50¢
Worry Mounts over Johnson's
“Collision Course’ in Vietnam
Crisis in Middle East Adds
to Risk of New World War
By Joseph Hansen
The crisis in the Middle East has served in the most ominous way to remind humanity once again of the powder kegs planted at the end of World War II, any one of which can, if it explodes, set off a chain reaction ending in the catastrophe of a nuclear conflagration.
The main source of danger in the dispute between the Arab nations and Israel is the United States. Its chief concern is to safeguard the holdings of the American oil companies, to block the development of the Arab revolution and to back the reactionary policies of the government of Israel.
This was the clear meaning of the official warning issued by the Johnson administration May 25 that it considers the Egyptian blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba an "act of aggression" and that it will use armed force if necessary to break the blockade. This ultimatum was issued by the same power that has blockaded revolution-
[Please turn to next page.]
BERTRAND RUSSELL. "The International War . Crimes Tribunal defies the powerful rulers Cuba Ss Example and the
who bully and butcher with abandon....The Tribunal must warn of the impending horror in many lands, the new atrocities prepared World Revolution now in Vietnam and of the global struggle between the poor and the powerful rich." [From Bertrand Russell's closing statement Full text of Juan Almeida's May Day at Stockholm hearings which found U.S. speech in Havana. See p. 566. government guilty of war crimes. See full text? pF 5835 I
New York, N. Y. 10010. SP
[Continued from page 533.]
ary China for 17 years, has blockaded revolutionary Cuba for seven years, and has escalated its intervention in the Vietnamese civil war into a major conflict in Southeast Asia -- not to mention such incidents in its "peace-keeping" activities as invading the Dominican Republic, organizing a counterrevolutionary invasion of Cuba, supporting mercenaries in the Congo and engaging in the "cloakand-dagger" work of toppling governments, ranging from Iran and Guatemala to Indonesia. The alarm that swept the world when the latest crisis around Israel flared up came primarily from the context in which it occurred: Johnson's escalation of the war in Vietnam into a bloody conflict that has already placed the world at the brink of the nuclear abyss.
At the moment efforts are being made behind the scenes and through UN Secretary General Thant to reduce the crisis in the middle East from its present acute pitch to the chronic level that appears "normal" today for the land bridge between Africa and Asia.
Even if this occurs, however, the ominousness of the situation in Vietnam will remain unchanged -~ if it has not grown worse meantime.
In the United States, alarm over the course of the Johnson administration has risen rather sharply in recent weeks. The most significant feature of this turn is its occurrence in bourgeois circles in position to be informed about Johnson's intentions. It coincides with the revelation made by Johnson himself about May 11 that he had told his daughter, Luci, last June, "Your daddy may go down in history as having started World War III." He said he also told his daughter, “You may not wake up tomorrow."
What in the situation has given rise to these fresh fears? Of the various possibilities, one of the most likely is either a clear indication that China or the USSR, or both of them, have given a believable warning that the Pentagon has gone so far in Vietnam that strong countermeasures can no longer be avoided. Or perhaps the circles around the White House have deduced that countermeasures must now be expected and that Johnson does not intend to alter his belligerent course even if that occurs.
For example, John K. Fairbank, director of the East Asian Research Center at Harvard University, wrote in the New York Times of May 20: "Our military effort is running into its inevitable limitations. Escalated bomving of a Communist buffer-state on the border of Communist China is a good deal more than mere 'containment' of China. Rather than force Hanoi to negotiate on terms we like, continued escalation is more likely to trigger a Chinese feeling that ‘vital interests' are involved and so bring China into the war, increasing our military problem forty times over."
Fairbanks does not think that U.S. nuclear “deterrent capacity"; i.e., nucle~ar blackmail and H-bomb rattling, would prevent China from moving in a massive way to the assistance of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. "Mao Tse-tung if nothing else has been one of history's top achievers in militant will power. In old age he seems more than ever to believe in it. We should avoid matching wills with him, especially on his home ground, yet escalation can only increase the danger of this confrontation."
