tempt to convince mankind that the U.S. Government was intent on securing an early peaceful settlement in Vietnam. But mankind remained unconvinced. The Christian Science Monitor admitted that "President Johnson's beginning of the New Year 'Peace Offensive' has ended, as was to be expected, in official 'failure'." And it could not have been otherwise. The "search for peace" campaign and the propaganda exercises that accompanied it proved to be nothing but a crude diplomatic trick, and that is how public opinion saw it. Its purpose was to disorient world opinion, and slanderously accuse the Vietnamese people of not wanting peace, while using this propaganda barrage as a blind for further extension of the aggressive operations in Vietnam. In starting its so-called "search for peace" in Vietnam, the U.S. Government put forward the old 14 points as a basis for settlement of the Vietnam problem. Washington was well aware that such a basis was unacceptable, because it was completely contrary to the demands of the South Vietnam National Liberation Front and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. "The United States is trying to remain in South Vietnam, to preserve the puppet administration it has set up there and to perpetuate the split of our country," said President Ho Chi Minh of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, analyzing the notorious 14 points in a message to the chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. Thus, in setting out on its "search for peace," the White House was fully aware that it would come to nothing, and that it was merely a short breathing space for the aggressors. Therefore, paradoxical though it may seem, the U.S. President's order to resume air raids on the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was simply a logical sequel to the "search for peace" campaign, an act in the farce played out by Washington. This rash order is known to have aroused a storm of indignation all over the world, including the United States itself. In this connection, the Soviet Government stated categorically: "The resumption of U.S. air raids on the territory of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam 2 days after the head of that state had come forward with a new initiative is an indication that the U.S. Government does not want an end to the war in Vietnam. ***" The Governments of France, India, and other countries expressed "regret and disapproval." The peoples of the world branded the U.S. aggressors. "Johnson and his advisers," said the Indian weekly Link, "could not have been unaware of worldwide disgust [with] which American aggression in Vietnam is viewed." The reaction to the resumption of the piratical U.S. air raids on the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the extension of military operations in South Vietnam following the Honolulu decisions, and the sinister hints dropped by McNamara and other "hawks" are an indication that the Johnson Government's policy of escalation has aroused universal indignation. The American columnist, Walter Lippmann, says: "After all the bombing and the multiplication of our forces, the best that can be said is that *** we have snatched not a victory, nor any credible prospect of victory, but a bloody and costly stalemate." McNamara has admitted that the U.S. ground forces alone in South Vietnam are using up $100 million worth of ammunition a month. Senator Gore has estimated that this year the U.S. military and economic expenditures in South Vietnam will cost the U.S. taxpayers $18,500 million. He stressed that this is half of what the country urgently needs for improving schools, hospitals, transport and municipal services. It was, therefore, quite a logical conclusion that Emmet Hughes drew in Newsweek, when he said: "Never in this generation of Americans has so much power been spent so lavishly to gain so little." For no result at all, to put it more precisely. The escalation of the war in southeast Asia has not given the United States any military or diplomatic advantages. U.S. prestige in the world has been dropping disastrously over the last few years precisely because of the reckless policy of escalating the war in Vietnam. The peoples of the world regard the United States as the chief aggressor, as a state, in the words of Bertrand Russell, "hellbent on *** destruction *** of the world". The U.S. Government is trying to get out of the Vietnam impasse and to embroil the United Nations in its gamble. The U.S. delegation has resorted to pressure, inducements, and even to threats in an effort to get the Security Council to adopt a suitable resolution which would allow the United States to sidestep the 1954 Geneva agreements. But in the Security Council, Washington came up against resolute condemnation of its Vietnam policy. It is absolutely clear to any fairminded observer that there is a way out of the impasse: it is recognition of the D.R.V. Government's stand and the program of the South Vietnam National Liberation Front on the question of a settlement in Vietnam, which are in accord with the 1954 Geneva agreements and are in the interests of stable peace in Indochina and southeast Asia. If the United States really wants such a peaceful settlement, it must confirm by deeds its recognition of the Vietnamese people's just demands. This would help to create a favorable atmosphere for the political solution of the Vietnam problem. And it must be settled in the interests of the people of Vietnam and of universal peace. COMMENTATOR. COMMENTS ON CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND SOCIALIST (COMMUNIST) COUNTRIES (From: Political Affairs (U.S.A.), March 1966, p. 7) The political, economic, and social problems in the United States have reached a point where more meaningful, radical, and fundamental solutions are becoming urgent. Our foreign policy of aggression, intrigue, and subversion has become the nuclear time bomb ticking away at the brink. What is needed is an about-face in our foreign policy. Thus our program states: At this writing U.S. military aggression in Vietnam represents the most clear and present danger to world peace. The supreme challenge of the moment, in the fight for world peace is to halt U.S. aggression, to end U.S. military occupation in South Vietnam, so that the Vietnamese people can decide their own destiny (p. 37). DOLLAR DIPLOMACY (From: Political Affairs (U.S.A.), March 1966, pp. 15 and 21) The Johnson administration admittedly suffers from a crisis of credibility. Its lies have been SO systematic that nobody believes it any more, friend or foe, here or abroad. It conducts certain diplomatic exercises not to accomplish some practical end, but to try to establish its "sincerity." Schlesinger fails to discuss the real issues behind anticommunism; the attempt to obtain military and economic domination over other countries, to impose and protect U.S. investing corporations that obtain