Prime Minister Wilson has made his pilgrimage to Washington. On the day of his departure for discussions with war criminal Nixon, some 1000 demonstrators, according to press reports, organised by the Vietnam Solidarity Committee and supporting organisations, marched to Downing Street in a torchlight demonstration to express opposition to Wilson's visit as a symbol of the British Government's complicity in the Vietnam war.
Since then the January 28th magazine section of the Sunday Mirror has dramatically revealed the roots of British complicity in Vietnam. No one is now able to deny the sordid and direct role of British imperialism in the initial moves by French and American imperialism at the end of the second World War, to crush the national liberation struggle of the Vietnamese people.
The most recent revelations contained in the February 8th issue of The People, concerning British atrocities against Malaysian peasants similar to the Song My massacre—which took place about twenty years ago—go further in uncovering Britain's real role in South East Asia and the years of British military intervention against the colonial revolution, behind Wilson's Washington visit.
The publication of these facts by the capitalist press testifies to the sensitivity of the British people to these questions. Recent polls indicated that 6 out of 10 people in Britain had sympathy with the Vietnamese over the Americans in Vietnam. The figure was 5 out of 10 before the Song My revelations. With the exposure of Britain's role the figure should rise once again.
All this underlines the importance of the struggle being waged in Britain by anti-Vietnam war forces against British complicity in Vietnam.
The Vietnam Solidarity Committee has stated that it views its January 25th demonstration as only the start of a continuing campaign against British complicity. A recent meeting of the VSC projected a mass demonstration and conference in April in conjunction with expected Spring mobilisations in the United States.
The conference would deal with escalation of the war by the U.S. into Laos and Thailand and with a detailed examination of the scope of British complicity in the war. A campaign to make Vietnam a burning issue in the coming General Election campaign was also projected. Anti-war activists throughout the country would be urged to confront Wilson, members of his Cabinet, and the Tory leadership at election meetings through leaflets, demonstrations and questions about British complicity in Vietnam. The VSC will also participate in the coming 1-8 March Trade Union Vietnam Week being organised by a number of London offices of trade unions and the London Cooperative Society Political Committee.
The VSC is urging all anti-war and anti-imperialist organisations to take part in these campaigns.
However, not all organisations who claim to be defending the Vietnamese Revolution share the VSC's perspective of united action against the Wilson Government's complicity in Vietnam. Among these is the Socialist Labour League. Although the SLL brought a strong contingent to the VSC January 25th demonstration, it remains outside the VSC and continually attacks it in its press, counterposing its trade union activity to the united actions organised by the VSC.
This excuse for refusing to participate actively in united action is not very convincing. The VSC has always realised the importance of mobilising workers in the shops against the Vietnam war. By mobilising student and worker youth in national demonstrations, the VSC has contributed to making Vietnam an issue on the shop floor. Some time ago the VSC published a pamphlet on Vietnam and the trade unions and another on the complicity of the Wilson Government which has been circulated widely. Can anyone seriously say that the work of VSC conflicts with the SLL's stated desire of raising Vietnam at the factory level? Has not the work of VSC over the past four years helped create a climate in which class-conscious militants can campaign with their workmates on the question of Vietnam? The SLL dismissal of the VSC as a "middle-class protest movement" and its reference to the "anti-working-class" base of the VSC just doesn't ring true.
To be consistent the SLL would have to deny the process in the United States, where the opportunity for a link-up of the struggles of the organised anti-Vietnam war movement and the struggles of the workers-for example in major war industries like General Electric—has been provided, at least in part, by six years of bigger and bigger mass mobilisations by American youth mainly students.
All in all, the case for the SLL's continuing factional approach to the anti-Vietnam war movement remains as weak as ever. A serious policy for defence of the Vietnamese Revolution demands a change.
The International Marxist Group will do all it can to build a united campaign of action against British complicity in Vietnam and urges all anti-Vietnam war forces—including the SLL—to actively support the campaign of the VSC.