FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Vietnam Will Win: Epilogue

NLF Singing Group, South Vietnam, 1965. Photo Wilfred Burchett.

In the previous chapters I have dealt with what could be considered the long and infinitely difficult road to Paris. At the time of writing, the delegates to the four-party Paris Conference have been meeting for nearly four months, ostensibly to negotiate an end to the war and to seek a political solution to the problem of South Vietnam. Henry Cabot Lodge, who had served twice as U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam and was deeply committed to the military-fascist-type dictatorship which the United States installed there, replaced Harriman as head of the U.S. delegation.

During the first five and a half months before Johnson finally ordered the bombing halt that cleared the way for full-scale negotiations, it was possible to argue that the Paris discussions were useless. Almost six months after Johnson’s fable of March 31, 1968, the bombings of the North were continued more intensively than ever. There was a steady month-by-month increase in missions flown, in tons of bombs dropped and number of shells fired from 7th Fleet units prowling up and down the coast. The difference between generalized and “limited” bombing is that in the latter the bombings and naval bombardments are concentrated in a much smaller area, which is militarily more effective, as Defense Secretary Clifford has pointed out the target area is the narrow 200-mile corridor or “panhandle” leading north from the 17th parallel, through which all North-South communications pass. It is an area where more than a quarter of North Vietnam’s 17 million people live, one of the country’s most densely populated areas.

During the month of August alone, the town of Vinh, provincial capital of Nghe An – the province where Ho Chi Minh was born – was attacked 139 times within seven days. Of the province’s 426 villages, 211 were bombed during the month. In the neighboring province of Ha Tinh, 217 out of 250 villages were attacked and 83 shelled by the big guns of the 7th fleet. Many of the bombs dropped are the murderous pellet bombs designed exclusively for the human body. In Quang Binh Province, 124 out of 131 villages were attacked. The little coastal town of Dong Hoi – a major target of the first systematic raids in February 1965 – was shelled for 24 hours on end. The town and surrounding villages received 2,500 shells during the 24 hour period.

On nine occasions between August 10 and 27, there were 21 B-52 raids, totaling 140 sorties, dropping 4,000 tons of bombs on 17 villages of the Vinh Linh region, which is the northern part of Quang Tri Province, truncated by the 17th parallel. In the same period all 23 villages of Vinh Linh were heavily attacked during 670 raids, apart from those made by the B-52s with another 4,000 tons of bombs supplemented by 300 naval shellings. There has been nothing comparable to this tonnage of bombs and shells in the history of warfare. It gives the lie to Johnson’s August 19 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in which he claimed he had “halted 90 percent of the bombings…” The actual statistics of “limited bombings” are as follows:

U.S. Bombing of North Vietnam: 1968
Average Number of Daily Bombing Raids

First 3 months of 1968  before Johnson’s  March 31 “limited bombing” speech.   70 (over all North Vietnam)

April “limited bombing”  160 (over the “panhandle”)

May “limited bombing”  152 (over the “panhandle”)

June “limited bombing” 170 (over the “panhandle”)

July “limited bombing”  206 (over the “panhandle”)

August “limited bombing” 209 (over the “panhandle”)

The tonnage of bombs dropped rose in the same proportion. If the “escalation” rate slowed down somewhat in August, this was because typhoon conditions kept the carrier borne planes below hatches for almost a week. The duplicity of Johnson and total lack of sincerity which dominates his conduct of the Paris talks is illustrated by the fact that the sharpest increase in the bombings was precisely during the period that the Vietnamese had given the sign of “restraint” the American negotiators had been harping on for weeks as the signal to halt the bombings altogether and move the talks on to full-scale negotiations to end the war. Between June 21 and August 19, there was an end to rocket attacks on Saigon and a marked lull in ground activity, reflected by a falling off in U.S. casualties. Harriman had been saying publicly – and even more so privately – that Johnson needed only a “sign,” no need for anything to be said publicly or even privately, a “sign of restraint,” and bombings would be halted altogether so that full talks could start. And he said that such a lull would be taken as the “sign.”

