Yugoslav: government forebore to: name the United States as theaggressor, did not mention the’ violation of the sovereignty of the Democratic Republic: ~ of Viet: Nam, and did not demand an end to the criminal attacks ©.» which the United States is carrying out against that nation?
In that maéting.,. the position: of Yugoslavia was clearly reflected dn ‘the’ following points:
-- No condemnation of the presence of United States troops in South Viet Nam, much less a demand for their withdrawal.
-- No condemnation of the violation by the United States of the: Geneva Agreements.-
—_ No condemnation.-of the permanent presence of U. S. airs a eraft carriers and other naval units in territorial waters of the: Democratic Republic of Viet Nan.
‘-- The proposal of a peaceful. settlement by. negotiations, without the establishment of any provisos.
There are certain conclusions which can be drawn from the. attitudes of the Yugoslav government in these meetings and from their published documents: When the government of Yugoslavia speaks of "foreign intervention" in Vietnamese territory, it does so in a generalized way, with no adequate denunciation . of. the role of Yankee imperialism. J 2d,
In the speech by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Yugoslavia at the celebration of the twentieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, Viet Nam was depicted as "a most’ dangerous center of tension, or of war," with :no: indication. of the revolutionary content of that struggle nor denunciation of the aggressive action of the United States government. Nevertheless, it was recommended in the speech, that a political solution be given to the problems ‘which have arisen in Viet Nam.
The imperialist war against the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam and'the people of South Viet Nam has not been condemned nor denounced by the Yugoslav government in its true character, but
only referred to as, "a danger capable of provoking an extension of the war." Several Yugoslav publications have censured the intran- Sigence of the Vietnamese in refusing to enter into any kind of negotiations without the previous withdrawal of the Yankees from South Viet Nam territory. ‘One of these publications even labeled this firm Vietnamese position as "mistaken" and "extremist." Let's. Analyze the Official Statement of the Yugoslav Government |
The correspondent for "Politika" in ‘Latin “America states — that in a Prensa Latina bulletin, dated February 3, an official statement by the government of-. Yugoslavia appeared which "made it clear that the United States'..actions in Viet Nam have been condemned," and expressed the view that the solution to the conflict in Viet Nam could only be based on the Geneva Agreements. This was cited by the correspondent in an attempt to refute statements contained in an editorial of GRANMA in February of this year. Nevertheless, a simple reading of the declaration of the Yugoslav government reveals the weak and conciliatory political position maintained by the Yugoslav leadership in the case of Viet Nam. Since the "Politika". correspondent has brought it up, we shall demonstrate this affirmation.
The text of the Prensa Latina news release is as follows: "The government of Yugoslavia issued a statement today expressing its profound anxiety in regard to the renewal of air bombardments by the United States against the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam.
"The people and government of Yugoslavia" -- the declaration states ~- "have pointed out: on many occasions that tragic consequences are inevitable unless a political solution to the problem is found in consonance with the Geneva Agreements and with the rights of the Vietnamese people to liberty, independence and self- determination. :
"And finally," the. Yugoslav government states, "the decision by the United States to renew. their bombardments places a serious responsibility on them before all humanity.'
Q No one who considers himself a revolutionary can accept “these statements as the expression of an energetic, decisive and firm position. Let the leaders. of the so-called "League of Yugoslav Communists" ask themselves if they, in the epoch of the struggle , against the nazis, would have made such statements to Hitler. There is the key to the question.
Our position in relation to the intervention of the United States in Viet Nam is one of a fight to the death against the invader, and the Yugoslav position is conciliation with the imperialists. From our. point of view the correct stand is to demand strict adherence, to the Geneva Agreements..The Yugoslav position .
is satisfied simply with announcing that: "tragic. consequences are inevitable unless a political. solution to. the problem is found in . consonance. with the Geneva Agreements." In our opinion, it is.. a indispensable to demand an immediate end to the. criminal. bombings. of the cities of Viet Nam, and to strongly demand, as well, the withdrawal of all imperialist forces from Vietnamese territory.
