Helsinki Conference on European Security

[p063] Helsinki, Finland, the preparatory Conference of the European Security Council is meeting, with the participation of the -US and Canada. The Stalinist bureaucracy is Participating in the conference with delegations not only from the USSR and other eastern countries, but also from the western communist parties. This conference is a con- spiracy of the Stalinists and imperialists against the work- ing class, in the whole of. Europe and worldwide. The In- ternational Committée of the Fourth International cannot help but declare its most abso- lute opposition. The Stalinists not only took the initiative on this confer- ence in order to further their counter-revolutionary co-oper- ation with the imperialists, but were also the most ardent sup- porters of participation by fascist and military dictator- ships such as that of Franco in Spain and Papadopoulos in Greece. ‘We support the participa- tion of all the European states, without exception, irrespective of the character of their re- gimes,’ said the representative of the Greek Communist ‘Party, V. Venetsanopoulos, speaking at the Conference. In expressing the policy not only of Greek, but also of in- ternational Stalinism, Venet- sanopoulos made a distinction between his position and all the ‘groups without influence’ which reject ‘peaceful co- existence of states with various social systems’. Helsinki European security conference ‘These ‘ groups,’ he said, ‘maintain that the Soviet Union and other socialist states for- get their internationalist obli- gations and maintain relations even with dictatorial regimes, like those of Greece, Spain and Portugal. That with their rela- tions towards the dictatorial regime they become a serious factor, it is said, in the dis-— illusionment of our people, they belie their hopes and ex- pectations, they create ideolo- gical and political confusion. ‘That supposedly they sub- ordinate the interests of the international movement to their own politico-military calcula- tions, and that by making opportunistic, one- sided = as- sessments, they give priority and importance only to their own state interests.’ This Stalinist found nothing to oppose all the accusations he enumerated except the arbitrary opinion that ‘these views are foreign to the vital interests of the movement’. To seek the co-operation and to promise the defence of the security of a world dominated by the monopolies, through reactionary governments, fas- cism and military dictatorships, means by itself an alignment with the counter-revolution. Under present conditions, conditions of the deepest crisis of the capitalist system, the security of this world means every kind of insecurity, savage exploitation, oppression and even physical annihilation for the working class. ‘From the time Nixon took his measures on the dollar in August 1971 and declared trade war on the competitors of the US in Eurape and - Japan, the crisis of capitalism passed to a higher stage. Stalinist treachery has escala- ted to the same degree. The decision of the Stalinist bureaucracy to proceed to a conference on security and co- operation with the imperialists RITY - constitutes a betrayal a thous- and times worse than the post- war agreements at Yalta and _. Potsdam. Then the Stalinists helped the imperialists to avoid the revolution. Now they are helping them launch the counter-revolution. - As to what the defence of ‘peace’ and ‘security’ promised ‘by the Stalinists means, we had the opportunity of seeing it, not only in their co-operation with dictatorial regimes, but also in the sell-out of the “General Strike in France in *.1968, in the intervention in Czechoslovakia, in the fierce suppression of the workers’ movement in Poland, in the _ sell-out of the Vietnamese and ‘Arab revolutions and at every point of their political activity. The Stalinist bureaucracy, in order to confront the problems created in the workers’ states by its re- actionary policy of ‘socialism ‘ina single country’, not only betrays the working class in the west, but places the revo- lutionary gains of the working class in the east in danger. The International Committee of the Fourth International declares that only one kind of peace and security can exist in Europe and in the whole world: A peace that comes through the overthrow of imperialism as well as from the overthrow of the Stalinist bureaucracy in the workers’ states. The IC calls on its partisans to confront the new Stalinist betrayals by intensifying the fight for the building of revo- lutionary parties in every country, as necessary organs for the. overthrow of capitalism and the bureaucracy and for the conquest of powcr by the working class in the coming great revolutionary struggles. International Committee of the Fourth International. February 10, 1973. aon

[p064] The International Com- mittee of the Fourth International salutes the heroic Vietnamese workers and peasants in their 26th yeai of revo- lutionary struggle. Faced with the most bar- barous repression of imperial- ism and the joint betrayals of Chinese and Soviet Stalinism, who have déprived them of the necessary weaponry and political help, the Hanoi and ~° National Liberation Front regimes have been forced to a compromise. This is the meaning of the ceasefire agreement signed on January 27. While US imperialism is determined to impose a ‘peace’ which threatens all previous conquests of the Indo-Chinese people, nevertheless the terms of the Paris agreement show that none of the major prob- lems facing the US occupiers and their Saigon lackeys have been solved. . The Paris agreement has not ended the war, but has changed the form which the civil war will take. Jf US imperialism is too weak to regain control of the south, the NLF and Hanoi conversely have been deprived of the modern arma- ments necessary to conquer. and decisively defeat the Saigon armies and the US air — 1 force. In defining this relation of forces the agreement reveals — 60 © the insoluble contradictions of the present situation in Viet- nam and makes the continua- tion of civil war inevitable. On the one hand the agree- ment implicitly recognizes the existence of 140,000 North Vietnamese troops and does not make their withdrawal a pre-condition for a ceasefire. It explicitly underwrites the decision of the US government to withdraw its troops. But these decisions are qualified and virtually annulled by contradicting clauses which make the operation of a ‘cease fire’ an impossible task. Article Three, for example, States that the ‘modalites’ for the withdrawal of US and allied troops shall be deter- mined by the four-party joint military commission—but this commission, the Agreement stipulates ‘shall operate in accordance with the principle of consultations and unani- mity’. Moreover, the commis- sion is hopefully expected to complete its job in 60 days. Article Three (b) stipulates that a two-party joint military . commission of the ‘two South Vietnamese parties shall deter- mine the areas controlled by each party. and the modalities of stationing’. Far from the commission being able to achieve even a minimum of agreement it has instead broken down ‘because of continuous fighting by ‘the NLF for control of the countryside. Dos The U% imperialists are cynically hoping to: woo, if not Statement by the International Committee of the 4th International