It is common knowledge in Paris that the Harriman delegation did clearly recognize the “sign” and the less “hawkish” among them flattered themselves that they had steered the “official conversations,” as the talks are known, over the first great hurdle. They recommended a bombing halt. The word came strong and clear from diplomatic and press circles that Johnson was to announce a total bombing halt in mid-August Instead there was the August 19, “no-bombing halt” speech. The final pretext given for the start of the systematic bombing attacks in February 1965 – as noted in an earlier chapter – was that this was necessary to inject some morale into the shaky regime of Nguyen Cao Ky at the time. It was obvious that the refusal to halt the bombings, as rather brutally announced by Johnson on August 19, was for precisely the same reason. The Thieu-Ky regime would not survive the end of bombings and start of political talks, Thieu having made this clear to Johnson just a month earlier at Honolulu.

The August 19 speech came as no surprise to the Vietnamese because it was consistent with every move Johnson has made in relation to talks. When the first moves for secret Washington-Hanoi contacts were made in December 1966, Johnson’s reaction was immediately to order the first bombing raids on Hanoi. When he offered in December 1966 and January 1967 to halt all bombings if there were “any sort of a sign, public or private, official or unofficial” that Hanoi would be prepared to sit down and talk, and he got that sign on January 28, 1967, in Foreign Minister Nguyen Duy Trinh’s statement that if the bombings were halted talks could start, Johnson’s reaction was to double the bombing. When his “any time, any place” offer was taken up it turned out that “any place” did not include Phnom Penh or Warsaw.

All the various moves that have led to getting talks started and the start of the talks themselves, have been accompanied by bad faith on the part of the United States, which seems always traceable back directly to President Johnson himself. Numerous diplomatic and non diplomatic initiatives during the 18 months that preceded the start of talks in Paris were reported to the Vietnamese as coming directly from the White House itself. Hanoi’s positive response to a certain number of these initiatives has been invariably followed by violent repudiations on Johnson’s part of the assumptions on which such initiatives would be based. In Paris, Harriman’s entourage has also conducted quiet soundings, legitimate in the conduct of such delicate negotiations, that have resulted in the Vietnamese taking certain measures to facilitate the atmosphere of the talks themselves and to try to move them ahead. The invariable response by President Johnson has been the opposite to that aimed at. In refusing to halt the bombings, which he well knows is the indispensable step that must be taken to move the talks on to discussion of a political solution, President Johnson is personally responsible for the deaths and mutilation of tens of thousands of Vietnamese and Americans. At least in this affair of getting the war in Vietnam ended, he has revealed himself as a man whose words cannot be trusted on matters of the most critical international importance.

That he refused to halt the bombings and thus shorten the war, on the pretext that halting the bombings would “jeopardize” American lives, is merely to add cynicism to bad faith.

The NLF riposte to the August 19 speech was swift and shattering. They launched a series of attacks in key areas, gradually concentrating on the elite units whose job was to protect the main cities and bases. On the southern front, the U.S. 25th division based in Gia Dinh and Tay Ninh Provinces with the main task of defending Saigon was very severely mauled in a series of actions still continuing at the time of writing. The astronomic “body count” figures of “Vietcong” dead cannot hide the fact that about a quarter of the 25th Division, the equivalent of a full brigade, was put out of action – including a battalion wiped out as a unit – and a huge quantity of the division’s armor was destroyed in attacks starting August 22 against the division’s bases and outposts, and ambushes against supply convoys and armored units sent to relieve besieged positions. In the northern area, it was the American division, earmarked for the defense of Da Nang, which took heavy losses.

To understand the evolution in South Vietnam and at Paris during the first year of the Conference, one must bear in mind that by the time the Paris talks started the third stage of classical people’s war – the encirclement of the cities – had already been reached. As explained earlier,[1] the abandonment of Khe Sanh marked the withdrawal by U.S. forces into the cities and bases, protected by heavily fortified triple defense perimeters considered “impenetrable.” To get at the adversary’s combat units, the NLF now had to go after them in the cities and bases. This is the meaning of the sort of actions in and around Saigon and Da Nang in late August and September 1968 while the Paris talks were bogged down by Johnson’s demand for “reciprocity” for halting all bombings of the North.

This “reciprocity” was nothing less than a pledge from the DRV that all attacks would be halted against South Vietnam’s cities which the U.S.-Saigon Command were using as sanctuaries, just as the U.S. Strategic Air Command was using Thailand, Okinawa, Guam and other bases as attack-free sanctuaries from which to launch their B-52 raids against the South.

