The Passing Show: Indo-China (1953)

The Passing Show Column from the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Indo-China

Last month this column examined recent events in Indo-China from the standpoint of the relations between France and her three Indo-Chinese colonies, which are now called “Associated States.” This month it may be of interest to investigate the manoeuvres between France and the United States which arose from the same events—the advance of the Viet-Minh into Laos and their subsequent partial retreat. As against the native ruling class in Indo-China, the French Government was able to play the part of spider: but in relation to the United States, the French rulers were forced to fill the humbler role of fly.

* * *

Keep Out: Private Property

Even before the Viet-Minh moved into Laos, the American stand was clear. Mr. Adlai Stevenson, who although he was defeated in the Presidential election spoke for the entire American ruling class in this matter, said in Saigon that the United States would continue its “indispensable aid to the Associated States so that they should be able to take their place among the independent nations of the free world" and he added that “the United States was following with attention the first steps of the Viet Nam Government towards democracy” (The Times, 8-4-53; the references that follow unless otherwise indicated, are also to The Times). In other words, Mr. Stevenson wanted the Associated States to free themselves from the suzerainty of the French—with the result that the extension of American economic and political influence in that part of South-East Asia would become much easier.

The French ruling class understands quite well the American intention; and when Laos was invaded by the Viet-Minh, and the Laos Government issued a strong appeal for help “to the United Nations, to the allied countries, and to the free peoples,” The French Government followed this up with a much more moderate statement, addressed only “to the free peoples” (16-4-53). It seemed that the Laos Government would not have objected to the landing of American armed forces; but the French statement was carefully framed to exclude the possibility of the Americans turning Indo-China into another Korea, since that would lead inevitably to the transfer of Indo- China from the French to the American sphere of influence. As The Times delicately put it, “ it would almost certainly loosen the ties binding France to the Associated States of the French Union ” (29-4-53).

* * *

I took a harp to a party

The United States was not at all reticent about offering its “help.” Mr. Dulles, the American Secretary of State, went to Paris and urged the French Ministers to bring the “aggression” in Laos before the United Nations (29-4-53). Back in Washington, he announced publicly—and, no doubt he hoped, temptingly—that the Administration was considering channelling new military assistance to the French-led forces in Laos (30-4-53). A few days later Mr. Dulles sent along two or three dozen American transport planes in Indo-China, as an earnest of the “assistance” the French would get if they only agreed to internationalise the war in Indo-China (4-5-53).

* * *

But nobody asked me to play

The days went past, and the French made no move to call in the United Nations (which, in the present state of world power, means the United States). The only overt reply to these repeated American offers and gestures was a speech in Saigon by M. Letourneau, the French Minister for the Associated States, who said that “France was determined not to abandon any of the states associated with her” (6-5-53). While these words were obviously intended first for the consideration of any of the Associated States which might feel tempted to get out of step, their significance was presumably not lost in Washington. This speech, in fact, may have shown the American Government that this particular tack was hopeless. Laos itself could not appeal to the United Nations because it was not a member; France clearly was not going to; but there was always the chance that the Americans might get a foothold yet in Indo-China by means of Siam.

Now Siam is as much within America’s sphere of influence as is Korea. It is ruled by a military junta, which has the active support of the Americans (notwithstanding their propaganda about “democracy” and “freedom”). As The Times said recently, “the obvious effect of American aid has been to strengthen the military oligarchy. It gains extra support with the arrival of every American carbine . . . The foundations of political power are the military and police barracks of Bangkok and not the village polling booths ” (30-4-53). 

* * *

So I took the darned thing away

“Faced with French hesitations” said The Times in a leading article, the United States Administration seems to hope that Siam—next door to Laos—may call attention to a slate of affairs likely to endanger the peace outside Indo-China” (11-5-53). But the same article went on to warn against such a step. “There are many member States which would make this an excuse for all the old attacks on the colonial system rather than an opportunity for dispassionate investigation And it is true that there is nothing more tiresome than bringing up your enemies’ faults for discussion, only to find that those present prefer to concentrate on your own shortcomings. However, the Americans went ahead. Ten days later the Siamese Ambassador in Washington announced that his Government intended formally to complain to the United Nations Security Council about the invasion of Laos (21-5-53).

Nevertheless, it seems that for once the American Government has missed the boat. With the delay caused by the intransigence of the French, the Viet Minh have had time to withdraw most of their forces from Laos, and it seems improbable now that the Americans will be given the opportunity to come to the “assistance” of the French in Indo-China even if the Siamese complaint is favourably received.