In the Yugoslav declarations they simply state that "the United States assumes a great responsibility,.by -the. ‘bombings.." There is no concrete condemnation of the imperialist aggression in South’ Viet Nam. In fact, they do not mention the intervention of U.S. forces in South ‘Viet ‘Nam at all. Only the "anxiety" of the Yugo- - slav government is expressed in regard to the renewal of bombings.. of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam. ——
Merely to denounce the action of imperialism in Viet Nam is, naturally, not enough. It:-is necessary, in addition, to declare that peace negotiations cannot be accepted until the conditions ,. previously laid down by the National Liberation Front of South Viet Nam and the Democratic Republic Of: Niet Nam are. fulfilled..
. By requesting peace negotiations, ‘without demanding the ending of the bombardments nor the withdrawal of troops, the ; Yugoslav government in fact coincides with the imperialist Stans» and thus, stands contrary to the. positions defined by the Demo-- |: cratic Republic of Viet Nam and the NLF of South Viet Nam, which | - have been upheld by-the socialist countries and by the revolution-__ ary movement all over the world. ,
The government of Yugoslavia, on a question as vital to ‘the revolutionary movement as the heroic fight being waged by the Vietnamese people, places.itself outside-.the position adopted co unanimously by the socialist countries and by the revolutionary °:. movement of the entire world.
How Did the Yugoslav Declaration Come About?
As we all remember, the U.S. government, several months age, confronted by military reverses in Viet Nam, the growing wave of world ‘protest, and particularly the protest of the American people: themselves, found itself obliged to announce a hypocritical "peace: offensive," initiated by a halt in itS* bombardment of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam. This peace offensive was a political maneuver on the part of the United States, designed to coerce the Vietnamese people into accepting imperialist conditions. Thanks to the firm stand-of the Vietnamese people and*their leaders, the maneuver. failed, prompting Johnson to resume the bombings against the Democratic~. Republic of Viet Nam. This decision has “met enormous opposition throughout the entire world.
The declaration of the Yugoslav government concerning Viet Nam is simply a timid and token reply to the renewal of bombardments
against the DRV. Declarations similar to that of the Yugoslavs havé been formulated by some capitalist countries and by some U.S. congressmen. Moreover, some capitalist countries have specifically condemned the imperialist aggression against Viet Nam. Viet Nam Has Denounced the Yugoslav Positions as Coinciding with Those of Yankee Imperialism
But, moreover, it has been the Vietnamese themselves, who on repeated occasions have accused the Yugoslav government of supporting imperialist positions and of proposing negotiations under circumstances which are inadmissible from the points of view of the. government of the DRV and the National Liberation Front.
Yugoslavia was not accepted as an observer at the Tricontinental Conference because the Vietnamese delegation insisted | that..the government of that country had maintained points of view similar to those of the imperialists concerning the Vietnamese war. More,.recently, the newspaper "Nhan-Dan," official organ of the. Vietnamese Workers' Party, denounced that the Yugoslav government — had supported the U.S. plan to get the puppet administration of Saigon into the United Nations surreptitiously. In its denunciation, the Vietnamese paper stated that Yugoslav Federal Executive Council President Peter Stanbolic's tour of several Asiatic countries was an adjunct.of the plan to persuade the governments of those countries to support Yugoslavia's proposals for negotiations in the problem of Viet Nam. :
This is a new maneuver of the Yugoslav government to rally support from a group of "nonaligned" countries for their sellout policy in the Viet Nam question.
Shocked by Our Request that All Military Forces. Necessary’ .
Be Employed to Halt the Bombardments:
Of course, from this point of view, it is logical that the Yugoslav press correspondent in Moscow was shocked by the statements contained in the greeting of the Cuban delegation to the twentythird Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
As is known, the greeting of our Central Committee underlined the necessity of employing whatever forces might be required to detain the Yankee bombardments of the DRV, of running all indispensable risks and of tightening unity of action among the Socialist countries and the revolutionary movement throughout the world in terms of this objective.
The Yugoslav leaders call this an adventurist position. They do not point out that it is the Yankee imperialists who are the
-3l-
real adventurists in the Vietnamese war.
We may ask the. ‘Leaders of the so-called "League of Yugoslav Communists" a few questions. Do you want the Vietnamese people to: shed their blood and, without the decisive aid of the socialist — countries, to endure the criminal aggression carried out by the strongest imperialist power on earth? How do the Yugoslav leaders think that the bombardments can be ‘stopped? By convincing the Yankees through persuasion and discussions?
