Students at this university will have to decide, over the next few days, how they can most effectively express their opposition to the Indochina war and New Zealand's support for the American war effort.

On July 14 a nationwide antiwar mobilisation will take place, similar in character to those on April 30 and July 30 last year.

The question before the Victoria Students Association is posed because of a split in the main Wellington antiwar movement between those calling for support to the July 14 national antiwar campaign around an Out Now perspective; and those who want the students association to support instead a demonstration on July 14 calling for explicit support for the armed, struggle of the North Vietnamese and National Liberation Front.

Why out Now?

While the conference took the view that any placards with other demands should of course be allowed on the demonstrations, it clearly rejected proposals to include any other 'demands' as basic, central demands for the mobilisation than those above.

Out now, then, clearly is not just "NZ troops out now". It means: US out altogether/No NZ support of any kind for the US war effort. It is the job of the antiwar movement to convince those who opposed NZ troops being in Vietnam but who now think that NZ has withdrawn totally, that in fact the NZ government is still in support of the war. Apart from the fact that a token NZ military force remains in South Vietnam (NZ never had more than a token force there anyway), the Prime Minister's latest statements show where he stands. Marshall called Nixon's blockade of North Vietnamese ports a "bold new plan to end the war" which had New Zealand's understanding and support". The mobilisation must show the NZ people, the government and the world that Marshall is telling lies.

Out Now is called for by the situation in Indochina itself. The cause for the war is the insistence of the United States on its right to put down by any means it sees fit, at whatever cost in human lives (as long as it is Asian lives) rebellions against United States domination. If the United States withdrew totally, the war would end tomorrow, and the liberation forces would take power.

Out Now is a demand of the NZ and US governments. The more people that come out on the streets to make this demand, the harder it is for the government to override the antiwar movement. The reason Nixon made election promises about having "secret plans" to end the war, the reason he has been forced to withdraw most of the US ground troops, is the swelling antiwar sentiment in the US arid internationally. This sentiment has been shown in mass demonstrations held periodically in the USA and other countries, including New Zealand. Only the continuation and spreading of this mass movement can force the war- makers to back down.

Out Now is something that tens of thousands of New Zealanders can relate to: 35,000 marched on two occasions last year. Probably a majority of New Zealanders are now against the war; the antiwar movement must do everything in its power to bring these people into active opposition to the war. Mass mobilisations calling for immediate and total withdrawal from Indochina have proved to be the best vehicle for doing this.

What is Wrong with "Victory to the NLF"?

Firstly, "Victory to the NLF" is not a demand. It is merely an expression of sympathy for the liberation forces in Vietnam.

Secondly, to have "Victory to the NLF" as a central demand cuts out all those who do not necessarily give explicit support to any group in Indochina, but who will march for a total US and NZ withdrawal. Most New Zealanders support the principle of self-determination of nations - that the Indochinese people alone should determine their own affairs. Even Nixon and Marshall are forced to give lip-service to this principle. However the NLF" cuts right across the central focus of "For self-determination" US get out now!" and allows the government and news media to get away with attacks on the antiwar movement for being just a pro-Communist movement. The antiwar movement involves far more than the pro-Communists in New Zealand; in fact the conscious radicals are only a tiny fraction of the antiwar movement.

"Victory to the NLF" has the effect of reducing the antiwar movement down to only those who support the NLF. In fact it reduces the power of the antiwar movement, and is the sort of thing that enables Nixon and the like to get away with talk about the "silent Majority" being pro-war.

What do the Vietnamese Want?

The Vietnamese liberation forces themselves have made it plain what they want New Zealanders to support: they want continuation and spreading of anti-war actions against our government. This is precisely what the mobilisations represent.

The message from North Vietnam to last year's National Anti-war Conference read: " .....Now when the U.S. openly expands and intensifies its war of aggression against the Indochinese peoples, we hope your conference will contribute to world public opinion demanding the U.S. stop its aggression, withdraw all American and allied troops from Indochina and let the lndochinese peoples settle their own affairs without foreign interference."

If, in order to appear super-radical, the anti-war movement reduces itself to just the radicals, it will be betraying the needs of the Vietnamese liberation forces themselves.

It is obviously very important that every single student who opposes the war — and thousands of Victoria students took part in last year's mobilisations — come out and vote to support the July 14 mobilisation in the student referendum. This means supporting the Out now demands of the mobilisation, which are being supported by the July 14 Mobilisation Committee. This committee is recognised nationally as the body organising the Mobilisation in Wellington and is handling the distribution of leaflets, buttons and posters for July 14.

—George Fyson

The idea of holding mass mobilisations against the war in Indochina is to put pressure on governments to end their participation in the war, and to express public opposition to it. Mass mobilisations and demonstrations have had a definite influence on U.S. government policy and Nixon's troop withdrawals. However Nixon's 'Vietnamisation' policy was influenced at the outset as much by the disintegration of U.S. ground troops (e.g. 'fragging', drug addiction etc) and the inflationary effects of the war at home.

