protest meeting. In the writeup not a Single speaker was mentioned outside of Mike Banda. An official SLL statement in the same issue of the paper declared that the SLL was "not in any way connected with this united front agreement" of the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign.
The Newsletter followed this up by making public a letter from Healy to Ralph Schoenman further separating the SLL from the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign. :
Another letter, dated August 16, was sent to Schoenman "preak-. ing off all relations" with the Campaign.
When Schoenman responded with a letter, presenting his side.. of the dispute, the letter was published -~- with the major parts” conveniently deleted. This was accompanied with a long article answering the bowdlerized letter!
Banda's argument, like the "case histories" now common in The Newsletter, seeks to divert attention from the. important issues at stake by attacking the person involved.
Thus a big point with Banda is Ralph Schoenman's opposition | to the suppression of the free speech rights of Colin Jordan, the British fascist. The insinuation is that Schoenman has some connection with fascism, whereas he was only standing on the abstract principle of opposition to the suppression of free speech for anyone, no matter how detestable his views.
Likewise in the case of Bertrand Russell, the initiator of the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign. Banda attacks him for making war-. mongering statements against the Soviet. Union twenty years ago. A neat way of evading the fact that today Bertrand Russell is giving outstanding service in opposition to.the escalation of the war in. Vietnam! What is most curious about this is that The Newsletter | breathed: not a word about Russell's past when they published his appeal for the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign in the June 25 issue..
Banda's article ends with the ringing declaration: "To Messrs. Schoenman and Russell we say: To hell with your rotten ‘united front' of state capitalists, Pabloites, Stalinists and centrists. Your campaign stinks and will continue to do so until you learn to fight in a principled manner. The Vietnamese will win, in spite of you."
* Quite probably, the reasons for Healy's sudden entry into the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign and his: just as sudden departure are not unrelated to difficulties which the SLL is undergoing internally. The internal documents of the organization are riddled with appeals and exhortations from Healy. The ranks remain silent; or they respond with "silent" splits, "silent" factions, indifference and walkouts.
. Healy's heavy-handed and ludicrous maneuver with the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign will scarcely. improve matters in this respect. The forecast for the SLL is deepening isolation from the Labour movement despite one of the most favorable situations for revolutionary socialism in all of Europe.
TERRORISTS BOMB CUBAN EMBASSY IN OTTAWA
A bomb was set off in front of the Cuban embassy in Ottawa September 22, splintering the door and shattering windows in the area. A Cuban counterrevolutionary group in Miami said it was "only the beginning" of a new effort to overthrow Castro.
Bertrand Russell Answers Francis Flavius
SHOULD USSR GIVE EFFECTIVE AID TO BELEAGUERED VIETNAMESE?
[A sharp debate recently flared up among French intellectuals when Jean-Paul Sartre, the well-known playwright and Existentialist. philosopher, advocated that the Soviet Union come to the aid of north Vietnam with more effective material means.
[This proposal was attacked as a "provocation" by such sources as 1l'Humanité, the official newspaper of the French Communist party. (See World Outlook September 9.
LA proposal similar to Sartre's, made by Bertrand Russell in the form of a letter to Premier Kosygin duly 20, met with comparable criticism from columnist Francis Flavius in the August 26 issue of the London Tribune. Bertrand Russell replied in the September 2 issue. The editor of the Tribune also published a letter from Tarig Ali supporting Bertrand Russell. Flavius then answered both Ali and Russell in his column published in the samé issue. Below we have reproduced the attack levelled by Francis Flavius together with Bertrand Russell's reply.
* * x
Flavius scores Russell
I have ‘the utmost respect for Bertrand Russell and his views, but I was shocked and amazed by the letter which he sent to the Soviet Premier Mr. Kosygin, on the subject of Vietnam, urging the Russians to send the Soviet Air Force to defend