Y. ETINGER and O. MELIKYAN

PROGRESS PUBLISHERS Moscow

,

This book deals with the basic problems of Afro-Asian neutralism, its social and economic roots, political foundation, substance and essence, and the basic stages of its development, and also with the mounting importance of the neutralist states in the world and the key events that have taken place in them.

In preparing this book for translation, one of the authors, Yakov Etinger, introduced many changes, writing a new section on the activities of the Organisation of African Unity and a chapter on the second conference of non-aligned countries, and bringing the material in the rest of the book up to date.

A Candidate of Historical Sciences, Yakov Etinger is a member of the scientific staff at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.

Ovanes Melikyan is a research worker at the Institute of Africa of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction :..............

5

Essence and Features of Afro-Asian Neutralism . .

9

Neutralism and the Struggle to Consolidate National

Independence..............

19

The Non-Aligned Countries and the Main Issues of

Modern Times.............

25

South-East Asia, a Bulwark of Neutralism.....

45

Non-Alignment in the Arab East.......

69

Neutralism Spreads in Africa.........

75

The Belgrade Conference of Non-Aligned Countries .

97

The Second Conference of Non-Aligned Countries . .

106

Imperialism in Retreat...........

122

fl. 3THHFEP, O. MEJIHKflH

HEfiTPAJIHSM H COBPEMEHHOCTb

Ha OHSJIUSCKOM X3UKC

INTRODUCTION

The independent foreign policy of the new sovereign states is one of the key gains of the national liberation movement.

The Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia and the socialist revolutions in a number of European and Asian countries have inaugurated a qualitatively new stage in the development of that movement, a stage in which, Lenin foretold, "all the Eastern peoples will participate in deciding the destiny of the whole world.... The peoples of the East are becoming alive to the need for practical action, the need for every nation to take part in shaping the destiny of all mankind."*

Today the peoples of the former colonies are actively helping to shape mankind's destiny. The new sovereign states of Asia and Africa have become an effective, important and independent factor of world politics. Their appearance on the international scene has substantially changed the balance of forces in favour of peace.

``A few years ago," states the report of the C.C., C.P.S.U. to the Twenty-Second Party Congress, "there were two opposing camps in world affairs-the socialist and imperialist camps. Today an active role in international affairs is also being played by those countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America that have freed, or are freeing, themselves from foreign oppression. Those countries are often called neutralist though they may be considered neutral only in the sense that they do not belong to any of the existing military-- political alliances. Most of them, however, are by no means neutral when the cardinal problem of our day, that of war

* V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 160.

and peace, is at issue. As a rule, those countries advocate peace and oppose war."*

The political scene in the world today consists of three elements-the socialist countries, the members of imperialist military blocs and the countries pursuing a neutralist policy. The emergence of a large group of neutralist states in Asia and Africa is a feature of the present world situation.

The change wrought by this group in the world balance has considerably altered the alignment of forces in the United Nations Organisation. At the XIX General Assembly in 1964 more than half of the 115 members were Afro-Asian countries, most of which (over 30) were neutralist states.

The growing might of the socialist system and the decline of imperialism are enabling the former colonies and semicolonies to participate actively and independently in settling international issues and to pursue a peace-loving neutralist policy at the U.N. Apologists of imperialism are declaring with apprehension that the General Assembly is becoming a forum of the Afro-Asian bloc, which jointly with the socialist countries is shaping an anti-colonial majority in the U.N. The adversaries of Afro-Asian neutralism regard as especially dangerous the fact that objective conditions are making it possible for the peace-loving Afro-Asian states to co-operate with the socialist countries in the U.N.

The neutralist trend in the newly-liberated countries springs from the laws governing our epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism. The new, third stage of the general crisis of capitalism has given a further impetus to the policy of neutralism, enhancing its significance in international relations and strengthening its ties with the progressive processes taking place in the world today.

A direct manifestation of the deepening general crisis of capitalism is that most of the emergent countries have the possibility of pursuing an effective neutralist policy and that this policy is becoming a growing factor of world politics.

The number of emergent countries adopting a neutralist policy is steadily increasing and the very concept of neutrality is growing richer and broader. In the conditions obtaining in the newly-liberated countries, neutralism has become a potent instrument in the struggle for peace and peaceful coexistence.

against the imperialist warmongers. In the twentieth century the concept of neutrality has acquired a new meaning. Today when the world socialist system is becoming the chief factor of social development and imperialism has lost its supremacy, the neutralist policy of the Afro-Asian countries has become a new phenomenon in international relations, vividly showing that a split has occurred in the non-socialist world.

