8th July, 1954
Dear Smith,
We have now concluded a series of discussions with the Ceylonese, and it is possible for us to make some propositions for your consideration.
Firstly, we are surprised that there has been no direct reply from you regarding our proposals on a parity commission, particularly in relation to the problem of the Ceylonese. Before proceeding we always appreciate discussion between us.
You will already have received the letter from Burns reporting the action of the IC.
As a result of our talks with Colvin and Tilak, we believe that it is necessary for us to take some other factors into account when planning the next step.
The Ceylonese found at the Pablo conference that the Cochran break had produced a situation in which things became more fluid than before. Their political amendments were accepted and in their opinion this indicates if not a reversal, at least a halt and a setback of the trend to revisionism, which is now recognised as a danger by far more people than before, particularly after the performance of Clarke, Lawrence and Co. Organisationally the fluidity was marked by the ambiguous position adopted. Recognising the "assembly" as the Fourth Congress but proposing steps for unification in a direct approach to us.
In their view, many people in Pablo's ranks are uneasy and could be won over, but are hampered by organisational fetishism. They believe that this could be overcome, a reunification effected that would affirm orthodox Trotskyism and put a stop to revisionism for good and all. Organisationally ways and means could be worked out to eliminate Pablo from any position of importance and effect. They are aware of, and detest, Pablo's methods, and see eye to eye with us on general organisational views of international problems.
For all these considerations they do not exclude the possibility that Pablo is maneuvering, and may be up to some trickery. But they believe that this must be put to the test. The resolution adopted (which you have no doubt seen by now) to approach us, can, in the opinion of the Ceylonese, serve that purpose. They know now of the shabby way in which this resolution has been forwarded to us, and will blow their tops about it and demand a direct committee to committee approach (IS to IC) to show seriousness. They hint that if this is not met, they will make an adverse report back home that will automatically mean a new formal approach to us. But if a direct IS-IC approach is made they would like us to reply proposing a parity commission with the restricted aim of distributing documents in organising a joint discussion and eventually preparing a joint conference. They understand that such a reply would start off by a rejection on our part, of the validity of the Pablo congress in any shape or form.
They asked us to do this "to help them organise the fight" (their literal words). While maintaining their formal connections with Pablo they unquestionably see as their perspective, collaboration with us.
After considerable thought we don't see what else we can reasonably do except propose acceptance of their proposition to the IC. What could we possibly lose by agreeing? We obligate ourselves to nothing except to meet. We reserve our complete freedom of action. The only thing we do is to provide a vehicle which enables us to have a formal link with the Ceylonese, which they very much want, and which is their prime consideration in the immediate sense.
The Pablo resolution is in itself a de facto compliance with our terms — after their so-called "congress" they propose joint arrangements for unification. What else does this mean but making a farce of the designation of their gathering as a "Congress," and recognising the force of our position. The rest is verbiage for face saving. It looks to us that if we really want to make a bid for the forces still trapped by them, we have the Pabloites over a barrel.
Aside from the general consideration motivating the Ceylonese, cited above, it becomes clear, in discussion with them, that their local problems make this course necessary, and this aspect can be very important internationally in the days ahead.
We are for meeting their request and working as closely as possible with them; we are sure that on reflection, everyone in our IC must be of this opinion. But we believe that we will need a few weeks to discuss this matter from all angles among ourselves, and have informed them of this.
The IC meets on August 2. Can we have your views by then?
Warmest regards, Jerry and Joe