China's Foreign Policy

Rolf Martens rolf.martens at mailbox.swipnet.se
Tue Oct 8 02:34:33 MDT 1996


Matt,

You wrote, on 07.10:

>Rolf Martens wrote:
>
>>You are mistaken on South Africa. Its racist regime was always squarely
>>condemned and atacked by Mao's China.
>
>Not true. China gave arms to the UNITA rebels, who were also supported by
>the Republic of South Africa. Some bedfellows tou 'anti-imperialists'
>chose.

But it *is* true. UNITA was one of three liberation organizations
in Angola. In late 1975, there was an agreement between those three.
China, at that time socialist, supported this agreement, this
unity. The Soviet social-imperialists tried to split it up. They
supported one or two of the three organizations and attacked UNITA.
At the same time, US imperialist forces and the South African racist
regime also went in for a split.

So the situation later became this, that the social-imperialists
were trying to get a foothold in Africa by sending Cuban mercenary
troops to Angola to "support" one liberation organization; as a
reaction to this, the racists started to support UNITA.

China's support for UNITA *and* the other two organizations in
Angola by no means was support for racist South Africa. Your
*theory* stems from the slander disseminated by the Soviet
soical-imperialists.

>>Yes. And this handshake was a very good thing too. Was it perhaps
>>in support of the US aggression in Vietnam? No. Mao Zedong made
>>a tactical unity with some of the US imperialist forces against
>>Soviet social-imperialism, which had even then started to emerge
>>as the most dangerous source of war internationally, and which was
>>supported in this by another US imperialist faction.

>It's statement like this, which led me to believe when I was first getting
>into left politics, that Maoists were on another planet to the rest of us.
>The above analysis is not based on what is required to forward the struggle
>of the working class internationally, but on the ebb and flow of Stalinist
>China's foreign policy. By the way, I defended China and still do against
>counterrevolution; something which the current Chinese government is
>incapable of doing.
>
>Matt Kelly.
>
>--
>=C9irigh lasadh as an splanc seo

The Marxist-Leninists (whom you call "Maoists") were on the same
planet as the masses. *They* could clearly see the utterly=20
*reactioanry*, counter-revolutionary nature of the Soviet Union
of that time. They might not have known the scientific term
for it which Mao Zedong etc used, "Social-imperialism", but
they rightly *abhorred* that system. Mao Zedong did the right
thing in pointing at it as the most dangerous source of war
at the time.

It's practically ONLY some SO-CALLED "leftists" who have
been FOR the vile social-imperialism, and this shows how
EXTREMELY reactionary, in reality, those "leftists" were and
are. Those forces are some of the worst enemies of the
revolution, and this it is necessary to see very clearly.

Through its aggression against Afghanistan, the Soviet Union
finally showed its true character to all the world. Mao Zedong
was proved right in practice too. And please compare the
speech of China's representative, Qiao Guanhua, on 05.10.1976,
reproduced by me as UNITE! Info #18en, to what took place
later!

Its OUR line that has been proven correct, in practice.

Some bedfellow YOU have chosen, Matt, Soviet social-imperialism,
one of the (former - sorry!, you Brezhnev admirers!) PILLARS
OF REACTION in the world.=20

Rolf M.



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list