Reply by Alan Rooney
see that U Thant's recent speech on Vietnam did not help the anti-imperialist cause. To support his argument he suggests that the War Crimes Tribunal did'nt help the anti-imperialist cause. Apparently the North Vietnamese and National Liberation Front of South Vietnam think differently. They gave considerable support to the Tribunal. I recognise with Mr. Kinchin that U Thant did mention the national liberation aspect of the Vietnam war (as I said in The Week Aug. 9). But his political conclusions were reactionary. I agree with Mr. Kinchin that national liberation of Vietnam "is @ prerequisite of the success of the Vietnamese revolution", but as socialists we should not fail to point out that the resistance movement is also fighting for land reform at the same time. Ideology about land reform cannot be ignored as U Thant suggests.
Mr, Kinchin does not
Katy Rintoul says that U Thant's speech was useful because of its "realism". How much realism does the Vietnamese resistance movement find in it? No doubt the "realism" appealed to the U.S. quakers that U Thant addressed. I get the impression that Katy Rintoul feels that if we can appeal to the 'good-side' of the U.S. Government which she believes "in theory, at any rate, e-- is not anti-nationalist and does not want to be thought so", then we stand a better chance of ending the war. My reading of this is that it represents a misunderstanding of the policies and structure of the most aggressive imperialist Government in the world. She asks whether I believe that a third world war will bring socialism. My answer is no. That is why I want to help in the job of building up a stronger anti-imperialist movement. If anyone is likely to bring a nuclear war it is the U.S. Government. I do not believe that the U.S.S.R. policy of "peaceful co-existence" as currently practiced is sufficiently anti-imperialist. This is not to say that Kosygin should start an adventurous nuclear policy. On the contrary, it is urgent that we work for what Che Guevara calls "a true proletarian internationalism; with international proletarian armies", Katy Rintoul says that British Leftists do not look to U Thant for leadership. I hope she is right. But let us look at cases. Tribune's front page editorial (Aug. 11) on U Thant's speech was headed "Vietnam: listen to this American voice", 'Tribune' was not referring to the Voice of the American Left movement which is aiming to mobilise over 500,000 people to march on Washington on October 21st with the key slogan: 'Support Our Boys - Bring Them Home Now'. No, ‘Tribune' was referring to a 'New York Times' editorial on Vietnam. This raises the question: what movement does the 'New York Times' represent? Do we recommend that the American Left mobilises around that newspaper? Of course not. Such a recommendation would set back the U.S. Left's mobilisation effort by years. Looking to the immediate future, are such organisations as the British Communist Party; The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; 'Tribune' and the B.C.P.V. prepared to give full support to the Vietnam Ad Hoc Committee which is currently organising a mass demonstration (in support of U.S. Left) in Trafalgar Square on Sunday October 22 around the key slogan: 'U.S. get out of Vietnam now'? U Thant disapproves of such slogans, What is the British Left going to do about it?