Dominant motif of the Havana Conference from the outset was Communist unity displayed against a backdrop of "successes" in the terroristic war being waged in Asia by the Viet Cong, alla rejection of peace offers. it was no coincidence that the first speaker at the January 4 plenary session was Nguyen Van Tien, delegate from the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (Viet Cong), His opening speech had the quality of that of a political cheerleader, and it set a triumphant tone for the secret deliberations which followed. He asked the delegates for unanimous "solidarity" with the Viet Cong cause. ("Solidarity" can be interpreted in the Communist lexicon as do likewise. )

Van Tien said in Havana that the Viet Cong are strong enough to win any type of war "imposed upon them" by the "Yankee imperialists and their lackeys." He boasted that, "Even if the Yankees, instead of abandoning their military venture, send 300,000, 400,000, or even more troops to South Vietnam, they cannot win. * * *" He claimed that the Viet Cong control 80 percent of the territory of South Vietnam "thereby ensuring the smooth development of our struggle until final Victory." He also laid claim to "victories of strategic significance,'' and encouraged the delegates to engage in similar types of wars in their own countries. "We are," he said 'determined to defeat them (the United States) * * * determined to fight on for 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, or even longer until the Yankees abandon their policy of aggression and get Out of our territory-."

Tran Danh Tuyen, the North Vietnamese delegate. who presented the official view of Hanoi, insisted that the final resolution of the conference must include recognition "of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam as the only hemline representative of South Vietnam." What is significant to this otherwise routine demand was his warning that victory in the Viet Cong fight was prerequisite to the success of projected wars of liberation on other continents.

It is important to note that none of the delegates who spoke at the Tricontinental Conference seriously advocated a negotiated peace in South Vietnam. Peace on the terms suggested by Tran Danh Tuyen would mean nothing less than unconditional surrender on the part of the United States.

Again linking Communist military victory in Vietnam to the ultimate success of the "Havana Conference on World-Wide Subversion," Tuyen said:

"In view of the vital bearing of the Vietnam question on our three continents and on the present situation of the entire world, please allow us to propose that the Conference adopt a special resolution on Vietnam." (Italics supplied.)

The resolution proposed by North Vietnam was: "Demand that the United States put an end to its aggressive war in South Vietnam and unconditionally and at once end their bombing of North Vietnam; withdraw their troops and arms from South Vietnam, and dismantle all military bases there; call on the United States to respect and strictly implement the 1954 Geneva agreement on Vietnam, which recognizes the right of the Vietnamese people to solve their own problems; call for the prevention of the introduction of U.S. arms, ammunition, and troops into Vietnam; forbid the United States to turn the territory of other countries into military and supply bases for aggression against Vietnam; urge all-out support for and fraternal assistance with the Vietnamese people to make sure that the Vietnamese people can resist the aggression of U.S. imperialism * * *"

Preconference guidance in this direction had already been supplied through a Pravda; editorial of December 25, 1965, which viewed the war in Vietnam as the prototype of other Communist-directed terroristic wars. Said Pravda:

"The American 'dirty war' in Vietnam is a challenge to the national liberation movement throughout the world, and a direct attack against it aimed at strangling the peoples' liberation struggle.'' (Italics supplied.) "American imperialists and their apologists are trying to prove the 'lawfulness' of waging wears against the peoples defending their national independence. But national wars are just wars. They are lawful weapons of the oppressed peoples, and express their will to live in freedom without any foreign enslavement by their puppets."

The North Korean delegate put the test of wills and the ability of the United States to cope with terroristic wars bluntly: "If the struggle against U.S. imperialism is given up," said Kim Wal Yong, "victory in revolution, independence, peace, and progress are out of the question."

The military character of the Conference was brought out in the address by Cuban President Osvaldo Dorticos, who welcomed the delegates to Havana. He welcomed them as "liberation fighters." One purpose of the meeting, he said, was the "duty to give unrestricted support to the movements of Asia, Africa, and Latin America," linking success in those areas to "the fundamental obligation to express solidarity with, and pledge the most resolute support for, the valiant people of Vietnam." He concluded his address in a call to arms with "renewed faith in the peoples' future, in their invincible fighting potential, and in the assurance of imperialism's final defeat. * * *"

Beaming to Latin America, Castro's Radio Havana described the address of Nguyen Van Tien in lyrical terms, quoting his claim that "guerrillas of his country have won great victories in the struggle against U.S. aggression." Apparently designed to pump up the courage of Cuban-exported guerrillas operating in Latin America, Radio Havana said: "The South Vietnamese revolutionary leader declared that 'in the Plei Me area, where we fought for 10 days, more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers were killed or wounded.' " Van Tien was described in the broadcast as a "South Vietnamese guerrilla."
 

Guido Gil of the Dominican Republic said "the popular struggle" in his country is still continuing. He said that "armed combat will be the path of liberation, and that is why the people are preparing and organizing themselves to defeat the imperialists, and we certainly will." His colleague, Cayetano Rodriguez del Prado, vowed that Dominican Communists "will convert the Dominican Republic into the Vietnam of Latin America."

It is significant to note here that one delegate, Euclides Gutiérrez Feliz, was a Vice Minister in Colonel Francisco Caamaño's so-called constitutional government, during the revolt in Santo Domingo in April 1965.

José de la Tunón, delegate from Panama, said in a Cuban broadcast to Latin America: "The peoples of Latin America and the Panamanian working class are bound to be encouraged by this event, since from it will come the plans which must be carried out against the common enemy of all peoples, Yankee imperialism."

In English-language broadcasts, Radio Hanoi recounted the cordial, informal talks Fidel Castro conducted with delegates from North and South Vietnam. It said: "Dan Thi Thanh, a militia-woman fighter who had downed a U.S. aircraft, member of the North Vietnam delegation, presented to Premier Fidel Castro a ring made of the metal from the wreckage of the U.S. plane downed in North Vietnam. The Premier clasped and raised her hand and, amid stormy applause, warmly praised the valiant fighting spirit of the Vietnamese women."

This incident is recounted here simply to underscore the terroristic and warlike nature of the conference, and the extent to which propaganda high-jinks were employed to whip up the fires of belligerency and fanaticism.

Another, and certainly more grisly, incident involves the helmet of a U.S. pilot shot down over North Vietnam. Pedro Medina Silva, the chief Communist delegate from Venezuela, talked about using the helmet for purposes of morale building.

The Venezuelan said that the National Liberation Front of Vietnam had presented the Venezuelan National Liberation Front with the helmet of a dead American pilot, shot down over North Vietnam. "The Venezuelan National Liberation Front gave it to the Tricontinental Committee for Support of Vietnam. We then deposited the helmet with the Cuban Committee for Solidarity. We shall wage a campaign of emulation, both on the island of Cuba and in Latin America with it, and we shall carry it to every continent to give more impact and more brilliance to the week of solidarity with Vietnam which is scheduled in March on a Tricontinental scale."

Commenting on the makeup of the bloodthirsty delegations to the Havana conference, Budapest's Communist newspaper Nepszabadsag implied that it was the success of Castro's guerrilla campaign in Cuba and the Viet Cong war in Asia, that influenced the Soviets to emulate those tactics on a worldwide basis. The paper noted that the conference was not in the hands of "catastrophic politicians" but in the firm glip of revolutionaries.

Judging from the Latin American representatives, in particular, it was clear that the delegates represented a breed which is prepared to fulfill the assembly's call for "immediate and concrete action." Absent, for example, were Fabricio Ojeda of Venezuela, Luis Corvalán, Secretary General of Chile's Communist Party, Luis Carlos Prestes of Brazil, and Norge Botello Fernández of the Dominican Republic. The composition of the Conference strongly suggests that a decision was made to rely less on the "national" Communist Parties and turn to the "man with the gun."

Particularly in Latin America, the prime target for subversion from the new headquarters in Havana, the Communist parties are split along national lines and tradition, and weakened by intra-party fights, and ruled by leaders who belonged to tile previous generation of revolutionaries. It would be almost impossible to weld these politically oriented Communist party bosses into a one-leader operation.

The respectable Paris newspaper, Le blonde, observed that the Soviet Union has thrown its weight behind tile guerrilla fighters rather than Communist parties because. Le Monde warns, Russia now believes that "the destiny of the revolutionary movements in Latin America lies * * * in direct action, more precisely in armed action."

Le Monde also points out that, "with the exception of Venezuela and Colombia, the orthodox Communist parties have show n no great enthusiasm for guerrilla wars."

Essentially, then, the tactics which are most likely to be followed in intensified subversion from Havana are those employed by Fidel Castro from 1957 to January 1 1959, wiled those tactics catapulted him into power and by the Viet Cons, in Vietnam today. These tactics include political subversion, penetration of student groups, bomb throwing in the cities, kidnaping, robbery, blackmail--all culminating m and supporting open guerrilla operations.

In his speech closing the Tricontinental Conference. Castro called for "a common strategy, a joint, simultaneous struggle" throughout Latin America against the United States. In fact he enumerated the projected targets including Venezuela, Peru, Colombia, and Guatemala.

Cuba's Foreign Minister Raul Roa echoed the views of his chief at the Tricontinental Conference and called upon the assembled delegates to "redouble our efforts to make this historic conference an endless source of encouragement, inspiration, and support for the liberation movements in Asia. Africa, and Latin America." He added that the effort should be dedicated especially to "those peoples who are fighting weapons in hand for their self-determination, independence and sovereignty, a perfect example of what can be found in the ** * battle being waged today by the people of Vietnam against Yankee imperialism and its allies." In keeping with this outlook it migrant n`,t be farfetched to expect in the near future an extensive diversionary move on the part of forces in various countries of Latin America in an effort to force the withdrawal of some of our forces from Vietnam.

Conference resolutions demanded "the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops, the dismantling of foreign military bases" with special reference to American installations calculated to defend these countries from Communist aggression.

Major Luis A. Turcios, representing the Rebel Armed Forces of Guatemala (FAR) struck a similar chord at the Conference, from which we quote:

In Guatemala the only channel for revolution is armed struggle. It is a revolutionary war.

He quoted from a declaration of FAR to the effect that "The revolutionary forces have taken the only road which remains to occur people; to answer counterrevolutionary violence with revolutionary violence; to open the way for the Guatemalan revolutionary violence by force of arms * * *."

He looked to the Tricontinental Conference to "channel, coordinate, and apply effectively anti-imperialist solidarity measures." He emphasized particularly the training of the rebel armed forces which he called "the political and military instrument which Guatemalan people needed in order to wage war."

He added: "That most advanced expression of out struggle lies in the establishment of the first guerrilla zones, particularly the Edgar Iberia zone * * *. This guerrilla front was formed more than 2 years ago and now we can say that it has been definitely consolidated."

An article appearing in the New York Times of March 18, 1966, page 17, reported on a secret interview with Luis Augusto Turcios Lima by Henry Giniger. The article described Turcios as a graduate of the Polytechnical School, Guatemala's military academy, and the Ranger School at Fort Benning, Ga. While Turcios denied being a Communist, the article stated, his associate, Gabriel Salazar, head of the Political Commission of the Rebel Armed Forces, admitted Communist Party membership. Turcios admitted that his group did not number more than a few hundred, the Times reported.

Among the participants in the Conference was General Enrique Lister, referred to as "the hero of the Fifth Regiment of the Spanish Civil war," an expert in the field of guerrilla warfare. He appeared as an observer and representative of the World Peace Congress, a well-known Communist front.

Spokesman for the Venezuelan National Armed Forces of Liberation (FALN) was Pedro Medina Silva, its commander. Speaking at the Conference session on January 6, Medina Silva pointed out that the Havana Conference offers "The most opportune occasion to drag up a global strategy in the struggle * * * The revolutionary parties of Venezuela have formed the National Liberation Front. The Front has outlined as objectives to be achieved in this struggle the establishment of a nationalist, democratic government which will lav the foundations of socialism in our country. * * * Now we know that this objective can be achieved only through armed struggle." The FALN has been authoritatively described as a Communist-controlled paramilitary organization.

Roberto Garcia Urrutia, head of the delegation from Peru, addressed the Conference on January 7 as follows. He explained that since the start of the armed struggle in Peru on July 9, 1964, a number of fronts have opened and that now five guerrilla warfare centers exist. He noted that wide sectors of the intellectuals and the middle classes have already come out for the guerrillas and against the government's allegedly repressive measures. He declared that 80 percent of the students have come out firmly in support of armed struggle. In his remarks he also stated that Peruvian revolutionaries support all armed struggles of national liberation of the peoples of the three continents. "In particular," he mentioned "the struggles of Venezuela, Colombia, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and we especially feel solidarity with the glorious peoples of South Vietnam and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam."

Concluding, he emphasized that "This Tricontinental Conference is the most positive effort that has been made in the past few years to orientate the fight, harmonize efforts, define objectives, and basically develop on a worldwide scale the battle against the fundamental enemy of peoples, peace, progress, and mankind: Yankee imperialism."