In line with the Leninist principles underlying their foreign policy, the Soviet Union and other socialist countries are perseveringly and consistently promoting political, economic and -cultural co-operation with the neutralist states and giving their peace-loving foreign policy effective aid. In this connection, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. states: "All the organisations and parties that strive to avert war, the neutralist and pacifist movements, and the bourgeois circles that advocate peace and normal relations between countries will meet with understanding and support on the part of the Soviet Union."*

The Soviet Union's relations with the Afro-Asian neutralist states are an example of peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems. On many basic issues most of the Afro-Asian countries identify themselves to one degree or another with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. This solidarity rests on a community of fundamental interests in foreign relations. The importance of promoting still closer co-operation with the socialist camp has been repeatedly stressed by Afro-Asian neutralist leaders.

The foreign policy of most of the new sovereign states is a formidable obstacle to the aggressive designs of the imperialists. No wonder that it became the target of savage imperialist attacks as soon as it began to be put into practice. The notorious thesis that neutralism is amoral, propounded in the mid-1950s by the late John Foster Dulles, when he was U.S. Secretary of State, has become a programme of action by the most reactionary forces of imperialism.

Under these conditions an analysis of the neutralist policy of the new national states of Asia and Africa as a powerful factor of peace and of the struggle against colonialism and imperialism is of fundamental importance.

Let us, then, examine the roots and features of this policy.

* The Road to Communism, Moscow, 1961, p. 41.

The Road to Communism, Moscow, 1961, p. 507.

ESSENCE AND FEATURES

OF AFRO-ASIAN NEUTRALISM

First and foremost, non-alignment or neutralism mirrors the circumstance that most of the newly-liberated countries do not bind themselves by military or political commitments to either the imperialist or socialist camp. Neutralism has been adopted as a foreign policy concept by the majority of the new countries, which, however, remain within the system of capitalist economy in a subordinate and unequal capacity. At the same time, this policy is a complex, manifold and, sometimes, contradictory phenomenon. Its essence has been defined in many ways, and quite a few of the leaders of the new sovereign countries give their own interpretation of ``neutralism'' and ``non-alignment''.

Neutralist principles have been embraced by a large number of countries in Asia and Africa, many of which differ from each other by the level of social and economic development and by their socio-political system and form of administration.

These countries are united by their striving for peace and peaceful coexistence. Even in economically less developed countries that have been drawn into imperialist military blocs there is a growing trend to pursue a neutralist policy.

Non-alignment gained ascendancy after the Second World War, primarily in countries that had been colonies and won independence. Asia and Africa were the main spheres of imperialist colonial domination. For that reason neutralism found expression in the foreign policy of mainly Afro-Asian countries, many of which, through the fault of the imperialists, had never pursued an independent foreign policy line

and had no foreign policy traditions. At the present stage of development of most Afro-Asian countries, neutralism is a historical prerequisite.

Giving reasons for the emergence of this policy, India Quarterly wrote in its January-March 1962, issue that "there was also a basic distrust of the Western powers. This was mainly due to the imperialist character of most Western powers.... The anti-colonial traditions of the nationalist movements were, therefore, against alignment with Western powers''.

For most of the new Afro-Asian states non-alignment is, at the present stage of their development, an objective need that stems from their position in world economy and politics and from their internal social and economic conditions.

These conditions play an important role in shaping the neutralist foreign policy. Although socio-economic development proceeds differently in these countries, there is no economic soil for an imperialist policy in them. On account of socio-economic features, the formation of a national bourgeoisie in a number of neutralist African states stopped at its earliest stage. In most of these countries the national bourgeoisie is numerically small or non-existent at all. In some, survivals of feudalism are still in evidence, in others, feudalism predominates or there even are pre-feudal economies and customs. Many of the neutralist states are ruled by bourgeois circles that still have a considerable revolutionary potential and seek to implement social reforms as far as their class interests allow. These countries do not have native finance capital or large monopolies that give rise to aggressive foreign policy aspirations. True, they sometimes disagree among themselves over various problems, particularly frontier problems (especially in Africa). However, these disagreements differ considerably from the contradictions that arise between imperialist states and are the result of the grim legacy of colonialism and, in some cases, of truncated national development.

although the influence of the other classes on the ruling circles is of unquestioned importance. Many of the neutralist countries are ruled by the national bourgeoisie, which experiences pressure on the part of the masses, who are actively opposing imperialism, fighting for peace and peaceful coexistence and demanding friendship and co-operation with the socialist countries.

The ruling circles in the emergent countries are drawn towards neutralism by their violent contradictions with imperialism, their unwillingness to be involved in a conflict between the two world socio-economic systems and their desire for business co-operation with the socialist countries. At the present stage, the economic and political interests of the national bourgeoisie clash with those of imperialism. Equitable relations with the socialist countries are enabling the new states to maintain economic relations with the Western powers on more advantageous and preferential terms. The interests of these circles demand independent economic and political development, the abolition of foreign monopoly rule, non-participation in aggressive blocs and a policy of anti-colonialism. The national bourgeoisie desires the abolition of the colonial pattern of the economy and seeks to ensure freedom for its own capital and gain control of the home market.