If they think they can do this -- and we know they don't believe such a thing -- it is they who are deluded. But the Yugo- Slav leaders are not deluded. _ They are actually accomplices of the imperialists in Viet Nam.
We challenge the leaders of the so-called “League of Yugo-. Slav Communists" to tell us, concretely, the formula for paralyzing the bombardments against the Democratic Republic of Viet. Nam. Naturally, these questions cannot easily be answered by any "reporter" or "functionary" of the Yugoslav Government. Our challenge is directed to the leadership of the so- called nbeague | of Yugoslav Communists." ~ Yugoslav Leaders Surrender “to. Imperialism
The Yugoslav newspaper "Vjesnik, " of Zagreb, writes that ‘the Cuban statements in the twenty-third Congress of the CPSU were “considered, -to be pseudorevolutionary. " .
“The: “truth of ‘the ‘matter, is that our statements were not "pseudorevclutionary" for the. -Yugoslav Press but, on the contrary,
too revolutionary.
The Yugoslav leaders and the pro-imperialist and reaction-~ ary press, have carried on identical intrigues with respect to the declarations.of the Cuban delegation. Imputations similar to . those of the Yugoslavs were voiced by imperialist agents concerning the statement of the Cuban delegation. The fact is that the Cuban stateménts aroused tremendous repercussions throughout the world, and served ; to emphasize Cuba's position with respect to the Viet— namese struggle. But what matters most is not what Cuba said. What matters most is that Cuba, 90 miles from the shores of imperialisn, threatened by the strongest capitalist country in.the world, surrounded by an economic blockade, interests itself in the furthering of the Revolution all over the world. While the leaders of the so-called "League of Yugoslav Communists," whose country is situated thousands .of miles away from the frontiers of imperialism, fear it and become cowards, play imperialism's game, placate and _ serve it by proclaiming its lies and reactionary libels against the revolutionary fighters of the world, we, bordering the U.S..coast, challenge Yankee imperialism.. The Yugoslav leaders, at a distance
of thousands of miles and in a part of the world where the balance of power is extraordinarily in favor of socialisn, oppose revolution and seli out to imperialism. This is one difference between the: so~called. “beague of Tugoslaw Communists" and the COMMUNIST PARTY OB: ‘CUBA! TE: .
—_ ROAD. OF TREASON VERSUS THE ROAD OF REVOLUTION
The newspaper "Politika" maintains its charges of "sect~ arianism" against. the Tricontinental Conference agreements.
When ‘the Yugoslav press arbitrarily accuses. the Tricontinental Conference of sectarianism, it is motivated by the position of conciliation and submission held by the so-called "League of Yugo- Slav. Communists" with. regard to imperialism.
In what sense coulda the Conference be considered sectarian? In its composition? In the limitation of participating delegations? In the narrow content: of its agreements? ~~ ns
“We challenge the ‘so-called League of Yugoslav Communists" to point out any other conference or international meeting in which a greater number of revolutionary parties and organizations has been represented. We challenge them to indicate any conference or meeting in the history of the anti-imperialist movement which has adopted broader and more combative agreements than the Tricontinental Conference. Lo
Revolutionary organizations from 82 countries were represented in the Conference, among them, parties and organizations which are in power in their countries. Also included were organizations representing revolutionary movements in arms. More over, practically all the communist parties of Asia, Africa, and. Latin America were present.
In the specific case of Latin America, the representation of its anti- imperialist. organizations was never so wide'or so militant.
Seventy. organizations from 27 countries of the Latin-American continent were present. The fundamental agreements of the Conference were unanimously approved. The approved ‘line did not only take ~ into account the importance of the national liberation movement, but also,the role of the socialist camp and of the working class in the capitalist countries, and an exhortation to the U.S. people was formulated, as well, urging them to intensify the struggle against. the war in Viet Nam.