Fairbanks thinks that the Pentagon idea of pulling a blitzkrieg and bombing China's nuclear plants might prove selfdefeating in the long run. "The proposal, for instance, that we 'take out' China's nuclear installations could lead to an American success like the Japanese success at Pearl Harbor, a brilliant tactical victory which, however, proved in the end counter-productive."
The editors of the New York Times have spoken even more openly. May 20, for instance, arguing that the policy of bombing north Vietnam had only stiffened the determination of the Vietnamese to resist and that the "folly" of believing it could do anything but that is only one of "the many grave miscalculations made by Washington," they observed:
"The United States is already fighting a vicarious war on a small scale with the Soviet Union, since North Vietnam's planes and war matériel come from Russia. Communist China's intervention at some point cannot be ruled out. It is at least possible that the troubles in the Middle East and Hong Kong have their links to the vortex in Vietnam."
U Thant went still further May 11, telling a gathering of United Nations correspondents that he felt World War III had already begun:
"If you recall the series of events leading to World War I and World War II, you will realize that the prologues were quite long; what I mean is, the psychological climate, the creation of political attitudes, took some time and when conditions were ripe for some plausible excuse, then the global wars were triggered.
"In my view we are witnessing today similar conditions.
"I am really concerned about the potentialities of this war, knowing as I do the mood not only of the principal parties primarily involved but also some of the parties not directly involved at present.
"That is why I say that if the present trend continues, a direct confrontation between Washington and Peking is inevitable and I am afraid that we are witnessing today the initial phase of World War III.
"I must say in this context that the mutual defense pact between Moscow and Peking is still in force."
Further along this line, senators Albert Gore of Tennessee and Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania said that the Chinese government had warned the United States months ago that it would intervene in Vietnam under any of three conditions: (1) if Hanoi capitulated; (2) if either north Vietnam or China were invaded by land; (3) if China were bombed.
It was assumed that the Johnson administration was given this warning through secret diplomatic channels but the point was not cleared up by the two Democratic senators.
Unidentified "officials" in the Johnson administration, of course, promptly disclaimed recalling any such "statement" by Chinese officials.
A Republican senator departed from the official policy of his party, which is to back Johnson's application of Goldwaterism, to warn of the grave drift toward catastrophe.
Thruston B. Morton of Kentucky said in the Senate May 23:
"Make no mistake about it. Total military victory in Vietnam means total war with China, and I for one believe that means total world holocaust.
"It is unfortunate that the President has believed it necessary to emphasize the cost of dissent, but has been silent as to the cost of total victory."
Noting recent polls that appear to reflect a feeling among many Americans that “victory" can be won by further escalation of the war, Morton said that it is of "utmost importance" for Johnson "to explain the pitfalls" of a policy of seeking "total military victory in Vietnam. "If the polls are right," he added, "if nearly half of the American people believe that a total military victory in Vietnam is possible and vital to our national interest, then there is going to be hell to pay if we settle for anything less."
In his column of May 22, Walter Lippmann, the well-known commentator on U.S. government policies, accused Johnson of putting the United States ona "collision course" with China and the Soviet Union.
"In this he is relying upon his ability to guess correctly how far he can go in North Vietnam without bringing on Chinese intervention. He feels he is able to judge just what targets he can hit before the big Communist powers decide to hit back."
This judgment of Johnson's policy was made by the Trotskyist movement more than two years ago when Johnson first began his escalation of U.S. aggression in Vietnam. Innumerable facts have confirmed the accuracy of the conclusion so that no special insights are required today to reach it. Lippmann is reporting what is a commonplace in Washington today.
"This is a kind of Russian roulette," continues Lippmann. "The President believes that he can discriminate between those targets which he can hit with safety and those which he cannot hit with safety.
"This is a deadly guessing game. Yet it has become the center of the Johnson strategy. It would be less giddy and nerve-racking if it were not for the fact that it was played once before, and, played, moreover, by some of the same men who are playing it now. This was in the Korean War."
