On September 20th a memorial meeting was held for Ho Chi Minh in London. Hopes that this meeting would be an expression of unity in the face of American imperialism's continued aggression in Vietnam were shattered. The Vietnam Solidarity Committee, sponsors of the meeting made great efforts to get speakers from organisations which had been active in the solidarity campaign. The meeting was turned into a bear-garden. Madame Linh Qui refused to enter the hall and speak. The expression of unity was transformed into an expression of disunity. How did this happen? Who was to blame?
Trouble erupted when Chris Harman, speaker from International Socialism, outraged the audience by asserting that: Ho Chi Minh was responsible in the mid forties for the murder of hundreds of Trotskyists, North Vietnam was a state capitalist regime and to organise mass demonstrations in solidarity with the Vietnamese was unnecessary.
The speech was provocative and in complete contradiction with united front principles. It expressed the growing sectarianism of the IS. This sectarianism reflects both the wrong theories of IS and its increasing frustration due to the failure of its "unity offensive" following Enoch Powell's famous speech last year. Without a correct strategy for building a revolutionary movement, a theory of the bureaucracy in workers organisations [and workers states], the failure to apply transitional demands - and for many other reasons - International Socialism is all at sea.
Because it recruits on a basis of four points of a very general nature it is unable to ensure unity in action. The facts reveal that whole branches openly oppose their own organisation's national policy and in several areas branches have had to be split to allow reasonable working relations. International Socialism has changed its position from active support of the Vietnam solidarity movement to opposing a continued campaign on Vietnam. What has changed? It is certainly not the war in Vietnam. It goes on, its decisiveness in the world struggle against reaction remains the same: Vietnamese people are still being killed and their need for solidarity action remains as great as ever.
But something has changed: the mass media's treatment of the war, which is a reflection of the American imperialists' attempts to defuse the world-wide anti-Vietnam war movement. Because of its petty bourgeois character and lack of a firm basic theory, international links and traditions, IS is especially vulnerable to shifts in so-called public opinion, as manipulated by the mass media. A good example of this was its almost hysterical reaction to the Powell speech.
We ask the IS why they raise the question of the Vietnamese Trotskyists just now. They have had many opportunities before to do so, at rallies, for conferences and internal meetings of the VSC. Yet they wait until now. Only one conclusion can be drawn: they raise the question now to rationalise pulling out of the Vietnam solidarity activities to concentrate on more "fruitful" activities - their own sectarian interests taking priority over the needs of the Vietnamese people and world revolution.
IS must have known that Chris Harman's speech would jeopardise the united front. Until now they have respected the principle that one does not use a united front platform to attack other participants. At the beginning of the solidarity campaign, when the SLL sought to use the VSC platform to attack the CP, the IS spokesman, John Palmer, very ably combatted the SLL's disruptive tactics. Now, three years later the IS are the guilty ones.
The united front approach does not mean that one refrains from criticising other tendencies in one's own press, at one's own meetings or at special discussion meetings. In fact, it is mandatory on revolutionaries to continue their criticisms of reformists and sectarians whilst seeking to work with them in united action committees. Despite IMG working with the [illegible] and CP in Vietnam work, we have never ceased to criticise them as those organisations would be the first to testify.
We will not deal with the question of the Vietnamese Trotskyists in this editorial. Because of the interest in this matter we have commissioned material which will give a full picture of what happened - the truth is a lot more complicated than the IS leaders seem to think.
The behaviour of the Maoists and the representatives of the Communist Party and YCL was most reprehensible. The Maoists, who have ceased to be active on Vietnam and some of whom sell journals which label the Vietnamese leaders including Ho Chi Minh as traitors for taking part in the Paris talks, sought to fish in troubled waters.
The Communist Party and YCL had no need to leave the meeting. Responsible people who really cared about the unity of the movement against the war would have responded to the efforts of the IMG, BLACK DWARF and VSC to restore unity. Again it is a question of the subordination of the struggle for solidarity with the Vietnamese people to sectarian interests. There is no doubt that if Harman had been a bishop or an MP there would have been no walk out.
Although the events at the meeting were a blow to the carefully nurtured unity the damage can easily be undone. A demonstration in solidarity with the people of Vietnam is planned for November 23rd - soon the preparatory work will be starting and this can be used to once again present a united response. For its part the IMG will spare no effort to build this unity.