In the late nineteenth century, imperial China, a semi-colonial power, found itself subjected to constant aggressions and humiliations by the big capitalist states, who of the Amur (1845), the regions along the Ussuri and Sung-Cha rivers (1860), parts of Mongolia (1864), the west bank of the lli (1881), a part of the Chinese Pamirs carved up the outlying regions of its empire. Great Britain seized Hong Kong; France took Vietnam; Japan, Formosa; and czarist Russia, successively, the right bank (1893), and the peninsula of Liaotung, with Port Arthur (which was later lost to Japan). When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia, Lenin and Trotsky officially On September 27, 1920, the Soviet government published a note which stated the following: "It [the Soviet government] declares null and void all treaties which the former Russian government concluded with China. It renounces claim to all the territory taken from China and restores to China unconditionally and forever 1. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND disavowed all dictated treaties.
The execution of this promise was postponed until failed to respect the promise made by Lenin and rory. inere is wnere me main resoonsibility lips workers states. Of course, nineteenth-century imperial for the conflict in the Far East between the two China was an empire o Russia one ripen ing many nationalities in warant powers. ne urtinate tate or tne territori.
„enin and trotsky promised to return to China wac t depend on the application of the right of nationalities to self-determination. It is quite possible that, after a symbolic cession of these territories to China, the populations of some of avour of autonomy within the USSR, or of we areas would nave opted in or of a Sino-Soviet condominium. The same principle would no doubt have applied to not a few national minuries of chi on the territory of the People's Why were Lenin and Trotsky correct nonetheless to pose this question the way they did in 1920?
Because they recognized that internationalism on the part of oppressors or 'great nations, as they are formal equality of nations but even in an inequality concu, must consist notonly in the coservance of tha of the oppressor nation, the great nation, that must make up for the inequality which obtains in actual practice. Anybody who does not understand this has national question.... What is important to the proletarian? To the proletarian it is not only important, it is essential, that he should be assured that the nonRussians place the greatest possible trust in the proletarian class stri is needed to ensure mal equality. In one way or other, by one's attitude or concessions, it is ocessary to compensate me non mussians tor the ack of trust, suspicion. and insults to which th them in the past." (The Question of Nationalities or government or the dominant nation has suniectar "Autonomisation,' " in Lenin's Last Letters and Articles, Progress Publishers, Moscow, undated, p.19.) 2. TWO CULPRITS - A DOCTRINE AND A SOCIAL LAYER After the success of the revolution the People's Republic of China did not immediatel demand a revision of the frontiers with the USSR. Nor did it seek to modify these borders by force. For eight vears, both under practiced "peaceful co-existence" with the Soviet otali and Anrusnchev it government in return for substantial economic and military aid an over duried to put entire to retreat began, or continued, to put entirely the drawing board for the industrialization, agricultural mprovement, and demographic development (colonization) of the Central Asian and Far Eastern gons ne apprication or the doctrine ot building that is, considerable waste and finally to truly sociansm in one country led tirst to absurdities perverse results.
The AB on am to Mam, it in La thie theory.
Bolshevik Party's theoretical manual under Lenin, it says the following: "A second task concerns the mutual economic relationships between Russia and those such countries them in accordance with a common economic plan Pussie we must conlaborate with The economic proletarian centralisation of production of Communism, University of Michigan Press 1966, pp.272-273. Emphasis in original.) 3. FROM AN IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICT TO A CONFLICT AMONG STATES After 1957, an ideological conflict broke out between the Soviet and Chinese leaders. On a series of burning i questions or une wore revolution the chinece nave upheld positions more progressive than those of the to believe in socialism in one country, in the Kremlin chiets. At the same time the Chinese continue sharpening of the class struggle, under socialism, and in alliance with the so-called national bourgeoise in the anti-imperialist revolution They retuse to recognise that the anti-imperialist revolution must go over into a socialist revolution in order to be victorious, or to recognize Stalin's role n the process of bureaucratic degeneration in the USSR.