Lippmann agrees -~ apparently with those he is arguing with in the Pentagon and State Department -- that the Korean experience may not be repeated. On the other hand it may well be repeated. "This is because President Johnson has allowed the issue of the Vietnam war to become a test of whether the United States is to continue to be a military power on the Asian mainland. The President is acting through a puppet regime in Saigon supported by troops and enormous sea and air power."
Lippmann continues: "The most important recent development from the other side of the struggle has been the warning that the two Communist powers are resolved iiut to let us win the kind of military victory which President Johnson's new war aims call for.
"No one can pretend to know at just what point in the escalation the Chinese and the Soviet Union will in fact intervene. But what we do know is that President Johnson has war aims in Asia that cannot be achieved against the of-
we” Sm at toe te i fensive power of China and Russia. That is why he is on a collision course."
A further possible tip-off is the prolonged absence of Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin from his post in Washington.
Dobrynin went to Moscow in the latter part of April. Instead of returning on schedule, he remained, it has been reported, for a "series of high-level meetings" concerned with the Soviet attitude toward the Vietnamese conflict.
In an article datelined from Stockholm which appeared in the London Express and the New York Post [May 24], David English reported that Dobrynin will return with a message for Johnson stating that the Soviet Union is stiffening its posture in relation to escalation of the war in Vietnam.
"From talks I had with senior officials in Russia over the past 10 days," says English, "it is clear that any major increase by America in Vietnam will set the U.S. on a collision course with Russia, symbolized by the 'brushing' of Soviet and American warships in last week's Sea of Japan incident.
"That was clearly a warning shot across the bows.
"One Soviet official spelled it out for me: 'The days of Khrushchev are gone,' he said. 'We don't bang shoes any more. We don't rattle rockets.
"'We used to bark louder than we bit. Now we don't bark, at least in public, but we are prepared to bite,.and the United States is to be told, smi firmly, exactly how we will bite stage by stage up the ladder of esealation.'
"The phrase being used in Russia -and, when translated, it has an almost Pentagonese flavor -- is 'gomhensurate retaliation along the escatatory scale.'
"In theory, this could mean anything. But it has been explained as ‘a blow of equal -- not superior -- force, delivered not necessarily--by the same weapons or tactics as the opponents.'
"In other words, Soviet troops, volunteers or not, are hardly likely to appear in Vietnam to match the American buildup.
"But several Soviet contacts with whom I discussed the situation indicated that the bombing of the North could not be even fractionally extended by the Americans without resulting in an effective counterpunch to the south.” As the author descr ibes it, the "counterpunch" would consist largely of utilizing more firepower, such as groundto-ground missiles. In his opinion, this "could producé a very violent reaction from the Americans.”
The State Department, in fact, in-~ dicated May 23 that consideration has already been given to the response that will be made if "the other side" should engage in counterescalation.
An unidentified official of the department, who may well have been Rusk himself to judge from the prominence given the declaration in the daily press, said that if China were to intervene with massive forces in Vietnam, the U.S. would "have to take action against mainland China with everything it has."
Asked if this meant using nuclear weapons, the official replied rather ambiguously, saying that he intended to refer only to the use of "conventional" American weapons.
The New York Times noted that this was a second and "slightly more. positive" warning of the kind issued by Rusk in a television appearance July 11, 1965.
The same unidentified official ad~ mitted for the first time that U.S. planes had violated Chinese airspace at least once during the recently intensified air attacks on north Vietnam. He discounted its importance, however, saying that the intrusion had been "very shallow."
One wonders what he would have said if Chinese planes had made a very shallow intrusion of U.S. airspace while intensifying bombing of a neighboring country like Mexico or Canada.
The question that emerges from these developments is whether or not Johnson has introduced a modification in the policy he has followed up to now in Vietnam. From the actual course of ‘the escalation it could be deduced that each step in the aggression was decided on only after a probing operation to determine if the point of a "counterthrust" by "the other side" had been reached.
