VUC Grads ask . . .

Why Did We Cut Loose From WFDY?

Open Letter to the Students of VUC

Our main concern, however, is with another aspect of the matter. It is quite clear from the other motions passed at the same meeting which voted the disaffiliation, but not communicated to WFDY by the Secretary of the Association, that Victoria College students have no disagreement with the aims of WFDY. We are at a loss to understand how Victoria College students, if they are conversant with the activities of the WFDY, can consider them in any way divergent from its aims.

We note that the motion was passed at a meeting which also substantially endorsed the Stockholm Appeal for the banning of the atom bomb, the collection of signatures for which is the main activity-of the WFDY at the present time.

We note that the VUCSA Executive has since written to the WFDY Secretariat in a way which seems to dissociate the student body from the Stockholm Appeal campaign. In fact, the secretary went so far as to state that as a result of the Association's modification of the Appeal. "It would, therefore, appear that my Association does not view in a favourable light the activities of the World Peace Congress."

Yet the World Peace Congress was the organisation which first issued the Stockholm Appeal for signature by all people in agreement with it. To support the Appeal without signing it seems to imply a curious notion of its value. Moreover, the modification of the Appeal carried by the Association actually anticipated the action of the World Peace Congress Committee, which has since reaffirmed its condemnation of "all weapons of mass destruction." (See appendix). The Secretary's argument is therefore without foundation.

We note that since its disaffiliation the Association has carried further motions which are in agreement with the WFDY aims and activities, namely, the calling for a full meeting of the Security Council to settle the dispute in Korea, the request for NZUSA to take action for 10 per cent. increase in all bursaries, and the condemnation of the action of the Menzies Government in introducing the Communist Party Dissolution Bill.

We note further that although the Association has not publicly justified its apparent dissociation from the aims and activities of the WFDY and World Peace Congress, the Secretary has suggested certain reasons in his letter to the WFDY. These reasons are ones on which some of us have many times expressed our views in communications to the Executive of the Association. As the Secretary has seen fit to reproduce them once more, we re-examine them in the present situation.

The Secretary alleges that "continual criticism is levelled at the methods of the western democracies in their activities concerning the future peace of the world, while no blame at all is placed on the countries of eastern Europe."

The reason for this is very simple. At a time when all the efforts of the WFDY are devoted to the Peace campaign, and in particular to the campaign for the Stockholm Appeal, it is a logical enough course to judge governments and individuals (not "democracies" or "countries") by the attitude they adopt towards this campaign. It is undeniable that Mr. Dean Acheson has publicly stated that the weapons used in a modern war are of no significance. It is undeniable that men holding important public offices in western countries have publicly declared that the Stockholm Appeal runs counter to the policy of international groups like the Atlantic Pact countries. It is undeniable that the Stockholm Appeal is banned in Spain, Yugoslavia, Colombia and Western Germany.

It is also undeniable that the Stockholm Appeal has been officially endorsed and supported in the most public and official manner possible by the governments of the Soviet Union and "eastern countries."

It is undeniable also that the peoples of the world, whether their country or government be "western" or "eastern", are signing the Stockholm Appeal in numbers that grow from hour to hour. The present figure of three hundred and seventy six million is a measure of the truth of this statement.

It is therefore understandable that the WFDY, in pursuing its campaign in support of the Stockholm Appeal, should use the Appeal as its criterion in judging the sincerity of those who proclaim their attachment to peace.

The WFDY noted that it is an "American General who has declared that the Pacific Ocean is an American moat, that it is American and British Chiefs of Staff who have established headquarters in the territory of a foreign power at Fontainebleu, that it is President Truman who brandishes the atom bomb and Sir Duff Cooper who demands its immediate use on Moscow.

The WFDY has also noted that it is Joseph Stalin and Matyas Rakosi and Mao Tse Tung who have declared that the two social systems can peaceably co-exist, and that peace is the concern of all peoples and not only of arbitrarily determined geographic blocs.

The WFDY has therefore ample justification for "continual criticism levelled at the methods of the western democracies in their activities concerning the future peace of the world while no blame at all is placed on the countries of eastern Europe." But the Secretary proceeds as follows: "In fact the reverse seems to be the case." How can the Secretary, writing to the WFDY in the name of the Association, express an opinion which the Association has never put forward as its own?

The only justification the Secretary offers for the Association's disaffiliation is therefore arbitrary, or personal to himself. The Association itself in voting to disaffiliate merely stated the fact without reference to its reasons. This point also calls for comment.

The Association has been affiliated to the WFDY since 1946, and every year during the period of affiliation its relations with the WFDY have been fully discussed at Annual or Special General Meetings. The last of these voted to disaffiliate. In view of the four years' connection with the WFDY and the repeated endorsement of its aims by Victoria College students, bluntly to state the fact of withdrawal without explanation seems a rather cavalier way of breaking relations with the WFDY. We feel that the lack of all reference to reasons in the disaffiliation motion reveals both a lack of that good faith which is the essential foundation of international relations between two such organisations and a failure to understand the importance of the issues at stake. Disaffiliation from a body whose numbers and influence make it the major international youth organisation is not a matter which can be lightly treated by either side, yet the Association's disaffiliation as it stands shows little appreciation of this point. We feel that it is the duty of members of the Association to hold a further meeting for the determination of the reasons motivating their decision. The WFDY has nothing to lose by such an action, which can only lead to the clarification of its relations with Victoria College students. The Association has everything to gain by such an action, which can only lead to greater understanding of the problems in volved in the establishment of a just and lasting peace, and of the role played by the WFDY in the campaign directed towards this end. (Signed.):

K. J. Hollyman, M.A. (Hons.), Dr. Univ. Paris. VUC representative World Peace Congress, 2nd World Youth Congress, 3rd IUS Council Meeting, N.Z. member WFDY Council.

Keith Matthews, LL.B. VUC representative 2nd World Student Congress.

A. O. McLeod, M.A., B.Sc. VUC representative 2nd World Student Congress, Vice-Pres. VUCSA 1946-48.

S. T. H. Scoones, M.A. (Hons.), Dipl. Hautes Etudes (Grenoble). VUC representative World Peace Congress and 2nd World Youth Congress.

B. J. Matthews, M.A. VUC representative 2nd World Student Congress.

Appendix

"The Defenders of Peace are resolved to pursue their campaign for the banning of Atomic weapons and they declare once more their support for a general reduction, under control, of every form of armament, the increase in which is rendering the war danger more acute and burdening the people with heavy sacrifices"—from the Appeal for the 2nd World Peace Congress, adopted by the Bureau of the World Committee of Defenders of Peace.—Signed by Joliot Curle.

"I know that in speaking against us people are saying: 'Why are you condemning only the atom bomb.'? I want to say we condemn not only the atom bomb, but war. Our name is not 'Enemies of the Atom Bomb,' but 'Defenders of Peace.'"

"We started on the atom bomb, because it is the most terrible weapon. Even badness has its different degrees and the atom bomb is worse than other weapons. Why don't we go all the way? We can't go all the way until we take the first step."

—Ilya Ehrenburg, in an address to the 2nd World Student Congress.