Gauche (The Left) and Le Drapeau Rouge (The Red Flag), the weekly newspaper of the Belgian Communist party, on whether or not the Soviet government is sending sufficient aid to Vietnam.
[The debate began with an article by Jean-Marie Chauvier, the Moscow correspondent of Le Drapeau Rouge, in the September 9 issue of that paper under the title "'lLa Gauche,' 1'U.R.S.S. et le Vietnam." Ernest Mandel, the editor of La Gauche, responded with an article in the September 24 issue of his paper entitled "Défendre le Vietnam et
la Chine, c'est défendre la paix!" This was met with a rejoinder under the signature of Rosine Lewin in the October 1 issue of Le Drapeau Rouge. A rebuttal to this by Ernest Mandel was published in the October 15 issue of La Gauche.
[World Outlook has translated (1) extensive extracts of the article by Jean-Marie Chauvier; (2) Ernest Mandel's reply; and (3) his rebuttal, which includes the arguments made by Rosine Lewin.
[In opening his article, Chauvier attacks the "strategists" who frequent the "Café de Commerce,"-a well-known coffee house in Brussels, and who would like the Soviet leaders to follow a course as irresponsible as their own. Chauvier then continues: ]
* * *
Without doubt the ideas maintained by La_ Gauche are not of that type.
Our left socialist comrades pose a difficult, agonizing, even crucial problem when they demonstrate to what a high degree the outcome of the Vietnamese conflict will determine the future of the world, its chances for survival, for progress and thus for socialism.
After all, who will deny them the right to express critical observations with regard to Soviet foreign policy when they are formulated in a fraternal tone and without conceding to the sickly obsessions of a certain "left" anti-Sovietism?
However, if the Soviet contribution to the Vietnamese cause is judged by our friends to be insufficient, it should be stated -- and one wishes that they would not continually hide this fact in their analyses -- that the Vietnamese are of a different opinion. Now, aren't they in a particularly good position to judge this?
We will not cite here the numerous statements on the subject made by the North Vietnamese leaders. But it should be stressed that the assistance granted to North Vietnam by the USSR (of which all the forms are probably not known to La Gauche) corresponds to what is required as viewed by the North Vietnamese themselves in line with their own reasoning and needs. The reports which we have previously made dovetail with many others in confirming that not only has the USSR done everything asked for but that some of its offers of help have been declined for the time being by North Vietnam. And this is something that stands ott very prominently -- the way the Vietnamese weigh every one of their moves rather than giving way to an impatience which is sometimes imputed to them by a certain press.
We will add that it appears illogical to us to suggest steps or a course of. action going "over the heads of the Vietnamese," when it is agreed that whether it involves a counterblow to the aggression or political solutions, it is up to the Vietnamese people, to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, to determine this in accordance’ with their sovereignty.
In considering the as yet unexplored areas of aid for Vietnam, it is not possible to overlook the grave responsibilities of the Chinese government. It is no longer necessary to prove the irresponsibility of its attitude which made impossible the constitution of a united socialist front against the aggression. This, perhaps, is the principal source of encouragement to American arrogance.
Finally, however decisive the responsibilities of the Soviet Union are, they must be taken in conjunction with a given international situation. At. present one should visualize the bearing of the political atmosphere in the western hemisphere.
We thus come to the key point. The fundamental error in the reasoning of certain
friends in the left appears to us in truth to consist in considering that the outcome of the tragedy in Vietnam depends primarily, if not exclusively, on the USSR.
There is a kind of resignation, of cowardice, in "folding one's arms" and waiting for "the USSR to do something..."
Contrary to this, the domestic currents in the United States, the positions expressed by General de Gaulle together with their political repercussions in Western Europe, show that public opinion in the capitalist countries, their working-class and popular masses, can be of decisive weight in ending the present impasse.
In addition the left in the West could usefully undertake the task of more carefully considering their own responsibilities. The American aggression is imposing on the Vietnamese people an indescribable martyrdom, and this horrible war is charged with danger for all of humanity. It is not yet too late, but it is high time, in concert with the American pacifists, to consider political steps in the West that could lead to the moral and diplomatic isolation of the government of the United States.
Isn't this, in short, the "counterescalation" that is desired?