Naturally the DRV delegation refused to give any such pledges. An analysis of the Paris talks is beyond the scope of this book. Suffice to say that American tactics from the start were first to see if any decisive military advantage could be extracted from them. Thus Harriman’s first move – under the innocent guise of seeking a start of the implementation of the Geneva and 1962 Laos Agreements – was to demand the reconstitution of the demilitarized zone and what would amount to sealing off South Vietnam’s borders with North Vietnam and Laos. As Westmoreland had exerted considerable military effort to occupy the DMZ and failed, and as the U.S.-Saigon command from the time it was set up under General Paul Harkins in February 1962 had a major strategic aim to occupy the border areas with Laos and had failed, it was hardly likely that the DRV was going to hand these over as prizes at the conference table. Of course, there was also the offer of considerable dollar bait if the DRV delegation would renounce aid to and interest in the South. In essence the U.S. position has been to try to get the DRV to agree that the DRV can do what it likes in the North so long as the United States has a free hand to do what it likes in the South. Any perceptive analysis of the various Harriman statements can only result in this sort of conclusion.

There is a fantastic lack of reality about the tough U.S. stance at the Paris talks and the sharply deteriorating situation on the military and political front in South Vietnam. Developments in the military situation since the talks have been going on in Paris, have been analyzed in an earlier chapter. The trend of withdrawal for the defense of the cities which started with the abandonment of Khe Sanh has continued. The abandonment of the McNamara Line which I first reported in the August 24 issue of the Guardian was confirmed by a marine spokesman to a UPI correspondent on September 11. “Plans for the McNamara Line… have all but been abandoned, U.S. Marine sources said today….”[2] As with the abandonment of Khe Sanh, the story was tucked away in the inside pages of most papers. Major U.S. bases are now under very serious threat of being overrun and further “deactivations” will be inevitable in the months to come.

As the NLF encircling grip on the cities daily becomes tighter and the shock troops allotted to the defense of the cities are being seriously whittled away by unrelenting NLF attacks and harassment, the role of the newly formed Alliance of National Democratic and Peace Forces becomes more evident. The Alliance is independent of the NLF but is closely supported by the latter and the two are pledged to undertake “JOWL activities” aimed at overthrowing the Saigon puppet regime and securing the withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign troops. The Alliance draws its support essentially from the urban middle class and intellectuals. It reaches into sections of the population which the NLF only marginally reached. The NLF also has its clandestine organizations in the cities, mainly among the workers and students. The Alliance fulfills an important role of liaison with patriotic elements within the Saigon administration and armed forces. Only ten members of the Alliance’s 40-member Central Committee have been named. The others, for security reasons, remain clandestine, but it is widely known that they include high ranking members of the Saigon army and administration. And this holds out rich prospects for the future, as the army sees that prospects for a U.S. military defeat are very real and the very fact of the Paris talks has provoked an exceedingly strong smell of an American “sellout” No one wants to stay with the losing side beyond the point of no return.

Thieu and Ky are increasingly isolated even in their own milieu and this is the reason why in mid September they sent an emissary to Bangkok to request “Big Minh” (General Duong Van Minh) to return from exile. “Big Minh” had organized the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem and headed the short lived triumvirate that replaced the Ngo Dinh brothers. But he was suspected by the U.S. command of having “neutralist” leanings, so he was deposed by the leading U.S. favorite at the time, “strong man” Nguyen Khanh, and exiled to Thailand. Nguyen Khanh lumped “neutralism” together with “communism” as one of the two deadliest sins punishable by death if culprits were found espousing its cause. A limited amount of prestige stuck to “Big Minh” because of his role in deposing and killing the hated Ngo Dinh brothers and because of his suspected “neutralist” leanings. Thieu and Ky – previously his bitterest enemies – would now like to have “Big Minh” at their sides for respectability’s sake, one more indication of the political degeneration in Saigon. Another indication is the flight of the “elite”. First the dollars go, then the wives and children, then the heads of families – all those who can pay a few thousand dollars for passports and exit visas. For a son of military age the price is usually doubled, with part of it all ending up in the pockets of Thieu and Ky, that is, in their bank accounts abroad. France and Australia are the favorite holes for well-heeled Saigon rats. The Paris talks have been an important yeast-like element in the Saigon ferment and if they really move on to the next phase aimed at a political settlement in South Vietnam based on the Geneva Agreements, then the ferment could predictably erupt into a volcano.

The Paris talks proved to be an important yeast-like element in the Saigon ferment, especially after the bombing halt, when the NLF delegation arrived to take its place in the quadripartite talks and was accorded full diplomatic honors by the French government. As explained earlier, the talks that were due to begin November 6, 1968 only got underway on January 25, 1969, because of the stalling tactics of the Saigon regime backed by Pentagon “hawks” and Ambassador Bunker in Saigon.

