from Dave Windsor
Did something happen to change Mr. Stewart's mind over U.S. policy in Vietnam during the course of Tuesday?
Early editions of newspapers (Times, Financial Times, etc.) reported that Mr. Stewart had not made much public concession to the Left-wing of the Labour Party. In his lursheon speech he said: "I am very well aware that there are many people in my own country and in other countries who are gravely concerned about the continued fighting in Vietnam." But (according to the Financial Times) he showed "no sign of any disposition on his part to read the Americans lectures, nor has the, yse of nonlethal American gas by the South Vietnam provoked a serious protest fof, vThese early reports were presumably based upon a ‘handout. These are normally circulated prior to actual speeches.
However, later editions reported Mr. Stewart as passing on to the United States the "very grave concern" aroused in Britain and other countries by the use of the gas. He is also reported as saying in answer to a question that he was asking the U.S. Government "to display what your declaration of independence calls 'a decent respect for the opinions of mankind'",
What could have brought about this change of mind? Only frantic telegrams from Britain informing Mr. Stewart of the wave of indigmation and horror sweeping through British political circles, one is tempted to answer. If this is true,and no other answer present itself, we are seeing the first dividends of the campaign the left has been waging to change Government policy on Vietnam.
Nor if €ime to intensify this pressure. In the fluid situation the possibility exists of the Government being forced to change its whole position (the fact that the question of the use of gas can be used as a get-out for the previous approval of bombing of the North, use of napalm, etc. should be noted and taken advantage of!).
I suggest to all readers of The Week that they take the following steps this weekend:
(1) Put every kind of pressure upon your M.P. to sign the Noel-Baker motion which has already been signed by a significant number of people who refused to sign the Warbey one;
2) To try to get as many public statements, resolutions, etc., over this weekehd calling for a complete reversal of the Government policy of supporting the U.S. over Vietnam;
(3) Intensify the preparations for the Easter March - this march could be the culmination of such a campaign.
We have evidence that the Government is sensitive to pressure and is re-thinking its position; now is the time to absolutely bombard Mr. “Tilson and his colleagues with every kind of protest we can muster. A change in the Government's Vietnam policy would have deep repercussions in every field of activity, We must not fail to take advantage of this situation which means we can combine giving the most practical aid to those fighting for a better life in Vietnam with that of radicalising events in Britain. Editorial note: We should be pleased to hear of all activities on this mattere NEXT WEEK'S ISSUR: The article on Bahrain was held over for space reasons and will appear next week; the article from Selma arrived too late to appear in this week's issue and has been carried forward. Other articles next week will include an analysis of the forthcoming elections in Ireland, important articles on poverty in New York, WALGO and incomes policy, West Indies, Japan and Australia, etc,
Ssor sors Directors
Ssorss
whe Duke cf Besford the Earl Russell, OM, FRS
Dr Max Gorn. “sere! Prze for Physics the Countess Russell
word Boyd Cv, F498, \oce Prze for Peace Christopher Farley
Ralph Schoenman
i Mzesty Haile Selassia |
- ster <erceth Kaunda
wot Kran
aveaharal Nehru, deceased 3 & 4 Shavers Place
Haymarket
London SW1, England
u
Frizes far Chemistry, Paace
telaphans
Whitehall 4209 & 4200
‘ cables
cet Schwetzer, Nebel Prize for Peace Russfound London SWT