The Peking leadership, however, holds positions questions of "peaceful co-ex superior to those of the Kremlin, especially on the to socialism," the defense of the Leninist theory of the peacerul roads Visite mass communist parties, ett questionably weakened the underpinnings of Khrushchevism and neo-Stalinism in the everything that the czarist government and the Russian bourgeoisie rapaciously took from it."
alliance rests with the Soviet bureaucracy. At most eight be said that the language used by the Chinese leaders has made the Kremlin's work easier.
The alliance was broken when the USSR abruptly halted its economic aid to the People's Republic of China at a time when China was experiencing grave economic difficulties, It was broken when the USSR refused to help China build defensive nuclear weapons in the face of the nuclear threat of American imperialism. It was broken when Moscow adopted a policy of diplomatic rapprochement with American contlict (the military occupation of Formosa, the blocking of Chinese membership, in the UN, etc.)
as a precondition for a detante. 4. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE THEORY OF "LIMITED SOVEREIGNTY OF SOCIALIST COUNTRIES The Kremlin leaders have set great store lately by the theory of a "socialist commonwealth." Moscow is supposed to nave not only the right but the duty to intervene minarly everywnere it claims that the foundations of socialism are being endangered by the "plots" of the imperialists or their Of course, in theory, the concept that an "unlimited national sovereignty' snoule exis in an internationd society inat is outicino socialism rougn a traternal alliance of the working masses based on internationally planned economic development however, seem to confirm the Chinese view. b Ingetensible. In such a society, which would be (and would involve eliminating differences in development and livir betree pobe nopen for nations to jealously people and so-called rich peoples) protect "their" resources. but sucn a communiti wouid nave to be founded on voluntary cooperation Dy all peoples, on the broadest socialist democracy which would carefully safeguard the rights of minorities, on governments ably emanate from the freely relations between the USSR and its allies and the other workers states. In regard to all these countries, the Soviet bureaucracy at various stages has practiced policies of economic robbery and national oppression Thus, the proposition of "limited sovereignty of socialist countries" which the Kremlin applies to the other workers states by no means represents the a cynical affirmation of the Soviet bureaucracy's statement of an internationalist principle. It is merely right to impose its writ on the other nations that have abolished capitalism. anyone be surprised, under these circumstances, that these nations totally reject his "limited sovereignty"? Can anyone be surprisec that they are distrustfül and fear that Moscow may act tomorrow against Yugoslavia, Rumania, or China that it already has against Czechosl Is this suspicion unfounded? The Soviet leaders have only themselves to blame for this mistrust. They awakening, undermined our authority with its eoples, even if only by the slightest crudity or Justice toward our own non-kussian nationalitiec The necessity to rally against the imperialists of the capitalist world is one thing. There can be no superfluous for me to speak about my unconditional approval of it. It is another thing vien we ourserves lapse, even it only in trifles into imperialist attitudes toward oppressed sincerity, all our defense on print le o tincipled nationalities, thus undermining all o struggle against imperialism. 5. THE HISTORICAL RECORD OF THE BORDER CONFLICT re usouted, in wecember dor a new sino-sot alv was concluded on this ausion In Aori 10 when the Sino-Soviet conflict was already in full flower, the Chinese Ministry of Communications limited the rights previously accorded to the Soviets. The Session of the joint commission met in August 1967. After that. it no longer met In 1963, the first border incidents occurred. The Soviet government drew attention to the fact that the Chinese authorities had instructed Chinese fishermen to tredt the disputed islands in the Amur and Ussuri t seems certain that dozens of incidents hav already occurred in this region in recent years. Th question that must be asked, then, is not so much raised territorial claims against the USSR. Old atlases, Moreover, the soviet communiques have been contradictory. Sometimes they have spoken of "200 including militiamen time cotes of civilians including militiamen in plain who are supposed to have opened fire from the Chinese side The Chinese press long ago pointed out and protested against concentrations of Soviet troops along the Far Eastern border. The Soviet press Itself admitted that tanks and heavy airplane participated in these incidents on the Sov (cf. the Krasnaya Zvezda article cited in Le Monde March 21). But no such accusation has been made against the Chinese, even by the Soviets.