The U.S. delegation tried hard to pretend that there had been some “understandings,” some “tacit agreements” in exchange for the bombing halt. But the DRV delegation strenuously denied this.

Shortly after the NLF launched its “spring offensive” on the night of 22-23 February, Cabot lodge started to claim these were violations of “understandings which had been made clear to the other side.” Correspondents at the Conference press briefings tried to discover what kind of an “understanding” it was that had to be made “clear to the other side.” However this was something which U.S. press officer Harold Kaplan (who had replaced William Jorden in the Cabot Lodge delegation) found it impossible to explain.

In the four-party talks, the DRV and NLF delegations have made it abundantly clear that a final settlement can only be brought about by the United States sitting down to “direct and serious negotiations” with the NLF, for a settlement based on the complete withdrawal of U.S. and satellite troops from South Vietnam. Many of Vietnam’s well-wishers marvel at the patience of the DRV and NLF delegates in Paris, faced with the lack of sincerity and plain deceit and treachery which has been the U.S.-Saigon response to their various efforts to show goodwill.

It will suffice to give a few examples of this treachery. B-52 bombing raids were vastly stepped up over the whole of Vietnam after Johnson’s “limited bombing” order of March 31, 1968. During 1967, there were 1,164 B-52 raids by flights of 3 to 12 planes over Vietnam. In 1968 there were 3,172, with the monthly total jumping up after the March 31 speech and escalating still more after the October 31 decision to halt all bombings in the North and start the 4-party talks. While Harriman was demanding that the NLF halt its attacks against the cities, the number of B-52 raids in the immediate vicinity of Saigon increased from 928 in 1967, to 3,022 in 1968 and the monthly average continued to grow steadily during the first three months of 1969. (It may be noted that a single flight of three B-52’s drops 100 tons of bombs and that there are densely populated villages on the outskirts of Saigon that are being bombed.)

From a period some weeks before the October 31 bombing halt, at a time when Harriman was demanding a “lowering of hostilities,” a “reduction of combat contacts,” etc., until February 22, 1969, the NLF virtually halted all combat initiatives, quite clearly to provide a favorable atmosphere for the Paris Conference.

What was the U.S. response to this “restraint” for which Harriman had pleaded so eloquently?

This question is answered in an extract from an article by the Saigon correspondent of the N.Y. Times, Terence Smith, who wrote in the March 24, 1969 Times:

“As a result of a shift in ground tactics… the rate of contacts – that is the number of times an American unit lured an enemy force into battle – jumped dramatically. By February, the rate of contacts had increased 100 percent from the days before the bombing halt…” And as to how this was made possible, Smith continues:

“The pullback of enemy troops from the cities and towns, particularly in the northern and central parts of South Vietnam, in the late summer and fall of last year permitted the allied troops to spread out and assume a more vigorous role…”

In other words the United States exploited militarily the “restraint” by the NLF which Harriman had argued would be most conducive to progress at the peace talks. Incidentally, in the same article, Smith quotes an embarrassed Harriman as stating that “the enemy offensive was preceded by a sharp increase in American-initiated ground activity… essentially a response to U.S. actions, rather than a deliberate move to affect the peace talks…”

The “spring offensive” would not have been necessary had the U.S. delegation in Paris shown any signs of wanting serious negotiations, or had U.S. policy-makers in Washington shown any signs of understanding the real situation in South Vietnam. The “spring offensive” was necessary to emphasize and bring home the reality of the defeat of the US.-Saigon forces. Even Henry Kissinger, now President Nixon’s chief foreign policy adviser, writing in the January 1969 Foreign Affairs, has noted that for the United States not to win a war of this type was to lose it, whereas for the NLF, not to lose was to win. But the Pentagon’s hawks and its “spokesmen” like Joseph Alsop had the NLF defeated once again, until the beginning of the “spring offensive,” and similar attitudes comprised the negotiating position of Cabot Lodge in Paris. The “spring offensive” knocked all this fantasy on the head and was probably directly responsible for Nixon’s eight-point peace plan, announced on May 14.