When the probe indicated that "the other side" was still not prepared to reply in kind, another step forward was taken. The failure of China and the USSR to act thus served to encourage Johnson.
In the process of moving forward, however, he became more and more committed both abroad and at home to the goal of a "military victory"; and this made it more and more difficult for him to retreat or withdraw. The street became "one way"; or, as some of his bourgeois critics put it, he permitted the "initiative" to
a.
a aC er ae we
pass to "the other side." Has Johnson decided that the point of no return has been passed and that no matter what happens he will not retreat? This is what appears to be weighing on the minds of those in the American ruling class who fear that Johnson has engaged in a tactical course that can lead to disaster.
The truth is that Johnson's war in Vietnam has set forces in motion that are probably already beyond his capacity to control.
The Vietnamese people have steeled themselves to endure anything and everything from the professional butchers in the Pentagon and the monster in the White House.
The Soviet and Chinese governments appear to be coming, however reluctantly, to the conclusion that the fate of their own regimes is at stake and that they have no choice but to begin acting in self-defense.
The American people have begun to stir in an unmistakable way as the implications of Johnson's war.in Vietnam become clearer and clearer. The giant dem- -957-
onstrations in New York and San Francisco on April 15 were harbingers of what is to come.
In the colonial sector the vanguard appear to have come to the conclusion that they must step up their revolutionary efforts. This is particularly marked in the attitude of the Cubans and related currents in Latin America.
All these forces are beginning to have a marked reciprocal effect on each other so that a rise in the massiveness or effectiveness of the opposition to the war in one sector influences the others with increasing impact.
It is thus far from foreordained that Johnson will succeed in dragging humanity over the brink. Despite what he told his daughter Iuci, he may not go down in history as the man who started World War III, thereby eliminating history as well as much else.
Thanks to forces in this world far more powerful than Johnson, his hand will most likely be stayed and his daughter can go to bed with fair confidence that she will wake up tomorrow.
THE PALESTINE PROBLEM AND THE ISRAELI-ARAB DISPUTE
(The following statement of position, issued by the Central Committee of the Israeli Socialist Organization, was read by Nathan Weinstock at a meeting in Paris May 18 sponsored by the General Union of Palestinian Students and the Association des Etudiants Musulmans Nord- Africains. The meeting attracted some attention. (See Le Monde May 20.)
[Nathan Weinstock is a member of the Confederal Committee of the Socialist Workers Confederation in Belgium and addressed the meeting in a personal capac-— ity. Other speakers included Abdel Rahman El Youssefi, representing the secretariat of the Moroccan UNFP (Union Nationale des Forces Populaires) to which the martyred Mehdi Ben Barka belonged, and Louftallah Soliman, an Egyptian leftwing journalist.
[As an organization that includes in its ranks both Arabs and Jews, the views of the Israeli Socialist Organization are of special interest in the current goute crisis racking the Middle East., . ;
* * *
The nineteenth anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel will occur this month. During these 19 years the Israeli-Arab dispute has not come nearer a solution. The Palestine problem is still an open wound in the body of the Middle East; an incessant source of bloodshed, suffering and wrongs; a heavy burden on the economic resources of the region; a pretext for imperialist aggression and military intervention; a grave threat to world peace.
Especially grave is the state of the Palestinian Arabs -- the direct victims of the 1948 war and of the collusion between “the friendly enemies," Ben Gurion and Abdullah. The majority of Palestine's Arabs were dispossessed of their homes and fields during and after the 1948 war, and have since been living as refugees, in suffering and distress, outside Israel. The leaders of Israel emphatically refuse to recognize their elementary right to be repatriated. The Arabs who were left in Israel are victims of severe economic, civil and national oppression.
During these 19 years, Israel has been an isolated island in the Middle East, a State which is independent only in the formal sense, being economically and politically dependent on the imperialist powers, especially on the USA. It has continually served as a tool of these powers against the Arab nation, against the progressive forces in the Arab world. The clearest manifestation (but not the only one) of this role of official Israeli
policy was in 1956, when Israel's government joined Anglo-French imperialism in an aggressive collusion against Egypt, and even furnished these powers with a pretext for military intervention.