The Yugoslav leaders accuse this Conference, which adopted | transcendental agreenents and achieved cohesion among the anti-— imperialist forcés of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, of béing sectarian.. In the diversity and type of organizations represented, as well as in the depth and extension of its resolutions, the
Tricontinental Conference has meant a major step forward in the battle to achieve a massive anti-imperialist front in the world. In all of history there has ‘not::been .a.wider, more- combative, and deeply rooted anti-imperialist: frorit than that which ‘has arisen from.the =~; Tricontinental Confererice.-In“spite of this, the YugoSlav press: maintains that the Conference wassectarian-iand' affirms that there were . . important Latin-Ameriéan:- organi zations which were not present:. The = Yugoslav newspaper "Politika" lies when’ it-states that the MNR of Bolivia was denied participation in the Conference. The participation of ‘the MNR in the Tricontinental Conference was never requested. Organizations Allied to the’ Inperialists. oe and to Yugoslavia... Did not Participate in the Tricontinental Conference
Which are the organizations that, according to the "League-of Yugoslav Communists," should have been present at the Conference, and whose participation, nevertheless, was. denied?. Could it be Accién Democratica of Venezuéla, at the head of:a puppet government serving imperialist interests, which represses workers, assassinates peasants and applies criminal methods and violence against. commun. -. ists and revolutionaries in general? Venezuela's Accién-Democratica, traitor to the cause of the masses, sworn enemy of revolution and of. communism, has had its general secretary, Paz. Galarraga; visiting Yugoslavia recently.
Perhaps the so-called "League of Yugoslav Communists" would like to have seen the APRA of Peru represented in the Conference, APRA, ally of imperialism, sold out to the native reactionary classes. Should the political: group of José Figueres, instrument of Yankee interests in Central America, have been present at the Tricontinental Conference? -
We challenge ‘the leaders of the "League of Yugoslav Commu—. +. nists" to present a concrete list of the names of anti-imperialist.. organizations which asked to participate in the Tricontinental Con-_ference and were rejected. CS
The truth is that the organizations which may be cited by the Yugoslav press spokesmen do not form part of the revolutionary camp. They are allies or servants of imperialism in one degree or another. The so-called "League. of Yugoslav Communists" tries .to. appear unaware of this. The fact is, beyond any doubt, that the —. Yugoslav leaders coincide politically in many ways with the forces allied with imperialism in Latin America. Pe
There Were No_ Communists or Socialists among the Chileans Who Left Cuba |
In making the absurd accusation that the Conference approved: a sectarian platform, the newspaper "Politika" states the following:
"The narrowed, sectarian platform of the Latin-American representatives in the Tricontinental Conference naturally produced results that. are not unanimously acceptable to all the progressive and democratic forces of the Continent." Further along in the same paragraph it affirms: "Recently, for example, the Chilean Parliamentary Delegation, which also included communists and. socialists, interrupted its visit to Havana in protest,,. expressing» in this way — its dissent from the extremist Cuban declaration.
‘The paragraph ‘gust quoted states that. communists and socialists departed. Those who are not aware of the details of this matter receive the impression that Chilean communists and socialists were opposing statements of Fidel Castro. The truth is that among those Chileans who left there was not one communist or socialist. The conmunists did not come with that delegation. One socialist was included and he -- along with Several Christian Democrats -- remained in our country.
We should clarify that the Chilean Delegation's visit had nothing to do with the Tricontinental Conference. It was a delegation. which had been invited by the Cuban Government to see at first hand the accomplishments of the Cuban Revolution. This is another example of the broad way in which we analyze the political forces of the Continent. Nobody who knows even slightly the process of our Revolution and the history of our relations with the parties, revolutionary organizations and also with institutions and persons of the most diverse tendencies, can be misled about these matters.
. The history of our revolutionary process has demonstrated to us-in a very objective way the need that exists to rally all combat— ive forces around the great revolutionary objectives.
Our policy with regard to narrow positions is known by the friends of Cuba throughout the world, and even by many of our enemies. We have been able to win friends and supporters in many sectors which have doubts and worries concerning the ideas of com-'munism: That is, in noncommunist sectors. We have won them, which. is the interesting part, by maintaining the same radically Marxist- Leninist positions and revolutionary firmness which the spokesmen of the Yugoslav press have termed "extremist."
But the entire world is also aware of the profoundly radical and revolutionary positions of the Communist Party of Cuba, which would never accept close relations -- as the Yugoslav Government is doing -~ with the military authorities and reactionaries of Indonesia, who have assassinated thousands of communists and unleashed a brutal repression against the people. Are the "illustrious," "proad-minded," and "antisectarian" Yugoslav leaders by chance up-.. set because Cuba opposed the participation of the reactionary delegation of Indonesia in the Conference, and’ supported the progressive delegation?