IN WHOSE INTEREST IS IT TO INFLATE INCOC INCIDENTS?
But even if all these facts are correct and if they prove that the Kremlin chose to employ inadmissible military pressure to settle a minor difference, it is no less true tnat the Chinese response also was out of proportion to une importance or the question generals thorgani shen urgers or sto scraps of land which are supposed to furnish mineral same manner.
Even if there were a "provocation" by one side o he other, an uninhabited island covered by ice part o the year and by water another part is not worth the lives if hundreds of Chinese or Soviet soldiers. Thes oldiers do not have to die to show the "firmness" of some leader or to increase the prestige of some bureaucratic group.
he soviets nave invoked the inviolability of their territory. But experience has shown that whe the Soviet government wants to establish a co-existence" or "good neighbour relationship with any bourgeois or even reactionary or semifascist government (e.g., Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey), it manages perfectly well to settle its border disputes andory. in Inese cases, It does not see even nountain top or river bank as a matter of honor justifying an armed conflict.
perceful sease of of bordenires propakist for peaceful settlement of border disputes where capitalism not only still reigned but did so in th orm of a militar dictatorship that brutalized and concerning the boundary which may arise after the delimitation of the boundary line actually existing between the two countries e settled peacefully by the two Parties through friendly consultations.
The artifical inflation of the border incident on the Ussuri - to the great joy of the capitalists and reactionaries inrougnout the entire word therefore contrary to the interests of the Soviet agyression to strengten the unity of the pro one cannot neto out De nauseate d tRe siont or sO much hypocrisy.
American imperialism has repeatedly threatened the People's Republic of China, American military chiefs openly threatened to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese (to as te renacon brass express themselves.) The Kremlin has not once reartirmed its nuctear guarantee or China, And the Chinese are supposed to be the ones who have divided the anti- moerialist forcas?
Imperialism has been able to send its armies to intervene against revolutions at many points around the globe; and the USSR, which is the world's second greatest pover nas not raised a tinger. Ine imoerialısts nave intervened trom the congo to the Dominicar Republic and from Malaysia to Bolivia with impunity.
And the Chinese are supposed to be the ones who have Imperidism nas been able to attack and violate the ternitory or tne reople s nepublic от Vietnam, although it is a "part of the great family of socialist nations."
There has been no response by the Kremlin , either there or at any other The only places where Moscow has intervened ir orce recently have not been fronts of anti-imperiali struggie. funds intervenee in czecnosiovakia and o cne irontiers or enina where no moerialist tord xisted and where it dealt blows not against capitalisn but against countries which have overthrowr "he Soviet press talks about "dividing the anti imperialist forces." But at the same time, Sovie plomats nave approached bourgeois government inclucina vasnineton and bonn to intorm then about the conflict with China - an unheard-of act which not even Stalin committed at the time of his conflict with Yugoslavi The Soviet press talks about "dividing the anti imperialist forces." Dul it ourisnee yeviusnenko s gusting poem, wrien used racist language in regard to China. This poem speaks about the peril of ar invasion by the "new Mongol khans" (when everyone bureaucrals, real marxists and real communists mus Heavy Arms from the Border of the Chinese People's "Send Your Tanks and Planes to Vietnam, listedo or to rraque ano the ossurie And to Peking, revolutionary Marxists must say:
of Adventurism and Prestige-Seeking!' Settle Your Border Conflict with the USSR Amicabiy une vay you Did with Pakistanthe Chinese leaders should propose an anti-imperialist united front to the Soviet leaders, take them at their word and challenge them to carry out a series
----- pull-quotes -----
state in regard to the Western countries, opposition to The Polemic the Chinese have mounted has un-
raising visions of the so of led banaries in ali countries. n the face of the melancholy orgies of frenziec