* * *

May Day, past and present

For years, in this country and abroad, the Social Democrats used May Day as an opportunity to advocate their remedy for the ills of society—state ownership of industry. May Day was often followed by a month of exceptional working class activity, including strikes, in which Social Democrats were prominent. Now, in a number of industries in France, the Social Democrats have had their way, and nationalisation has come. But what change has there been? The labourites in France still use May Day to proclaim the virtues of state-industry; and then, as trade union leaders, they bring the workers out on strike in those very industries which are now run on the system they advocate. In France this year there were five big strikes in May: in the merchant navy, on the railways, and in the gas, electricity and Paris transport undertakings (21-5-53). And all five of these industries are under what is called “ public ownership ” !

Since nationalised industry, with all the prestige and power of the state behind it, is stronger in disputes with the workers than private industry, all the Social Democrats have done is to change the boss’s name and give him a bigger stick.

* * *

Ninepence for Ninepence

Now that half a century of legislation has established the so-called “Welfare State,” none of the big parties would think of attacking it in word or deed. Family Allowances, for example, mean that the workers with large families, who formerly would have been the first to feel the pinch of low wages, and to agitate for strike action, are now to a certain extent pacified with a few extra shillings a week; and the money to pay these allowances (and the other benefits like free doctoring and the dole) comes from the workers themselves by way of national insurance contributions. Before this system was well established, however, there were some Tories who did not clearly understand it, and who were afraid that somehow the workers were going to get something for nothing. They believed Lloyd George’s tendencious slogan about “Ninepence for Fourpence’’ and Labour Party propaganda on the same lines. But getting something for nothing has always been the prerogative of the class which exacts surplus value; and the fear that the working class was going to usurp this age-old privilege drove the right wing of the Tory Party into panicky hostility to anything which smacked of benefits or allowances to the workers. A small section failed to recover its balance even after the Welfare State had demonstrated in practice that it certainly did not give the workers anything for nothing. The Conservative Party as a whole, while it saw how valuable the various National Insurance schemes were to the capitalist class, and while it even flooded the country with posters claiming to have thought of the whole idea first, still did not break entirely with the extremists; and the diehards could always depend on a sympathetic hearing in the Conservative papers.

* * *

Waugh on the Tories

But Mr. Evelyn Waugh’s latest book, a long short-story about “welfare-weary citizens” called "Love Among the Ruins,” and the review which it has drawn forth from the Sunday Express (31-5-53), may mark the beginning of a new development. Mr. Waugh, hitherto the arch-priest of the diehard Tories, is annoyed that the official Conservative Party has become so enamoured of the Welfare State that it is now claiming paternity; and in his novel, a forecast of the immediate future, he has Mr. Eden entering a coalition with Mr. Bevan, and he describes the “Euthanasia Department,” the scheme for which was "a Tory measure designed to attract votes from the aged and mortally sick.” From one Tory to another, this is a nasty crack. The irritation which a property-owner naturally feels when a worker, weary of his lot, absents himself from his task for a single day, is nothing compared to the fury aroused when the worker, still more weary, dares to absent himself from this world permanently by committing suicide. Anything which makes voluntary death easier, like euthanasia, is therefore anathema to a supporter of the capitalist system (though compulsory death is a different matter, as the history of the first two world wars shows us); and Mr. Waugh takes a serious step when he hints that the Tory Party would be prepared to support such a scheme in order to get votes. The Sunday Express has therefore joined the anti-Waugh camp. It accuses Mr. Waugh of being a bore, of being grotesque and tasteless, and puts his latest effort down to premature senility.

If one may take this episode as a straw in the wind, it appears that the Conservatives, and the handful of extremists who think like Mr. Waugh, have finally parted company. The Labour Party may take comfort from the fact that they and the Tories are now at one in their support of the Welfare State.

* * *

The great attack

President Eisenhower recently gave a warning of the power that is in the hands of the American ruling class if war comes. He said:

“To-day three aircraft with modern weapons can practically duplicate the destructive power of all the 2,700 planes we unleashed in the great break-out attack from the Normandy beach-head” (21-5-53).

This statement comes with special force to those who saw after the Second World War the wreck and rubble which alone marked the sites of what had been a score of flourishing Norman towns. It seems that Socialism is no longer merely to be described in the terms of our Declaration of Principles—a society we must bring about “that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom”; with the development of the atomic bomb, the progress of society has become a race between the advent of Socialism and the advent of social suicide.

* * *

Drawing one’s own conclusion

If the sun had shone on the day of the Coronation, we should not have lacked newspaper pundits and parsons to assure us that here was evidence that Heaven itself was smiling on the crowning of our glorious, slim, lovely, radiant (—plus other adjectives to taste) young Queen. As it happened, the day was cold and rainy. But so far we have neither seen nor heard any account which, from these facts, has drawn the opposite conclusion.

Alwyn Edgar