The South East Asian Conflict

I am writing to state my position concerning the debate re the condemnation of the Vietnamese invasion in Kampuchea and the Chinese counterattack, and to clarify a few points that were made in Salient's report of it. The report is a bit misleading because it ignores the fact that the amended motion was substantially different from the original motion, which condemned the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea and not the Chinese counterattack on Vietnam. The amendment was mistakenly accepted by us, because we were under the incorrect impression that the amendment did not condemn the Chinese counter-attack but rather called for the withdrawal of all aggressive forces from foreign territory. In the event of confusion arising from this mistake, I would like to restate my position.

The original motion was moved in this form because the mover and seconder felt that there was a fundamental difference between the Vietnamese invasion and the Chinese counter-attack. The Vietnamese invasion was thinly masked by the pretense of supporting a popular uprising by a liberation group that had been formed only 22 days before the so-called "liberation" took place. The Vietnamese are still heavily involved in Kampuchea, independent sources estimating 100,000 troops in Phom Phenn, and not only have no intention of withdrawing but are already making skirmishes into the Thai territory. The Chinese counter-attack on the other hand was a limited, strategic operation which was designed to put a stop to not only Vietnamese expansionist designs in the area but also those of the Soviet Union. It was also a defensive move against the repeated Vietnamese incursions into Chinese territory, particularly in 1978. The proof of China's sincerity is surely the fact that the Chinese have now withdrawn from Vietnamese territory.

It is up to progressive forces to fight for the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Kampuchean territory.