end more honest statement of the pacifist position, (see elsewhere in ths issue.) Thus i states:. "..., Our position ideally is that the NLF Should cease fire unilaterally and that the United States Should withdraw unilaterally ...." However, Peace News recognises that "we have no right to_ call upon the NLF,to cease fire," (emphasis in the original.) "We are too much responsible for what the Americans are doing in Vietnam to be entitled to condemn the NLF when they resist with violence." This hand— some concession (it is a fine thing that leader writers from Caledonian Road are prepared to concede the right of Vietnamese peasants to defend themselves with violence) is in marked contrast to the treatment that Bob Overy dishes out to anti-Vietnam war demonstrators who take the solidarity position. They are described as "a shouting 'militant! mob," “a huge slogan-shouting, unruly march," and people who "show contempt , by ... lack of dignity and commitment"; in fact, the whole demonstration will be one of "frustration, ill-directed violence" (does the pacifist recognise well-—directed violence? )"and anger" which is really "self—contempt" Comrade Cvery's advice is that "we should get on with doing" things ... "to dissociate Britain from America and to help forward the pressures for American withdrawal." Bob Overy's anger is understandable from his point of view; not only has he had to concede the right of the Vietnamese peop® to defend themselves, he has also to recognise that there is going to be a huge demonstration in favour of the Vietnamese being successful in this struggle. But to conclude this examination one has to ask the question: why have all these organisations chosen to attack the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign at this very time ? We would venture the following answer: precisely because of its success in mobilising and because that success is attractig support from the rank and file of those organisations. The united front concepts of the V.S.C.. and the Ad-hoc committees which V.S.C, has initiatéd frighten them, These small minded people put the sectarian interests of their organisations above that of forming an all-embracing non-exclusive mass movement in suppert of the people of Vietnam, That is why they ignored invitations to attend the founding meetings of the October 22nd and March 17th Ad-hoc committees. Had they attended these meetings they could have easily taken part in the formulation of slogan s and the general policy of the demonstrations. The fact that this nonexclusive, democratic method was used by the Ad-hoc Committees has been completely hidden from the readers of these organisations! journals.
They will not be successful; this struggle also took place in the United States and the sectarians were defeated, As a result the most significant ant-war movement ever seen in the Uxited States has been built against the most fantastic odds, The same process is happening in this country. 4... Those organisations which refuse to participate in the united front of support for the Vietnamese people will themselves suffer. Those leaders or organis— ations who stand against the united front will only have themselves to blame if they lose members and if their organisations are beset by bitter wrangtes, The united front will grow and important lessons will be learnt by thousaris of militants which have relevance for all struggles. The Week is very proud of the modest part it has played in this process,
MARCH 1 a letter from Alistair Bucknell, chairman of the Youth
Campaign for Nuclear Disarament which appeared in the
March 9th issue of Peace News.
I find it amazing that so many people in the peace movement are supporting
the proposed demonstration for March 17. The slogan "solidarity with
the Vietnamese people against American aggression" is all very nice,
frightfully daring and means absolutely nothing. This demonstration will
let Wilson and co. off the hook completely. Viglent themes and
vivlent actions are exactly what the British and American p .ss would
like to hear. They also undo years of hard work by CND, the Committee
of 100, and others in breaking down barriers of fear, hatred and prejudice.
We are for peace in Vietnam. That means that we must support freedom
for the Vietnamese people, but exactly how this is brought about in
Vietnam is beyond our power to control from Britain.
It is our job to help force the American aggressors to withdraw. This
means:
1. Get Britain to dissociate from American policy in Vietnam.
2. Subvert United States! troops in Britain, Encourage desertion and
demonstrations against the war by Americans in Britain,
3. Stop playing at being brave and gaily taking sides with the liberat-
ion forces when we could have some real influence in weakening the
aggressor.
All that gas about solidarity is exactly what the United-States Govern-
ment and the Central Intelligence Agency would like us to say.
Forget March 17. It is irrelevent and dangerous. British dissociation
must be our priority, and Y.C.N.D.'s demonstration on March 24 is the
time to make a major step in forcing a real British initiative for peace
and freedom in Vietnam.
Alistair Bucknell,
Shafyman, Y.C.N.D.;
5, Caledonian Rd.,
London N.1.
FVIII IAAI ALAA AAA IAS SAIES ASIDES ASSSAE SESS SEK SSDS ASSIS ASSIS SERIE III