Although the same degree of surprise as in the 1968 Têt offensive was not possible, the U.S. did not know in advance either the day or hour of the simultaneous NLF attacks against 140 bases in February 1969. They were also taken by surprise at the targets hit. The most heavily defended headquarters and bases were hit during the first minutes and hours. General Abrams had concentrated 400,000 troops for the defense of the Saigon area, but some of the heaviest blows fell well within its defense perimeter – in the biggest logistics division. The famous Air Cavalry division, withdrawn from the northern front for the defense of Saigon and stationed in the Tay Ninh area, was forced to “shorten its defense perimeter” – a classic formula for disguising retreat. These elite divisions, together with the U.S. 1st Infantry division suffered very heavy casualties. Heavy losses were also inflicted on specialized units, helicopters and armored vehicles.

Abrams was further caught off guard by NLF tactics. This time the NLF attacked with smaller but infinitely better equipped units. The “spoiling operations” and massive use of B-52’s against supposed “Vietcong staging areas” and “concentrations” proved to have been useless. The NLF could strike when and where it liked, making the enclave theory of U.S. troops holding out indefinitely in selected bases hopelessly outmoded.

If the Têt offensive dealt a death blow to Westmoreland’s “search and destroy” strategy, the “spring offensive” dealt a deathblow to Abram’s “clear and hold” strategy. And if the massive use of helicopters added a new factor – high mobility – to counter-guerrilla warfare , the NLF’s big rockets introduced a new factor also. Defense perimeters, minefields, electronic detectors made little sense when the rockets could fly overhead straight to their targets.

 

The “spring offensive” showed that the relation of forces had continued to change dramatically in favor of the NLF and it had gone far enough to be an irreversible process, notwithstanding “Alsop’s Fables” and “captured enemy documents.” However, I still believe that had it not been for U.S. double-dealing in response to NLF restraint the “spring offensive” would never have been launched.

Another example of U.S. double-dealing is on the question of “self-determination” for the South Vietnamese people, a term used over and over again by Harriman and repeated by Lodge. The CIA inaugurated its “Phoenix Plan,” aiming to liquidate 85,000 “VCI’s” – Vietcong infrastructure – in CIA jargon, after the Paris talks started. According to lists drawn up by the CIA and its Saigon counterpart there are 85,000 NLF cadres from members of the Central Committee down to humble villagers who look after matters like public health and education at a hamlet level. They are all marked down for summary execution, usually by specially trained commando groups. “Phoenix Plan” organs have been established at the central, zonal, provincial and district levels, each with U.S. advisers attached. The 1969 plan calls for physical liquidation of 33,000 “VCI’s” and the present rate of assassination is said by high U.S. officials in Saigon to be running at 500 per month.

In case any agreement emerges from the Paris talks, the U.S.-Saigon command fondly hopes it will have no NLF problem to worry about. The murder gangs will have solved the political future of South Vietnam. What they have overlooked is that for every NLF cadre killed there are ten ready to take his or her place.

For the DRV and NLF negotiators, the Paris talks represent another dimension of the greatest struggle waged by the Vietnamese people in their long history. The struggle in the arena of diplomacy and public opinion in Paris, the military struggle to defend the North against U.S. air and naval forces and the military-political struggle led by the NLF in the South, are all part of an integral whole. Xuan Thuy who heads the DRV delegation and Tran Buu Kiem, who then headed that of the NLF in Paris, have repeatedly stated that if the United States wants a peaceful solution, the Vietnamese are ready to negotiate in good faith. But if the United States wants to continue the war, the Vietnamese – north and south of the l7th parallel – are prepared for that, for as long as necessary.

I believe the Vietnamese leaders see that the Paris talks, backed up by their strong position in the field, could bring them to the end of that long and difficult road to complete national independence and the final end of a century of foreign aggression and occupation by western powers. At home the Vietnamese people are fighting a titanic, unequal battle for the life of their nation, their suffering and heroism largely unknown to the outside world. In Paris, the Vietnamese delegations fight on another level, but in full view of the eyes and ears of the whole world. The fact that the United States had to come to Paris to do diplomatic battle on more or less equal terms with the victim of their aggression, is a matter of historic significance. It is unprecedented. This, and the valiant fight of the Vietnamese people that made the Paris talks possible, is a source of inspiration for the oppressed throughout the world. Whether the Paris talks will eventually mark the end of this long struggle remains to be seen, but the DRV and NLF negotiators are far too responsible towards their people and world public opinion to leave any stone unturned to bring this about. And it is in this context that one must view the 10-point peace plan, submitted by Tran Buu Kiem at the 16th plenary session of the Paris Conference, on May 8, 1969.[3]

The 10-point plan represented a maximum effort by the NLF to bring about the degree of unity and national reconciliation essential to bring the war to an end and “escort” the United States out of South Vietnam with whatever “honor” could be salvaged from such a disastrous and inglorious enterprise. The plan also provides for the maximum guarantees of true self determination, not the spurious variety being peddled by Cabot Lodge in Paris. The main stress was put on the need to settle the problems of South Vietnam by the South Vietnamese themselves, as a “family matter” as one NLF delegate expressed it to me.