Yugoslavia Was Not Admitted to the Tricontinental Because Her Stand on Viet Nam Coincided with that of the Imperialists
As. we ‘stated in our February editorial, the Yugoslav press charges’ the -Tnicontinental Conference with peing sectarian in charactex because. sthe Yugoslav Organization of Solidarity was not admitted to the iGonference.
We wish to point out to the Yugoslav leaders that if the delegation from their country had been admitted, important revolutionary forces-from Asia (Viet Nam and Korea, for example) and from Latin America;.such as Guatemala, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic and Cuba, ‘would have refused to participate in the Conference. ‘In:order to widen the scope of the Conference. so that true representatives : of the forces of our continents might take part, it was necessary | to agree that the Yugoslav Organization of Solidarity not. be invited as observers.
Where does the responsibility :lie? With us, the Cubans? No,.,; gentlemen of the so-called "Leagué of Yugoslav Communists"! The ~ responsibility is yours and yours alone! A popular expression states that: "One cannot be with God and with the Devil as well." This =; applies as well -- even though you seem to have forgotten the fact. -to the struggle against imperialism. They Seek Unity in Order to Hold Back the Revolutionary Struggle _ and Placate the - imperialists
| The Tricontinental Conference ‘demonstrated the effective - “way to unite the peoples and their militant organizations. This way is the way ‘of Revolution.
The development of the revolutionary struggle in Asia,: ‘Africa and Latin America will generate a powerful mass.movement in the entire world. The socialist camp, workers, intellectuals and students in: capitalist countries, will come forward to support. the oppressed peoples, as is already being made clear in the universal repudiation of the ‘Yankee interventions in Viet Nam and the Dominican Republic. In other words, the fight for national liberation in the underdeveloped countries will stimulate new forms of revolutionary action in the entire world and will help build. wider ‘deeper and more concrete unity... oh PS
What the Yugoslav spokesmen. ‘do not understand is that in the last few years a crisis has definitively arisen in relation to certain schematic concepts of methods and forms of struggle.
In Latin America, the Cuban Revolution has hastened this crisis. To what did conformism and passivity lead? To the advance
of imperialism on this continent, to the consolidation of exploitation, and to the isolation of the revolutionary vanguard. Passivity and conformism bred only isolation and sectarianisn.
The Cuban Revolution made it very clear that energetic, deci- Sive, valiant and audacious action unites the masses, strengthens the bonds between the vanguard and the people and pushes the class struggle ahead. In this way the Cuban Revolution forged something more than a “united front." We forged a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary vanguard , around which ‘the unity and strength of all of the . people has grown:
The Yugoslav position is something very aifferent. ‘For them "the front of the masses" should be sought in an alliance of diverse “political organizations, no matter what positions these organizations hold in regard to imperialism. For us, this front of the masses can only be achieved by uniting those anti-imperialist forces which are prepared to fight against the reactionaries, oligarchic governments and imperialism itself.
We Seek Unity to Make the Revolution
They prefer to ally themselves with reactionary governments like that of Venezuela in Latin America; with the reactionary, landowning military caste in Indonesia; or-with the usurpers in Ghana in Africa. This is the tricontinental alliance which is satisfactory to the so-called "League of Yugoslav Communists."
We prefer to unite ourselves with the guerrillas of Venezuela, with the heroic patriots in Viet Nam, with the highly esteemed and steadfast communist leaders in Korea, and with those in so-called Portuguese Guinea. Citing these examples clearly illustrates the type of unity we Cuban revolutionaries desire.
There is no doubt that the type of unity that ‘interests the Communist Party of Cuba is much broader, since it represents the ‘exploited and oppressed masses of the world. The Yugoslav type of unity is with groups of corrupted politicians, with reactionaries - and conservatives. We defend the unity of the peoples, of fighters, of revolutionaries. We try to reach the masses by means of Revolu-~— tion. They attempt to oppose the revolutionary‘ movement of the masses by an alliance with the forces that capitulate and sell out to the imperialists.
At the root of all this is the fact that we seek unity - in order to fight imperialism and make the Revolution, while they seek unity in order to hold back the revolutionary struggle and placate imperialism.
This is the difference between the so-called "League of Yugoslav Communists" and the Communist Party of Cuba. The position taken by the Yugoslav leaders points the way to treason. Our Pposition points the way to Revolution.