Although the Socialist Action League would like to think differently, the New Zealand mass mobilisations last year did not force Holyoake to withdraw. N.Z. withdrawal, like the change in U.S. policy from fighting on the ground to air and naval action, was part of the 'Vietnamisation' policy.

What is the Aim of the Antiwar Movement?

The reason why we march is not, I think, because we hope our government or the U.S. government will be influenced by us very much. As most people know, governments do not decide policies on the basis of majority opinion. Governments listen to people who can exert direct influence on government policies which is sufficiently powerful to make governments listen to them. The obvious example of this sort of pressure group for N.Z. is the U.S. government.

By marching in large demonstrations we are showing solidarity with the people opposing the U.S. government's genocidal policies in Vietnam. In a very important sense we are transcending the limits of our national boundaries and declaring ourselves with the victims of western attempts to impose 'democracy' on Asian people.

'But the government and media will attack us if we support the victory of the Indochinese People', they say. Of course the government and media will try to smear anyone as a Communist if it can. At the start of the war for New Zealand in 1965 Holyoake smeared every opponent of the war, even the Labour Party, as pro-communist. If the antiwar movement is scared of expressing its true feelings, it is unworthy of the people it is supposed to be trying to help. The Vietnamese have been fighting for over twenty-five years for the right to determine their own affairs, and some of us who oppose the war, in New Zealand are too scared of the government and the media to express our support for their struggle.

Labour Party Tactics

People like the leaders of the 'Socialist' Action League who oppose public expression of support for the victory of the Indobhinese Peoples are in fact using a very old Labour Party argument. For years the Labour Party has reduced its differences with the government to the lowest possible level so that it would not alienate anyone. Of course the voters' answer to this trick is to say "There's no difference between the parties" and plump for the status quo. Likewise the S.A.L. and its "July 14 Mobilisation Committee' want to reduce the antiwar movement's public policies to the lowest possible level for fear of alienating people. The S.A.L. either thinks that people are too stupid to understand their case or they are so unconvinced of it themselves that they have to reduce it to the lowest possible level.

National Anti-War Conference — Organisation or Direction?

Of course this conference's decisions are not binding on N.Z. groups but it is interesting to see the expression of majority opinion from a conference attended by 1,200 delegates from 80 countries.

Why Support for the Victory of the Indochinese Peoples?

Public support for the victory of the Indochinese peoples is not just an expression of solidarity, glibly and easily stated. Public support for the victory of the Indochinese peoples means in fact striking closer to the guts of the issue for New Zealanders. An important underlying part of New Zealand support for foreign wars against Asians is widespread paranoia about the 'Yellow Peril' and communism. To stand up and state support for the Indochinese People's struggle is to show solidarity with them and strike at the heart of that paranoia. Many New Zealanders will not oppose the war until they can be convinced that the Vietnamese are not hydra-headed monsters hell-bent on Port Nicholson. The Antiwar movement must argue publicly that the Indochinese Peoples are fighting for the same sort of things N.Z.ers fought for in the past: they are fighting to give their children a better life in a country free from foreign domination.

What do the Vietnamese Want from us?

Thus the C.O.V.'s decision to support the 7 point plan is fully in line with requests from the Vietnamese themselves. Madame Binh has also made this requeston several occasions.

The Cov does more than March

The Wellington Committee on Vietnam has lasted for 7 years despite occasional factionalism, such as that produced by the Socialist Action League ten days ago. The C.O.V.'s activities are not just focused on marches and mobilisations. The Committee is about to begin a large-scale campaign to raise funds for medical aid for the Vietnamese people. By hiring out the film 'The Year of the Pig' to schools the C.O.V. is helping in educating people about the nature of American policy in Vietnam since the 1940's.

Support the Committee on Vietnam!!

Students will have a large say in resolving the factionalsim of the Socialist Action League with democratically made decisions at the C.O.V. The C.O.V.'s plans for the mobilisation are not restrictive - in fact they are in line with Students Association policy at this year's Annual General Meeting and recently decided NZUSA policy. Far from being isolated the Committee on Vietnam has received support from the Wellington Trades Council. Talk of the 'July 14 Mobilisation Committee' as the nationally recognised organisation in Wellington is just bullshit. The Auckland Mobilisation Committee is no more representative of national views than the C.O.V. It seems that the only group which bestows national recognition (on its own organisations) is the Socialist Action League.

The important thing in this current factional debate between supporters of the Socialist Action League and supporters of the Committee on Vietnam is not whether one side has a more 'growth-oriented' movement than the other. Nor is it very important that badges and publicity material ordered from Auckland by the Committee on Vietnam have been 'diverted' to another source. What we all have to realise is that we are meant to be organising a mobilisation to try and help people who are suffering in Indochina. Besides the twenty-five year struggle of the Indochinese peoples the efforts of the Socialist Action League to take control of the Wellington mobilisation seem trivial and rather absurd.

—Peter Franks