The NLF was ready to sit down with those representing the most diverse political and social tendencies, as long as they subscribed to peace with independence and neutrality for South Vietnam, to obtain agreement on the composition of a provisional, coalition government. A responsible member of the NLF delegation told me that the NLF would take part in such discussions without any fixed formula and would not force its views on the participants nor demand any set proportion of seats in the future government.

In my first meeting with President Nguyen Huu Tho, he stressed that the NLF did not demand any exclusive position for itself and did not demand a monopoly in settling the problems of South Vietnam. The NLF was pioneering, coordinating, organizing a resistance struggle to acquire true independence for Vietnam, without which real peace was inconceivable. This is the position today, in the moment of victory. National interests sometimes take precedence over class interests. The 10-point plan is also in full agreement with deposition of the Peoples’ Revolutionary Party as described in Chapter 13.

In my discussions with NLF delegation members after the 10-point plan was put forward, the importance of neutrality was emphasized by them. “Neutrality is an objective need of our situation,” one member stated. “It gives us the best conditions for consolidating our independence and reconstructing the country. Maybe some will say it is a propaganda trick, that once the United States withdraws the floodgates will be opened to communism, they think. But if one is a realist and reflects for a moment, he can see that neutrality is an objective need for a people that wants to consolidate its independence, to reconstruct a war-torn country and live on the best possible terms with its neighbors. We want real neutrality in the most practical sense of the term. Not just in a formal sense but in a very real sense. There will be no a adherence to any blocs. We will not accept the protection of any country…”

All this reflects the fact that the NLF leaders are highly conscious of their historic role, their responsibilities towards future generations of Vietnamese who will live in a country genuinely free and independent, not only because of the exceptional heroism of those that fought to make this possible, but because of the exceptional wisdom and realism of those that directed this struggle.

This was more evident than ever with the formation on June 8, 1969 of the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG), an event of great historic importance. Organized from elements of the NLF and the Alliance of National, Democratic and Peace Forces, the PRG now takes over the NLF administration within South Vietnam and diplomatic representation abroad. Elements of the PRG will later be joined with representatives of other patriotic forces to form a Provisional Coalition Government which will hold genuinely democratic elections for a new National Assembly.

The PRG’s twelve-point program (see Appendix) reflects a blend of moderation and realism that has marked every step of the development of NLF strategy and tactics. The NLF will continue to bear the brunt of the struggle by retaining its role of organizer and leader of the resistance struggle. But it also shows its willingness to share power with all who accept the minimum requirements of peace with independence and neutrality. Heading the new government, which was promptly recognized by all socialist states and many “Third World” countries, is Huynh Tan Phat, the Saigon architect who is secretary general of the NLF Central Committee and chairman of the NLF Saigon Gia Dinh Organization. Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, former deputy head of the NLFs delegation to the Paris talks, who made a deep impression on the entire press corps because of her intelligence, capability and dignified charm, was named foreign minister and head of the NLF delegation in Paris. Tran Bun Kiem returned to the PRG’s jungle headquarters as minister without portfolio and is certain to have an important post in any future coalition government.

The PRG has taken over the NLF flag and the slogans of a South Vietnam independent, democratic, peaceful, neutral and prosperous. The PRG was founded at a three-day Congress of People’s Representatives between June 6 and 8, in which 88 delegates from the NLF and the Alliance took part, and with 72 guests from other organizations also present.

During their long history, the Vietnamese have, in defense of their homeland, defeated the greatest invading armies of the past. They defeated the armies of the great Mongolian empire. They defeated armies led by some of the most skillful Chinese feudal generals. In modern times they carried out a successful nationwide revolution while under Japanese occupation at the end of World War II. They defeated the French and they dealt a death blow to French colonialism from which France never recovered. (Inspired by the successful Vietminh resistance, the Algerian people rose up in their turn and gave French colonialism the coup de grâce.) It might appear that in standing up singlehandedly against the United States, the mightiest of all the imperialisms, history has imposed too great a task upon the Vietnamese people. But here again they are acquitting themselves in a way that has aroused the admiration of mankind.

