S E Asia: another view

[unclear: 3] weeks ago, Chinese forces invaded [unclear: etnam] - an unwarranted act of aggres [unclear: on]. In invading Vietnam, the Chinese [unclear: vernment] has done its own people, [unclear: am-ig] others, a great disservice. The [unclear: Indo-ina] conflicts come only three years [unclear: af-r] the defeat of United States troops in [unclear: e] region. In the present turmoil, the [unclear: ms] ire carried not by the US or any of Western allies, but by two post-capita-[unclear: I] countries - Vietnam and China- and by [unclear: porters] of the deposed Pol Pot [unclear: govern-ent].

But the real conflict that underlies the [unclear: uation] is still the same - ie the continued [unclear: utility] of the United States to the [unclear: encroament] of liberation struggles on territory at it considers its own. The American [unclear: vernment] has never given up its hope of [unclear: ingmg] Vietnam back under its control, [unclear: nce]1975 the US maintained an economic [unclear: ockade] on Vietnam. It has refused to [unclear: y] one cent in compensation for the [unclear: inca-ulable] war damage it caused. But this [unclear: po-ey] did not succeed in halting the [unclear: Vietna-ese] revolution any more than military [unclear: ight] did.

United States' interests received a se[unclear: re] body-blow in March last year. At at time the Vietnamese government, [unclear: af-t] trying to maintain a dual economy - a [unclear: tionalised] economy in the North and a [unclear: pitalist] economy in the South - was fina-[unclear: forced] to unify the country. [unclear: Remain-g] capitalist enterprises were expropriated

[unclear: e] black market was stopped, and a [unclear: com-on] currency was established. This was a [unclear: eat] step forward for Vietnam.

This greatly alarmed the Western powers [unclear: d] their allies in the region. The business [unclear: wners] who left Vietnam after the expropr [unclear: tions], mostly Chinese, were used as [unclear: pro-anda] pawns. Vietnam was branded [unclear: ra-st] and repressive in its policies towards these people. The hypocrisy of this propaganda is seen in the fact that the West refuses to take more than token numbers of the refugees - preferring to establish camps for "illegal immigrants".

The United States found a willing ally for these attacks in the government of the People's Republic of China. China pushed the same line and the same hypocrisy, closing its borders to the refugees.

China's position in the Indochina situation is just the latest in a series of extremely conservative foreign policy positions. The Chinese government pursues the same narrow, nationalistic policy as the Soviet government. This had led to a bitter feud between these potential allies. They both pursue the policy of "detente" - which means that they declare peace on the capitalist powers and war on each other in order to prove their good faith to the West.

China's and Russia's eagerness to make deals with the West at the expense of liberation movements was clearly seen in the Vietnam war. Both Peking and Moscow refused to supply adequate military assistance to Vietnam. In 1972, while the bombs were raining down on Vietnam both Brezhaev and Mao wined and dined President Nixon.

In China's case, this policy culminated first in a cutting off of all aid to Vietnam, and then in the criminal act of invasion. However, it must be stressed that the basic interests of China and the United States are quite different.

The United States is cold-bloodedly setting out to roll back the gains of the Vietnamese revolution and bring Vietnam back into its orbit. The US government would be more than happy to proceed from that and to reinstate capitalism in China - and also in the Soviet Union and the other post-capitalist states for that matter. In this case, China's invasion of Vietnam must be condemned partly because it weakens China.

The overthrow of the Pol Pot regime by Vietnamese troops backing local forces can only be understood in this context. The Vietnam-Kampuchean conflict was exploited by the West in its hostility to the Vietnamese revolution. According to the November 10 Far Eastern Economic Review, the Australian government held that "it is essential to preserve (Kampuchea) as an independent buffer between non-communist Thailand and communist Vietnam". This policy tied in with Thailand's aid to anti-communist guerillas in Laos - which Vietnam has acted to check.

Kampuchea faced as bad a situation as Vietnam in the post-war years. Its land, social and economic organisation were wrecked by the US bombardment. The government headed by Pol Pot could have begun the mammoth task of reconstruction on the only feasible basis - that of a nationally planned economy. But the government's policies were the opposite of progressive. It set out to systematically depopulate the cities-and thrust the country backwards politically and economically. This policy atomised the working class, which has a crucial role to play in the construction of a a planned economy.

The complete disorganisation of the country and the lack of popular support for the Pol Pot regime was shown in the way the regime crumbled when early this year the Vietnamese troops invaded, backing the Kampuchean United Front for National Salvation.

The violation of democratic rights by Pol Pot was at first used by the imperialists in a general propaganda offensive against the victorious Indochinese liberation movements. They completely exaggerated reports of the repression, claiming that one million people had died without a shred of evidence. But the opportunity to put pressure on Vietnam through its Western neighbour caused the United Stales and its allies in South East Asia to think again about Kampuchea.

The Thai government allowed China to fly over its territory to arm the Kampucheans in their border squabbles with Vietnam. Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia all recognised the Pol Pot government. The Far Eastern Economic Review of December 29, 1978, spoke of an "increasing Washington tilt in favour of the beleagured Pol Pot regime in Cambodia".

Given these circumstances - ie an increased imperialist offensive against the Vietnamese revolution - it is not proper to call for a Vietnamese withdrawal from Kampuchea, as we called for the Chinese to withdraw from Vietnam.

At the same time, we must note that the Vietnamese government has from its inception shown itself to be a government schooled in the same style of narrow nationalism as the Chinese and Russian governments. The overturn of Pol Pot, while it represented an advance for the Kampuchean masses, was not carried out with revolutionary intent, but strictly with the defense of Vietnam in mind.

The people of both Vietnam and Kampuchea, like the people of China and Russia, face the task of establishing a socialism based on the democratic rule of the masses-featuring regional cooperation and not antagonism.

Peter Brockway and Patrick Mulrennan.