The state of war and hostility between Israel and her Arab neighbours has continued for 19 years, and Israel's Zionist leadership has no real prospect of changing this situation. Israeli policy is in a cul de sac.
The present: economic crisis in Israel, which has caused grave unemployment of the workers and great hardship to the popular masses, also serves to underline the fact that Israel cannot long continue to exist in its present form, as a Zionist State, cut off from the region in which it is located.
Thus, the present state of affairs is against the interests of the Arab masses: Israel, in its present form, constitutes a grave obstacle for the struggle of these masses against imperialism and for a socialist Arab unity. The continuation of the present state of affairs is also against the interests of the Israeli masses.
*x* * *
The Israeli Socialist Organiza— tion, in whose ranks there are both Arabs and Jews, holds that the Palestine problem and the Israeli-Arab dispute can and should be solved in a socialist and internationalist way, taking into consideration the unique features of this complex problen.
This is not an ordinary conflict between two nations. Therefore it is not enough to call for "Coexistence based on mutual recognition of the just national rights of the two peoples."
The State of Israel is the outcome of the colonization of Palestine by the Zionist movement, at the expense of the Arab people and under the auspices of imperialism. In its present Zionist form, Israel is also a tool for the continuation of "the Zionist Endeavour."
The Arab world cannot acquiesce in the existence in its midst of a Zionist State, whose declared purpose is not to serve as a political expression of its own population, but as a bridgehead, a political instrument and a destination for immigration of the Jews all over the world. Israel's Zionist character is also opposed to the true interests of the Israeli masses, because it means constant dependence of the country upon external forces.
We therefore hold that a_ solution of the problem necessitates the dezionization of Israel. The State of Israel
which will transform it from a Zionist State (i.e., a state of the Jews all over the world) into a-socialist state which represents the interests of the masses who live in it. In particular, the "law of return" (which grants every Jew in the world an absolute and automatic right to immigrate into Israel and become a citizen of it) must be abolished. Each request to immigrate into Israel will then be decided separately on its own merits, without any discrimination of a racial or religious nature.
The Palestine Arab refugee problem is the most painful part of the Israeli- Arab dispute.
We therefore hold that every refugee who wants to return to Israel must be enabled to do so; he should then obtain full economic and social rehabilitation. Those refugees who will freely choose not to be repatriated should be fully compensated for loss of property and for the personal suffering which has been caused to them.
In addition, all the laws and regulations aimed at discriminating and ; oppressing the Arab population of Israel and at expropriation of its lands must be abolished. All expropriations and damages (to land, property and person) caused under these laws and regulations must be fully compensated.
The de~zionization of Israel implies also putting an end to the Zionist foreign policy, which serves imperialisn. Israel must take an active part in the struggle of the Arabs against imperialism and for the establishment of a socialist Arab unity. - .
The Zionist colonization of Palestine differs in one basic respect from the colonization of other countries: whereas in other countries the settlers established their economy upon the exploitation of the labour of the indigenous inhabitants, the colonization of Palestine was carried out through the replacement and expulsion of the indigenous population.
This fact has caused a unique conplication of the Palestine problem. As a result of Zionist colonization, a Hebrew nation with its own national characteristics (common language, separate economy, etc.) has been formed in Palestine. Moreover, this nation has a capitalist class structure -- it is divided into exploiters and exploited, a bourgeoisie and a proletariat.
The argument that this nation has been formed artificially and at the expense of the indigenous Arab population does not change the fact that the Hebrew nation now exists. It would be a disas-
trous error to ignore this fact.
The solution of the Palestine problem must not only redress the wrong done to the Palestinian Arabs, but also ensure the national future of the Hebrew masses. These masses were brought to Palestine by Zionism -- but they are not responsible for the deeds of Zionism. The attempt to penalize the Israeli workers and popular masses for the sins of Zionism cannot solve the Palestinian problem but only bring about new mis-— fortunes.
