The negotiations in Paris drag on— principally because the Vietnamese are quite unwilling to make concessions, despite the combined pressure of the Americans and the Russians. At time of writing, there seems little chance of them changing their line in the near future.
In Vietnam itself, there has been an impressive increase in the number of American casualties and Saigon has been turned into a daily battlefield. Serious bourgeois commentators are admitting that the fresh forces which took up the struggle against the Saigon regime after the Tet offensive are a serious embarrassment to the Americans. (See in particular THE ECONOMIST.)
Those whose line has been to "Support U Thant" should think about his recent statements in which he has denounced the N.L.F.'s "barbarism" for attacking the towns.
It is clearer than ever that the only realistic perspective for an end to the war is for the Americans to withdraw. The balance of forces is such that no one can doubt for one minute that this would result in a victory for the national liberation forces.
It is in this context that we consider two events - the solidarity campaign being run by the Y.C.L. and its allies, and the announcement by the V.S.C. of its proposed autumn offensive.
So far as we are concerned we are extremely pleased that the Y.C.L. has changed its position on the struggle against the war in Vietnam. Only a few months ago people were expelled from that organisation for espousing what is now official policy. We have some doubts about the methods of this campaign and feel that it would be better for the Y.C.L. leadership to join with the V.S.C. in its type of activity. However, we must recognise this as a step forward. We would suggest to any member of the Y.C.L. who might read this paper that he should struggle within that organisation for two things: (1) for the Y.C.L. to join in the Ad Hoc Committee which the V.S.C. has called for to mobilise for the autumn offensive; and (2) a putting straight of the record in the Communist press of the attacks which were made against the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign prior to the March 17th demonstration. In passing our Y.C.L. friends could, perhaps, enquire from King Street as to how it is that the adult party still sticks to support for the "negotiations" and "stop the bombing" lines. If it correct for Y.C.L. to take the solidarity line, it is correct for the party to do this as well.
We understand that the V.S.C. is now discussing the exact form of the autumn offensive. There are many who are quite understandably frustrated by the prospect of further repeats of the Grosvenor Square confrontation. There are some who, in their desire to "link issues" wish the demonstration target to be some British capitalist institution. We hope these issues are thoroughly gone over. They reflect quite profound political points of view.
For our part we favour MASS MOBILISATION AROUND A SIMPLY UNDERSTOOD ISSUE. The autumn offensive is envisaged as being a massive affair. It should not be confused with the commando type demonstration which was all the vogue some years ago.
The declared aim of the demonstration must be simple and direct. It must be in solidarity with the people of Vietnam and not be envisaged as the start of the British revolution. (to put the record straight, we are in favour of the start of that revolution as soon as possible)
It must be around a militant policy of support for the Vietnamese people against American imperialism. It should, of course, have as a secondary target, the exposure of the British Government's role. But this is not best done by blurring the issue into a general anti-Wilson Government demonstration. We are in favour of that type of demonstration but it is not the job of V.S.C. to organise it.
For those who want to avoid a repetition of the March 17th and October 22nd events, we would suggest that if the aim of the demonstration is to bring much larger numbers of people, things can scarcely be the same. If 50,000, 75,000 or 100,000 assemble around some easily identifiable symbol of American imperialism, the whole area will be brought to a standstill.
For those who want to have a more vigorous aim than a mere demonstration, we would point out that there will be many organisations on the demonstration. If one of those organisations with a more rounded out and precise function than V.S.C. was to pose a more militant and decisive target, it would be up to demonstrators to decided what they wanted to do.
The V.S.C. must stick to its role as being a united front organisation on a very militant line which seeks to mobilise mass support for that line. It cannot be a substitute for a revolutionary party— it wouldn't fit the bill and, anyway, its most successful function as a mass mobiliser, its sole reason for fame, would be damaged.
We urge all our readers to respond to the call by the V.S.C. to organise Ad Hoc Committees in every town, every college and university to make the autumn mobilisation the biggest anti-imperialist demonstration Britain has ever seen.