RALLY AGAINST DEAN RUSK -- WHAT IT REVEALED
By Joseph Hansen
The reception given to U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk by antiwar demonstrators in New York November 14 is being carefully assessed by all political tendencies; and rightly so. The demonstration provided a fresh gauge of the scope of the domestic opposition to the war in Vietnam and the speed with which it is developing. The outcome, particularly the violence of the police, provided some lessons well worth considering by the antiwar movement.
The demonstration was organized on very short notice, since the information that Rusk was to address a dinner of the Foreign Policy Association was handled much like a state secret.
The Fifth Avenue Vietnam Peace Pa~ rade Committee nonetheless decided to counter Rusk's projected campaign speech for Johnson by organizing a picket line in front of the New York Hilton hotel where the dinner was to be held.
The Students for a Democratic Society, a campus organization that has taken somewhat of a back seat in recent demonstrations, mobilized energetically in support of the action.
In view of the success of the huge April 15 antiwar demonstrations in New York and San Francisco and the dramatic October 21 march on Washington, the sponsors of the protest action expected a good turnout and prepared accordingly.
But even their expectations fell far short of the reality. Not less than 10,000 persons showed up, most of them coming up out of the subway entrances in and around Times Square, which is not far from the luxurious Hilton hotel where the mink~and-diamonds crowd were to hear Rusk.
Veterans of the antiwar movement -- this category already exists -- noted once more something that began happening on a large scale at the April 15 rallies in both New York and San Francisco. A big proportion of those who responded to the call were very young and this was the first time in their lives that they had participated in an action of this kind.
The veterans welcomed the sight of the new levy of antiwar protesters. But the truth was they had expected it. They had learned from the experience of recent months that this development was quite likely. This expectation was one of the factors that had countered any feeling of letdown after the exhausting work of organizing the October 21 action in Washington. Skeptical voices questioning the efficacy of demonstrations were hard to find after that success. Previously they had been loud, even after the April 15 rallies, serving to dampen enthusiasn.
It was evident early in the evening that the protest against Rusk and his defense of the war in Vietnam was a huge success. The size and composition of the demonstration showed how the mood of opposition in the American public had deepened and quickened even in the few weeks since October 21.
The proof would have been clear for the whole world to see had all the pickets been able to assemble peaceably in front of the New York Hilton to chant their slogans, display their banners and engage in such publicity measures as is customary in the U.S. in demonstrations of this kind.
The crowd, assembled under the central slogan of "Support Our GI's; Bring Them Home Now!" by its sheer size would have served to give fresh impetus to similar demonstrations elsewhere, helping to bring closer the day when the American working class with all its mighty power enters into action on this front.
The most consistent activists in the antiwar movement made it their goal from the very beginning of the escalation of the war in Vietnam to bring ever wider layers of the population into action, seeking to extend participation from the students, who were the first to assail U.S. aggression in Vietnam, to the black liberation movement, the trade unions and the working class as a whole. They have doggedly sought to avoid dissipating the force of the opposition in adventures, factional publicity gimmicks, provocations, or diversions into the
morass of trying to "pressure" the Democratic party "from within."
As against this line, a wide assortment, extending from partisans of the Democratic party to ultraleftists, have advanced a gamut of alternatives. The powers that be, naturally, have not been disinterested spectators of this, as was graphically shown by the conduct of the police at the anti-Rusk protest action.
The sponsors of the demonstration had complied with all the legal requirements and obtained a permit to assemble in accordance with the democratic rights that presumably obtain in the U.S. The place of assembly was designated as opposite the New York Hilton hotel.
The police violated the specifications. When merely the first contingents had arrived, the police closed off all the normal entrances to the designated area, putting up barricades. They manned these with hundreds of cops who turned away the people arriving in droves to join in the chorus of protest.
This, of course, served to cut down the number of protesters who were in the picket line at the hotel and gave a plausible basis for the newspaper reports that the crowd numbered only 3,000. (A figure of 3,000 is, however, still very impressive, considering how little time was available to organize the action.)
But it also served to anger those who were turned back in this way. They felt that their right to demonstrate was being violated by the police. Many of them formed in knots and clusters and sought to reach the assembly point.
The New York police, however, are thoroughly trained in the art of chopping up and dissipating crowds until they can reduce them down to groups which contingents of cops can tackle with their clubs and other weapons. Cutting a crowd into sectors and separating the sectors is one of the main jobs of the mounted police, their horses being trained for this work.
A further complication was the activities of ultraleftists who conducted themselves as if physical combat with the police at all times and places is not only highly desirable but the very essence of a revolutionary attitude.
No doubt the police themselves, as is universal with them in all countries, had provocateurs at work. In case, they reacted to certain incidents as if they had been expecting them and had been briefed on what to do.
Violence flared and the violence grew worse as the police managed to cut the protesters into smaller and smaller groups and push them away from the hotel.
One of the remarkable aspects of the struggle, nonetheless, was the way young protesters stood up in face of the police assault. Some forty-six arrests were made. Five policemen were injured. The number of civilians injured was not reported or estimated by the press, an understandable oversight in view of their desire to picture the cops as innocent victims.
More than 1,000 police were mobilized around the New York Hilton to prevent any of the protesters from getting inside where Rusk was speaking. Hundreds of other cops were deployed in the area as if it were a battlefield. A high police officer told The New York Times that "security" precautions were "equal to those given the President."
And Rusk conducted himself like the President. He was slipped into the Hilton well in advance of the dinner. To avoid being seen, he was taken through the garage entrance. He gave his speech (in defense of Johnson's war in Vietnan, of course) and then slipped away like the proverbial thief in the night.
Little attention was paid to his speech by anyone, even the most ardent hawks, since everyone knew he would give the same speech he has been giving since Johnson first escalated the war.
But a great deal of attention was paid to the demonstration in the streets, what it meant and how it might affect the development of the antiwar movement.
The capitalist papers, naturally, pictured the cops as models of restraint and blamed the demonstrators for the fighting that occurred. The New York Times even lectured the leaders of the Fifth Avenue Vietnam Peace Parade Committee and the Students for a Democratic Society, saying that they shared "a heavy responsibility for a disgraceful episode..."
The attempts of the police and the capitalist press to cut down, belittle and smear the reception given to Dean Rusk in New York will hardly achieve its purpose, however.
The demonstration provided fresh and dramatic evidence of the fact that the steep decline in Johnson's political standing is being matched by an equally steep rise in popular opposition to the war in Vietnam.
The enormous publicity given to the demonstration by the newspapers, TV and radio constituted indirect recognition of its true meaning.
And that is how it will be judged throughout the country, particularly among those concerned about mobilizing this opposition into a force powerful enough to actually bring an immediate end to American intervention in the internal affairs of the Vietnamese people.
THE