The Vietnamese people have the blood of victory in their veins, but as victors in struggles to defend their own patrimony, their own homes and villages, their own temples and ancestors’ tombs. They could perhaps be annihilated if the ultimate madness comes over Nixon and he orders the use of nuclear weapons, but they will never be defeated. They like to compare themselves to bamboo, which is very tough, but very flexible. These are the qualities they display in the highest degree on the battlefields of Vietnam and at the Paris conference table.

Notes.

[1] Chapter 7.

[2] International Herald Tribune (Paris), September 12, 1968.

[3] The full text of the 10-point plan is published as an Appendix.

More articles by:

Wilfred Burchett was an Australian journalist, who covered World War II, the Korean War and the war in Vietnam. His many books include Shadows of Hiroshima, Memoirs of a Rebel Journalist and Vietnam Will Win. Burchett died in 1983.

Weekend Edition
November 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jonah Raskin
A California Jew in a Time of Anti-Semitism
Andrew Levine
Whither the Melting Pot?
Joshua Frank
Climate Change and Wildfires: The New Western Travesty
Nick Pemberton
The Revolution’s Here, Please Excuse Me While I Laugh
T.J. Coles
Israel Cannot Use Violent Self-Defense While Occupying Gaza
Rob Urie
Nuclear Weapons are a Nightmare Made in America
Paul Street
Barack von Obamenburg, Herr Donald, and Big Capitalist Hypocrisy: On How Fascism Happens
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fire is Sweeping Our Very Streets Today
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s New President, Other European Fools and the Abyss 
Pete Dolack
“Winners” in Amazon Sweepstakes Sure to be the Losers
Richard Eskow
Amazon, Go Home! Billions for Working People, But Not One Cent For Tribute
Ramzy Baroud
In Breach of Human Rights, Netanyahu Supports the Death Penalty against Palestinians
Brian Terrell
Ending the War in Yemen- Congressional Resolution is Not Enough!
John Laforge
Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site
Ralph Nader
The War Over Words: Republicans Easily Defeat the Democrats
M. G. Piety
Reading Plato in the Time of the Oligarchs
Rafael Correa
Ecuador’s Soft Coup and Political Persecution
Brian Cloughley
Aid Projects Can Work, But Not “Head-Smacking Stupid Ones”
David Swanson
A Tale of Two Marines
Robert Fantina
Democrats and the Mid-Term Elections
Joseph Flatley
The Fascist Creep: How Conspiracy Theories and an Unhinged President Created an Anti-Semitic Terrorist
Joseph Natoli
Twitter: Fast Track to the Id
William Hawes
Baselines for Activism: Brecht’s Stance, the New Science, and Planting Seeds
Bob Wing
Toward Racial Justice and a Third Reconstruction
Ron Jacobs
Hunter S. Thompson: Chronicling the Republic’s Fall
Oscar Gonzalez
Stan Lee and a Barrio Kid
Jack Rasmus
Election 2018 and the Unraveling of America
Sam Pizzigati
The Democrats Won Big, But Will They Go Bold?
Yves Engler
Canada and Saudi Arabia: Friends or Enemies?
Cesar Chelala
Can El Paso be a Model for Healing?
Mike Ferner
The Tragically Misnamed Paris Peace Conference
Barry Lando
Trump’s Enablers: Appalling Parallels
Ariel Dorfman
The Boy Who Taught Me About War and Peace
Binoy Kampmark
The Disgruntled Former Prime Minister
Faisal Khan
Is Dubai Really a Destination of Choice?
Arnold August
The Importance of Néstor García Iturbe, Cuban Intellectual
James Munson
An Indecisive War To End All Wars, I Mean the Midterm Elections
Nyla Ali Khan
Women as Repositories of Communal Values and Cultural Traditions
Dan Bacher
Judge Orders Moratorium on Offshore Fracking in Federal Waters off California
Christopher Brauchli
When Depravity Wins
Robby Sherwin
Here’s an Idea
Susan Block
Cucks, Cuckolding and Campaign Management
Louis Proyect
The Mafia and the Class Struggle (Part Two)
David Yearsley
Smoke on the Water: Jazz in San Francisco
Elliot Sperber
All of Those Bezos
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail