In a month now, the French will have said yes or no to the constitutional treaty. A dozen of countries will follow them. The rest, by tradition or prudence, will hold their parliamentarians responsible for the ratification. The elementary parliamentary prudence was abandoned in France in the interests of a top risk: a referendum, that is, a principle that all republicans must reject as it may tend to become a plebiscite. The electors take the risk of pronouncing themselves on the basis of the trust professed to the President of the Republic and his government, and not on a complex text fruit of a commitment. However, every cloud has a silver lining, as this allows the French to discuss an essential matter.
The discussion is one stage of the process. Most electors were born after the construction of the European Union and only were aware of the disorders (i.e., war, poverty, dictatorships) put away by the European Union through history books. Based on this, it would be tempting to believe that peace, prosperity and democracy could be achieved in a different way. In this regard, we all have turned into Europeans. Simply, in order to be sure to continue to be so, it is preferable to say yes to the text that sometimes serves as Constitution for Europe. In fact, that text is the transition point towards a political Europe. However, the future of the world will be decided by three or four heavyweight: the United States and probably the Latin American Group; China, India and Europe if it so decides. If it wants so. This text gives the European Union a critical organized mass that would allow it to exert pressure on world issues.
]We could consider that the text does not go too far; that it is awkward to attach to it the implementation of the existing accords, that it is improper to describe it as “Constitution”. But one thing is for sure, once ratified, the treaty would allow Europe to exist from the political point of view whereas it has only been an economic, trade and monetary giant. So far some 25 states, and soon they will be 30 states, are immersed on the task to develop a political Europe. In Washington, New Delhi and Beijing an answer to the following questioned is expected: will there be a European sitting along the big ones at the table tomorrow?
The treaty will provide the European Union with a presidency with an emblematic dimension, stronger than the rotational presidency. By appointing in the same way a Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Europe is gaining international presence. The treaty has other qualities. It secures the functioning of Europe to be better from the social point of view, more democratic and more favorable to France at the same time. This treaty, from the social point of view recognizes that there are some tasks of the public service that slip out of the competitive sphere, and the Chart of the Fundamental Rights grants some rights that can be referred to by any citizen at a court. Therefore, the European Confederation of Trade Unions and all European socialist parties support the text. The European Union will be more democratic since the Parliament’s powers will be strengthened. And France benefits from it since the draft project increases its weight within the European Council, where it will count tomorrow on 13.4% of the rights to vote against the 9% within the current Nice Treaty. Something even more concrete in the case of the French-German duo, the historic engine of the European construction, whose rights will go from 18 to 31.4 %.
The results of the current surveys prove the lack of confidence regarding the political power which did not take advantage of the lessons presented by the 2004 election results. But also a lack of confidence in a Europe that is suspicious of hindering the French model or even destroying it. The negative vote is a sign of protest against unemployment and the social suffering that it implies. The voters seduced by the negative vote, went down the wrong way: unemployment is a French problem. Europe constitutes a possibility for France as long as it wins the “yes” vote.

Dear French friends, it is with great concern that we observe how the non-populist to the European Constitution gets stronger. Do the majority of the French actually want to be buried in the common grave of the right-wing and left-wing nationalists? We cannot accept this capitulation of reason. Rejecting the constitutional treaty would bring along with it chaotic consequences to the unification work to which we owe our peace; to your German neighbors who know that Europe can only be constituted with the participation of France; to Poland and to the rest of the new members of the Union, which France must not leave alone between the unified Germany and the Russian Empire; to the balance of the relationships with the United States; to France itself, which would become isolated upon saying no.
The Constitution does not respond to all of our ideals but constitutes an honest commitment. It represents the strengthening of the Parliament and its control work; the limitation of the right to veto essential decisions; the basis of a foreign policy and common defense without which Europe would be nothing among world powers; the guarantee of its market productivity and at the same time the protection of our social rights. French friends, it would be a mad thing to make the European Constitution pay for the consequences of your discontent towards the government. On the contrary, Europe can force your government, your parties, your business men and your trade unions to think and act in the most productive way. Fear does not give security, but it always portraits a sign of weakness, even an incitement to commit suicide. Without courage, there will be no survival. Neither for France. Nor for Germany. Nor for Poland. Nor for any of the old and new members of the European Union, which thanks to their Constitution, are having a secular dream come true. It is a debt contracted with the millions upon millions of victims of our senseless wars and our criminal dictatorships.

The Constitutional Treaty must be judged by both its own merits and its chances of negotiating or not a better treaty with our 24 fellow members, but the position of non-European members, particularly the United States, must also be taken into account: that allows a better understanding, indirectly, of what this Constitution represents. If its text were to be rejected, and mainly by the French, that news would be received with great derision and a triumphant feeling by Washington’s conservative and neo-conservative circles. Such a vote would weaken the multilateral circles for the benefit of the unilateral ones since the true axis of the debate does not bring Europe face to face with the U.S. but puts it only out of phase crossing both shores of the Atlantic.
In fact, there are two schools in conflict. The first prevails in Washington and also regroups the conservative circles of Great Britain or Eastern Europe, who urge voting for a NO. For them, the United States must rule the world; it is a «generous empire», whose allies should help and follow without further inquiring. According to this concept the U.S. bilateral relationships with other countries prevail at the UN and the «coalitions a la carte» play the multilateral role. For the second school, which regroups the realistic republicans and most of the democrats, the affairs of our globalized world, from terrorism to drug trafficking, cannot be settled without an institutionalized cooperation. However, this second school, closer to the ideals shared by the majority of Europeans, needs a European Union that will make its voice heard in the international arena so that it has weight on the internal debates of the United States and guides this country into cooperation rather than hegemony. The correlation of forces within Washington reflects the state of the international system.
If the Constitution is rejected, the unilateral party of the first school would be strengthened. In fact, the adoption of the Constitution would not be like a magic wand that suddenly gave us a unified and consistent policy, but a contribution of substantial advances, which would reassert our ideals and our own interests, our vision of the world.

The European policy is seriously affected by the possibility of a French “No” to the referendum. The current environment in European institutions reflects the end of the romantic vision of the expansion to the East. Henceforth, fear prevails. The French government’s fear to look weak is what has determined its behavior with regards to the Chinese textiles, the commemoration of the Armenian genocide to remind everyone that the Turkish incorporation is not for tomorrow, or the freezing of the Bolkestein directive.
How to explain what is happening in France? First, it is necessary to understand that there are more than one “No” in this country. There is a “No” for sovereignty reasons that rejects the European construction and which forgets that Dominique de Villepin was able to deliver his speech in the United Nations against the war in Iraq because he knew that the French economy was protected by the euro. The other “No” has an opposite vision: the Constitutional Treaty does not go far and this text opens the way to social and tax-paying competition. As a matter of fact, they are more concerned for the situation of the country than for the content of the text. The leftists think that the text will facilitate a renegotiation. Why, if the French say “No”, would the other partners accept what they rejected in the first place?
The French campaign is contaminated by elements that have nothing to do with the text such as, for example, the incorporation of Turkey. Anyway, the doubts in France at least allow for a reactivation of the debate about Europe.

One of the most revealing indicators of the post-electoral projects of the New Labour is the way in which a possible adoption of the euro by the United Kingdom could serve to distract the attention from the scandal of legal consultancies of the Ministry of Justice before the war of Iraq. In order to fully appreciate the meaning of this distraction, it is necessary to recall that turning Great Britain into a European leader was one of the main ideas of Tony Blair’s project for 2007, which needed Great Britain to adopt the euro. However, in order to remain in power, it was necessary to abandon this idea. Today, after that denial, the best choice for Tony Blair would be finding a way to leave his post in an honorable way. And the sooner the better.
The current situation confirms it. The workers could have raised the European issue and avoid the Iraqi stalemate, but an erroneous analysis of the situation spoiled everything. When Tony Blair took power in 1997, he was admired in our country and in Europe, and he used his popularity to reinforce his legitimacy. However, he refused to adopt the euro and rejected to face the euro-skeptics when he was in a powerful position. Finally, he adopted the speech of his rivals (“veto”, “sovereignty”, “red line”, etc...) and prioritized the “special relation” with Europe. Consequently, he followed the United States to the Iraqi stalemate and supported the “Americanization” of the European Union.
Due to this policy, the French could reject the Constitutional Treaty, not for sovereignty reasons like in Great Britain, but because they do not want what they regard to as a “neo-liberal” turn. It is a bad appreciation of the text but the color of the Barroso Commission does not calm them down. If France accepts the “NO”, the European Union will divide itself and France and Germany will get closer to each other; if France accepts the “Yes”, the Labour Party will have to organize a referendum it can not win. Anyway, Blair seems determined to separate Great Britain from Europe even more. However, when Germany concludes to assume the cost of reunification, the European economy will re-emerge and the fragility of the British economy will become evident.

When I was born, the war was already underway. I lived it everyday for 15 years. But I was not an unhappy child. In North Viet Nam, during the 1960s and 70s, I thought war would last forever, like clouds in the sky. However, in 1975, we saw the advance of red flags in our school maps. Everyday, a student would place a red flag upon a new city captured in South Viet Nam. When the re-conquest concluded, I cried like the others, but I did it because I was afraid: what would happen now that the war was over?
During the first decade after the war, we lived under the same strict regime that existed during the war, based on the same ideological strictness. In the South, people were put in jail, properties were confiscated and there was “cleansing” among intellectuals. The war against Cambodia, and later against China, started and the unification brought international isolation, poverty and repression. The opening policy arrived later and in 1994 the American embargo was lifted.
Today, for most of the Americans, the war is something of the past, and they only speak about it as a comparison element with other conflicts. In Viet Nam, however, it is not possible to forget this war that killed four million people and spread large amounts of chemical products. In addition, the war was a complete victory for communism, which continues to use this argument to stay in power 30 years after it ended. Our traditional values have disappeared and the most noble aspirations of communism have been replaced by corruption, hidden ethnic conflicts, violation of human rights and social inequalities. It all remains and it continues to be as evident as the clouds in the sky until things change.

Two important anniversaries pertaining to the war of Viet Nam will be celebrated this week. 40 years ago, Australia entered the war and, 30 years ago, Saigon fell into the hands of the north-Vietnamese forces. _ Later 1964 and early 1965, the debate about the interference in Viet Nam was at its height in Washington. Since the mid 50’s, the United States had military advisors in South Viet Nam, but not ground troops. The debate continued and Johnson’s advisors failed to understand that North Viet Nam could not be defeated with the type of war that the United States could wage. While the debate was going on in Washington, it was decided in Canberra to push the United States to get involved in the war, and Australia sent a battalion to fight in Viet Nam even before the Americans requested so. The Australian diplomacy also pushed the United States to increase the bombardments in North Viet Nam. _ Australia’s objective was to strongly link ANZUS to be able to have support in case of a conflict with Indonesia. Contrary to what is stated today, the war was not unpopular. In the United States, the politicians who decided this war lost their prestige, whereas our leaders later held high offices. For the United States, that war determined the way to wage the next ones. For the Australians, the opportunities to obtain something from the United States were at stake.

At the beginning of the war, complete units of «Zenith» missile-launchers departed from the USSR to Viet Nam. The 2nd Briansk battalion, for example, left with all its members. There we tested the new material, improved it to escape from the missiles and learned how to shoot against small targets. We only used surface-to-air C-75 launching devises, because the first C-125 appeared in Egypt. The Vietnamese wanted the C-125, but that implied that the material had to go through China and we feared that part of it did not arrive at its destination. I arrived after flying over Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Burma. There was no other way. The agreements with those countries were valid in terms of people, but not in terms of arms, and the American ships made it dangerous to send the material by sea. The Vietnamese received the C-125 but the war had ended. They also wanted the missile-launcher «Strela-1», but we did not want its technology to be disclosed. _ We learned from the beginning that the Americans were not prepared for that war. Their planes flew at a height that made them easy targets for us, and we did not have any tactical information. The Major Proskurnin was decorated for hitting four targets with only three missiles! The United States had underestimated our means and was shocked after it suffered serious losses. The US planes started to fly lower and became a good target for the Vietnamese antiaircraft artillery. In 1972 the Americans triggered the «Linebacker 2» operation, when the B-52 bombed the whole northern part of the country. They later understood that there were no targets to attack there, since the weapons were hidden in the mountains. Napalm was used in the South to force combatants out of the jungle. The Vietnamese did not authorize the Russian specialists to participate in the military decision-making, but we tried to gather information about the operations in the South, and to know when they were going to expand to Cambodia or Laos. It was impossible. The Party was on high alert.

The Russian involvement in the war of Viet Nam is exaggerated. There was only a total of 6 000 Soviet military specialists there. Thirteen died there, out of which 3 or 4 died in combat. At the beginning, soldiers of two antiaircraft missile-launcher battalions departed to train the Vietnamese on how to use the C-75. Our men fought at least at the beginning. The pilots only delivered lessons. As of 1966, the Soviet specialists were only in charge of the material.
We went there because the Vietnamese were building socialism and requested assistance from Moscow to fight against The United States. The Americans had replaced the French defeated in 1954, and knew that there was oil, coal, gas and gold there ...The one that controled Viet Nam would control Southeast Asia. Out of the 2 million American soldiers that were sent to Viet Nam, 57 000 died and the figure of wounded is even higher.
For the «Linebacker 2» operation, the Americans used the new F-111 aircrafts. The strategic aviation performed at least 3 night flights and tactical aviation operated during daytime. They bombed areas of 1 Km long and 150 m wide; after that nothing survived. But the clash was won by the Vietnamese artillerymen, who shot down 81 planes, among them 34 B-52. The antiaircraft missile-launcher battalions were decorated collectively, but in Viet Nam decorations are on individual basis. From our side, those who shot down American planes were decorated first, the rest for training the Vietnamese. Just once was enough to receive a medal. In Russia, several manuals were reviewed after that war; the army learned a great deal from that experience. The pilots, for example, learned a lot of lessons from the damages caused to the American apparatus.