[unclear: An] Attacked

[unclear: article] in last weeks Salient "S.E. Another view" by Patrick Mulrenan [unclear: es] of lies, contradictions and illogical [unclear: iones] Multenan's article states that [unclear: al] coflict that underlies the situation Asia is the continued hostility of the States to the encroacment of liberation [unclear: as] on territory that it considers its own." goes on the describe US alracks on [unclear: and] then claims that "The US found [unclear: g] ally for these attacks in the [unclear: government] the Peoples Republic of China." [unclear: Pattss] off a number of highly distorted [unclear: to] support his argument.

[unclear: chim] that the real conflict in S.E. Asia [unclear: continued] hostility of the US is abject [unclear: ce]. True the US is waging an ideological [unclear: ht] on Vietnam by branding Vietnam as [unclear: list] country (despite the decidedly [unclear: list] nature of its invasion and occupat-[unclear: Kampuchca]) and has made much of the [unclear: ese] refugee problem in its continual to discredit socialism, but is political, [unclear: tic] and military role in Indo-China is Further Patrick's argument totally the role played by Vietnam and the [unclear: Jswn] in S.E. Asia.

[unclear: e] Vietnam leaned towards the Soviet [unclear: te] has committed on criminal act against [unclear: lution] after another. In Democratic [unclear: chea] it fomented coups and eventually [unclear: in] open aggression in order to attain its [unclear: ding] desire to form a colonial empire [unclear: he] "Indochina Federation". Against [unclear: t] has reversed its stand on Chinese [unclear: ntf] over the South China Sea islands, [unclear: ver] 180,000 Chinese (most of them [unclear: Kti]) to China, and begun armed [unclear: nations] Towards the national liberation [unclear: ents] South-East Asia, the CPV has out one act of betrayal after another, [unclear: ng] declarations that it would not support [unclear: ornry] struggle against the Malaysian and [unclear: rean] regimes and placing wreaths on [unclear: ents] to the memory of puppet soldiers [unclear: uring] the Malayan liberation war.

Soviet Union has backed Vietnam in [unclear: e] adventures because they serve Soviet [unclear: traiegy]. Part of the Soviet Union's [unclear: c] purpose at present is to bring all of [unclear: der] its influence so as to control strateg-[unclear: luterials] and the sea routes to the West [unclear: le] oil fields of the Middle East. With [unclear: east] Asia within its grasp, the Soviet [unclear: will] be able to threaten neighbouring [unclear: si] and control the Malacca Straits. It is [unclear: Mtnam] as its stormtrooper in this [unclear: type] so it has given Vietnam vast economic [unclear: itary] backing, brought it into [unclear: Come-ed] signed with it a fake "treaty of peace [unclear: aaianrp] which is disguised military

[unclear: these] facts are strangely absent from [unclear: this] article. Instead we are told that [unclear: pursues] the same narrow, nationalistic, [unclear: if] the Soviet Union" We are not told [unclear: it] means in connection with the Soviet [unclear: baa] China's crimes are apparently, [unclear: nam] was invited to China, the Chinese [unclear: off] all aid to Vietnam and the counter-[unclear: cm] Vietnam. Again Patrick fails to these actions. The visit of President [unclear: to] China was a visit of the head of one another. It was purely a diplomatic and does not in anyway imply Chinese [unclear: de] to state relations with the Philipines [unclear: t] the same time provide aid to the [unclear: nes] liberation movement.

[unclear: at] withdrew aid from Vietnam for a [unclear: for] of political and economic reason's in-Vietnam continuous armed provocat-[unclear: to] Chinnsese territory, and Vietnam's [unclear: on] of 180,000 Chinese from Vietnam [unclear: m] claimed the Chinese were all undesir-[unclear: sineumen], but in fact 95% of the Chin-[unclear: eescamc] from North Vietnam where [unclear: italia] class was supposedly stripped of [unclear: pfcauat] rights 19 years ago!) The [unclear: Chinnter]-attack on Vietnam was a limited [unclear: an] to show both Vietnam and her the Soviet Union, that China was not [unclear: d] to "turn the other check" to their [unclear: on].

[unclear: ick] then turns from attacking the [unclear: the] government to attacking the Pol Pot Government. He claims that "It set out to systematically depopulate the cities and thrust the country backwards politically and economically." and that "The complete disorganisation of the country and the lack of support for the Pol Pot regime was shown in the way the regime crumbled when earlier this year the Vietnamese troops invaded backing the Kampuchea United Front for National Salvation."

This paragraph is completely laughable. The Vietnames have been hostile to the Kampuchean's for some time and the Kampuchean's were in fact expecting the Vietnamese invasion knowing they couldn't defeat the Russian-backed Vietnamese invasion, earlier on the Kampuchcan's adopted the very sensible policy of moving the people to the countryside to prepare them for a guerrila war. The Kampuchean economy has in fact made huge strides since liberation in 1975. Before liberation 80% of the people were illiterate and starvation was rife. Through socialist reconstruction starvation has been eliminated and 90% of the population in now literate.

His last few paragraphs are incredibly confused. The logic runs something like we can't condemn the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuches because the invasion is a defensive move aimed against the economic blockade set up by China, Kampuchea and the United States. On the other hand we can't support the Vietnamese government because "it is schooled in the same style of narrow nationalism as the Chinese and Russian governments."

Patricks's arguements are patently absurd. They are based on many false assumptions, the main one being that the U.S. is the main threat to world peace. While the United States would undoubtedly like to interfere to increase its influence in many parts of the world because of its defeat in Vietnam and the increasing tolerance of the American people to continued expensionism, it is not in the position to do so.

For example, though Carter expressed a desire to intervene in Iran, he recognised the unpopularity of such a move and thus its menfolde failure.

The root cause of the conflict in S.E. Asia is, in fact, the intensification of superpower rivalry, stemming from the swift pace of Soviet expansionsm, and the regional ambitions of the Vietanese leaders.