Socialists and Vietnam

U Thant's latest pontifications on Vietnam (July 30 '67) do not help the anti-imperialist cause, No sogialist should expect anything else, But a part of the Left still looks to U Thant for some kind of leadership in the Vietnam crisis. This is one of the continuing sources of confusion among the British Left on Vietnam, Consequently, there is a lack of socialist argument about Vietnam as such Left groups e.g. C.N.D. and the CoPes give considerable priority to finding common ground with various religious organisations in popular front politics, The lack of socialist content in U Thant's latest analysis of the Vietnam crisis is very clear. Apart from his remark which likened the historical struggle of the Vietnamese to that of the Americans in the 18th century, there are no progressive remarks in U Thant's recent speech. It is not helpful for U Thant to say that the continuation of the Vietnam war is "totally unnecessary". This is a useless and totally unnecessary remark, It gets us nowhere, U Thant says that he is worried that the Vietnam (and Middle East) war could have a bad effect on the relationship between the U.S.S.R. and U.S, Governments. U Thant advocates more co-operation between the two "super powers" as a key to peace. This seems to be unrealistic advice - especially for the U.S.S.R. After all, the current practical experience of the U.S.S.R's "peaceful co-existence" policies have allowed the U.S. rulers to extend their arrogance of imperialist power notably in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. Superficially it may appear to some people on the Left that U Thant's emphasis on the non-Communist aspects of the Vietnamese people's struggle for national liberation is progressive, After all, it may be argued, part of the National Liberation Front is non-Communist. This is*true, However, U Thant's emphasis on the non-Communist elements in the Vietnam war is part of his non-socialist argument which leads him on to say that the ideological aspect is not important, that it is quite possible for all parties to get around the conference table and that the war is "totally unnecessary". Just as U Thant's analysis of the Vietnam war is non-socialist, so too are his suggested solutions. He is equally critical of those who seek military victory through escalation and those who want to get the Americans troops out of Vietnam immediately: "It seems to me that nothing could be more dangerous than this kind of thinking, that the only alternatives are military escalation and immediate withdrawal. I am convinced that there are other alternatives..."' However he does not say, even suggest what these are, U Thant acts as a diplomat. And he apparently thinks it is undiplomatic to demand immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. The sooner the British Left adopts a socialist critique of U Thant's approach the better will be the chance of building a real anti-imperialist campaign. The North Vietnamese (and N.L.F.) rightly rejected U Thant's earlier plan (March 28 '67) with the remark that "the Vietnam problem has no concern with the United Nations, and the United Nations has absolutely no right to interfere in the Vietnam question", This is historically correct,