Amsterdam
Dear Jerry,
It was more or less a surprise for me to receive your letter, for which I thank you.
You are right when you say that the question of unity depends more than anything else upon basic political agreement. But, as Cde. Cannon posed it, our positions have grown very close to each other in such a way even, that there is basic political agreement. Therefore it would be a crime to continue the division of our international movement, especially in the actual favourable conjecture of the death crisis of Stalinism.
It is, in such a situation, too bad that you flatly rejected the proposals for reunification, made by us, and that Cde. Sinclair [Hunter] thought it necessary to attack us in the way that he did, accusing us of all kinds of things existing only in his phantasy.
You do hope that I will support Cde. Cannon's proposals. To tell you the truth, they are not yet quite clear to me. Should they mean, however, that the International should become a kind of international federation, with a parity leadership, I must reject them with all my force. As a youngster, already, I supported Trotsky in his fight against Sneevliet who was in favour of a kind of international federation instead of a centralised international movement. The events proved Trotsky to be right also in this respect. How could you expect me, in such a situation, to change my mind? The International will be centralised or it will be nothing, a kind of London Bureau destined to disappear.
As for the question of a parity leadership, it is not a serious proposal, I think, if we want to come to unity on a healthy, honest basis. It will not be difficult to establish the strength of both movements and we, on our part, are willing to make many concessions on the point of representation, in your favour. But parity is out of any proportion. I saw, e.g., the report in the Militant on your Latin-American movement, but, to tell you the truth, it is ridiculous. I was there, as you know, and I can tell you that the only real movement in Latin America is ours. The same applies for the European continental movement, with the exception of Switzerland and, to a much lesser extent, France. For Australia, Japan, Indonesia, Ceylon the same thing can be said.
There was made very clear and serious proposals to you, approved by the IEC. Why don't you take those proposals as a sincere basis for discussion. In reality, the problem of reunification does not depend on us, but upon you. You have an enormous responsibility on this field which cannot be made undone by stating incorrectly, as Cde. Sinclair did, that the divergences are greater than ever, and by posing for reunification in England the "condition" that the document of the International "Decline and Fall of Stalinism" has to be repudiated.
[p. 66]
To-day I'll leave the city for a fortnight, so I had to write this letter in a hurry, though I would have preferred to write to you in a more detailed and extensive way. The IS, however, will send you one of these days a precise reply to the letter it received from you.
If anyone would be glad with a successful reunification, it is me. But it should be a honest one, with the purpose to strengthen the International to the utmost. A kind of federation would only have the opposite result.
Comradely,
S. Santen
P.S. I gladly agree with your proposal to exchange papers.