extra high profits from other countries. But he does cast light on the influence of the very rich, the people who ultimately dictate the reactionary policy of anticommunism. Kennedy himself, of course, was a multimillionaire, born into the ultrarich ruling class. While the family money played a part in his getting the presidential nomination and election, it would have been impossible without the support of many other powerful millionaires. We learn, for example, that a key endorsement of Kennedy was by a "group of liberals, organized by John L. Saltonstall, Jr. of Massachusetts." The Saltonstalls are one of the aristocratic families of the Boston financial elite. More detailed is Schlesinger's disclosure of the role of Wall Street in dominating U.S. administrations, once elected. (From: International Affairs, No. 2 (U.S.S.R.), February 1966, p. 23) By Harry Freeman Granted that it is a minority that opposes Washington's course. How could it be otherwise at this juncture in view of the power of the establishment's propaganda machine, of the readiness of Washington's bureaucrats to stigmatize peace fighters as "Communist dupes" and "traitors," of witch-hunting investigations by the FBI and congressional committees? NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENT (From: Political Affairs (U.S.A.), February 1966, p. 5) A recent editorial in Kommunist ("Proletarian Internationalism and Bourgeois Nationalism," No. 9, 1965) calls attention to the emphasis given by Lenin to this point: "If Noting the tremendous role played by the national liberation movement in the world revolutionary process, Lenin especially stressed the importance of the struggle between imperialism and socialism as represented by Soviet Russia in his time. we lose sight of that fact," said Lenin, "we shall not be able correctly to pose a single question of nationalities or colonies, even though it may concern the remotest part of the world. Only from that point of view can political problems be correctly posed and solved by the Communist Parties both in the civilized and the backward countries." (Complete works, vol. 41, p. 242.) (From: International Affairs, No. 3 (U.S.S.R.), March 1966, p. 8) The Soviet Union is making a decisive contribution toward establishing an international system to give all the Socialist countries a reliable safeguard against the encroachments of imperialism. It is impossible to overestimate the international role of the mighty Soviet armed forces in ensuring the defence potential of the Socialist countries. (B. MIROSHNICHENKO. MAY DAY (From: The Worker (U.S.A.), May 1, 1966, p. 3) MAY DAY AND PEACE As working people all over the world meet and march this May Day to assess the struggles of the past year and give voice to their demands for the year ahead, the urgent need for peace and the danger of expansion of war is in the minds and on the lips of every one. This urgency and this peril were underscored last week with the reckless threat of the Johnson administration to escalate the Vietnam war to China. United States imperialism, made desperate by its failure to defeat the national liberation forces in South Vietnam, is now moving dangerously close to steps that could engulf all humanity in a holocaust. The American people don't want the dirty war in Vietnam escalated; they want it to be halted immediately; they want U.S. troops withdrawn from Vietnam now. The American people want their sons and brothers to come home alive and not crippled, not in coffins or on hospital ships. They want a chance to achieve for themselves and their families the better life that the resources and the treasures of their country should afford them. They want the freedom and the equality that are the conditions for the fulfilment of their hopes and aspirations. They want an end to the defilement of American principles and traditions by the Johnson administration. The people know that none of this can happen unless there is an end to the dirty war in Vietnam, unless peace is guaranteed. That is why the vast majority of the American people have registered their repudiation of Johnson's Vietnam policy in one national poll after another. That is why they made their views known in marches, demonstrations and petitions. That is why the clergy, teachers, students, writers, artists are calling for an end to the Vietnam war. That is why working people are protesting, as is evidenced in the recent resolution of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, the statements of leaders of the AFL-CIO Butchers Union, the formation of national and local trade union committees for peace. Working people know that their struggles for better wages, better conditions are being paralyzed by the war in Vietnam. (From: New Times, No. 18, May 1, 1966-printed in the U.S.S.R.) U.S.A.-THREE PROBLEMS By James E. Jackson, Publisher (sic.), "The Worker" This May Day finds the working class of the United States beset by grave problems of a fundamental political character. Effective response to the challenge of these problems will require a rise in the political initiative of the trade unions. But meaningful political action on the part of the workers carries with it the obligation to gather into a taut bond the dissembled threads of labor's unity. Historically the capitalists have practiced the tactic of fostering pairings and divisionism among the working people as the main guarantor of their privileged position. The American workers have been split along the color line, craft lines have been accented, the employed have been pitted against the unemployed, the skilled against the unskilled, religious differences have been inflamed into enmities, etc., by the capitalists. Over the years the U.S. working class has made considerable strides toward unity. Indeed, the call of the American workers of the 1880's for worldwide solidarity of workingmen in support of their bitterly opposed strike struggles for the 8-hour day was a factor in the early history of May 1 as an international workingclass holiday. But today, the task of closing the gap, between where the cause of labor's unity is and where it properly should be, is a matter of urgency. The key tasks in connection with forging genuine labor unity are: (1) the organization of the unorganized millions of working people, especially of the south; (2) the final erasure of what remains of the color bar and the full integration of Negro workers into all job classifications and in the life of the unions on every level of participation; (3) the repudiation of politicalideological exclusiveness and exeptionalism; especially to put an end to the anti-Communist witch-hunting and Communist-baiting inside of the unions. The struggle to realize such tasks are planks in any platform to democratize and revitalize the tradeunion movement which is a prerequisite for readying labor's ranks for the unfolding struggles of the periodstruggles which must move labor into |