Those nationalist Arab leaders who call for a jihad for the liberation of Palestine ignore the fact that even if Israel would be defeated militarily and cease to exist as a state, the Hebrew nation will still exist. If the problem of the existence of this nation is not solved correctly, a situation of dangerous and prolonged national conflict will be re-created, which will cause endless bloodshed and suffering and will serve as a new pretext for imperialist intervention. It is no coincidence that the leaders who advocate such a "solution" are also not capable of solving the Kurdish problen.
In addition it should be understood that the Israeli masses will not be liberated from the influence of Zionism and will not struggle against it unless the progressive forces in the Arab world present them with a prospect of coexistence without national oppres-— sion. The Israeli Socialist Organiza~— tion therefore holds that a true soluion of the Palestine problem necessitates the recognition of the right of — the Hebrew nation to self-determination.
Self-determination does not necessarily mean separation. On the contrary, we hold that a small country which is poor in natural resources, such as Israel cannot exist as a separate entity. It is faced with two alternatives only -- to continue to depend on foreign powers or to integrate ‘itself in a regional union.
it follows that the only solution consistent with the interests of both Arab and Israeli masses is the integration of Israel as a unit in an economic and political union of the Middle East, on the basis of socialisn.
. in such a framework the Hebrew nation will be able to carry on its own national and cultural life without endangering the Arab world and without a threat to its own existence by the Arabs. The forces of the Israeli masses will join those of the Arab masses in a conmmon struggle for progress and prosperity. -559-
We therefore hold that the Palestine problem -~ like other central probblems of the Middle East -- can only be solved in the framework of a Middle Eastern union.
Theoretical analysis and practical experience alike show that Arab unity can be formed and exist in a stable way only if it has a socialist character.
One can therefore sum up the solution which we propose by the formula: dezionization of Israel and its integration in a_ socialist Middle Eastern union.
We hold that the problem of the political future of the Palestinian Arabs should also be solved within the framework described above.
There. are people who think that justice necessitates the establishment of a special Palestinian Arab political entity. Our view is that this question must be decided by the Palestinian Arabs, without outside interference.
However, we think that it would be a grave error to pose the problem of the political future of the Palestinian Arabs separately from and independently of the question:of socialist Arab union. At present the Palestinian Arabs are in the first ranks of the struggle for unity. If they would be presented with a separate and dependent aim, the cause of Arab unity may suffer grave damage. Also, the establishment of a small separate Arab state is not consistent with the interests of the Arab nation, including the Palestinian Arab people.
We therefore hold that if the Palestinian Arabs decide in favour of establishing a political entity of their own, the necessary political and territorial arrangements should be made within the framework of establishing a socialist union of the Middle East. The countries that now hold parts of the territory of Palestine -- Israel, Jordan and Egypt -should.particularly contribute to such a settlement.
* *
We call upon the revolutionary socialist forces in the Arab countries and in other countries to consider our present program and to start a wide discussion aimed at working out a common position on the problems of the Middle ast.
HUGO BLANCO THANKS BERTRAND RUSSELL FOR INTERVENING
(The following letter, addressed May 1 to Bertrand Russell, is the first indication from Lima that Hugo Blanco is recovering from the beating which he received at the hands of his prison guards in the first week of April. (See World Outlook May 5.)
{In a cable to President Belatnde April 16, Bertrand Russell protested the inhuman treatment of the Peruvian peasant leader. ]
Penal Island "El Frontén" 1-V-67
Mr. Bertrand Russell London
It was with great emotion that I read a copy of the cable which you sent to Belafinde interceding in behalf of
freeing me and against the death penaity.
I am very grateful not only because
of its content but because of the praise
with which you referred to my revolution-
ary attitude.
The solidarity which you and others
have demonstrated gives us revolutionaries
greater and greater faith in Man and the
brilliant future Man merits and which he
will achieve.
With a warm embrace,
Hugo