However, the neutralist policy must not be understood as a straight and smooth road without twists and turns. Implementation of this policy is sometimes accompanied by vacillation, and in practice it is frequently contradictory and inconsistent. For example, in the Congo issue not all the neutralist countries have been consistently anti-imperialist. The same may be said about the problem of a German peace treaty and certain other international issues. The foreign policy of the Afro-Asian countries is influenced by the correlation of the social forces in them, the internal struggle between classes and parties, between pro-imperialist and progressive forces and the attempts of the imperialists to interfere in that struggle.

The dual nature of the national bourgeoisie and the desire of certain of its circles to co-operate with imperialism likewise influence the neutralism of some Afro-Asian countries.

In the new sovereign countries some of the leaders seek to confine co-operation with the Soviet Union and other

When we analyse the neutralist policy of the Afro-Asian countries, we must bear in mind that the foreign policy of a country is determined by the interests of the ruling classes.

socialist countries within definite limits, feeling that co-- operation beyond these limits would give the "communist bloc" too great an advantage in its struggle against the "Western bloc''.

Thus, as a foreign policy concept of certain circles in the non-aligned countries, neutralism mirrors, on the one hand, their anti-imperialist trend and, on the other, their reluctance to promote economic and political co-operation with the socialist countries on too large a scale and their fear of the prospect of genuine socialist development. It is worth noting that this desire to keep at an equal distance from the two world camps sometimes makes itself felt in the home and economic policy of a number of emergent countries in Asia and Africa.

Noting that "neutralism influences domestic policy", the West German magazine Aussenpolitik wrote that "the ideological interpretation of neutralism as a concept that is at once political and economic" is mirrored in the striving to find a "third way" in domestic development. This is manifested in the attempts to combine economic planning and the priority development of the state sector in the economy with the activity of private foreign and local capital. The very fact that the economic aid from the socialist countries is used for building and promoting the state sector, and aid from the Western powers is used chiefly for the development of the private sector is offered up by some circles in Asia and Africa as proof of their striving to find a. socio-economic way of development that would combine the elements of both socialism and capitalism. They maintain that all these measures will help to build up a neutral "mixed economy" that will differ both from the capitalist and the socialist economy. In a book entitled Significance ot Positive Neutrality, the wellknown Lebanese journalist Maksoud writes that non-- alignment alone affords the possibility of building a new society that would differ from capitalist and from communist society.

Some Afro-Asian leaders narrow down the aims and essence of neutralism, declaring that by non-alignment they mean solely non-alignment with military blocs. Moreover, there are circles in the neutralist states who would like to turn to account the accentuated "independent, extra-bloc" nature of non-alignment and thereby win some short-term advantage for their country.

For one reason or another, the statesmen of some neutralist countries incorrectly define the essence and nature of the existing military blocs, making no distinction between aggressive imperialist blocs such as NATO, CENTO and SEATO and the defensive Warsaw Treaty Organisation of the socialist countries.

This approach has brought some leaders of the new countries round to the assertion that world tension is the outcome of the foreign policy of the "two world blocs", although it is a well-known fact that after the appearance of the aggressive NATO bloc the Warsaw Treaty Organisation was set up for the express purpose of averting war.

Individual political leaders in some of the neutralist countries do not scruple to manoeuvre between the two military blocs, deliberately jumbling together the terms ``bloc'' and ``system''.

This assessment of the nature of the military blocs of the imperialist and socialist states is giving some statesmen of the neutralist countries grounds for making a fetish out of the "extra-bloc policy", which they give out as something akin to a panacea for all ills and the main force in the struggle for peace, against the threat of another world war. Willynilly, the role played by such revolutionary forces as the world socialist system and the international working-class movement in the struggle for peace, against the threat of another world war, is thereby belittled.

The peace-loving policy of the non-aligned countries has the backing of the masses because it takes into consideration and mirrors their overpowering desire for peace and peaceful coexistence.

The neutralist foreign policy gives rise to external and internal prerequisites for strengthening the political independence of the new countries and enabling them to achieve economic independence. In this respect, it reflects the growing influence of the working class, the peasantry and all other working people on the destiny of the Afro-Asian countries. Sohan Lai, the prominent Indian statesman and active champion of neutralism, declared that this policy is the only one recognised by the people as capable of promoting India's development as an independent country. At the other end of the scale. Ideology and Foreign Affairs, an authoritative U.S. research published in 1960, admits that it "is unlikely

that any policy departing from non-alignment could marshal similar internal support". The authors of this research note that non-alignment strengthens the position of the ruling parties of the neutralist countries.

At the present stage the foreign policy interests of the main social forces in the new sovereign states coincide. The influence and support of the working people through their political parties and organisations are making it possible to pursue a more consistent, peace-loving anti-imperialist foreign policy and protect it against encroachment by aggressive imperialist forces and their agents in the neutralist countries. The greater the popular pressure brought to bear on the leaders of the new countries and the stronger their efforts in the struggle for peace, the more pronounced becomes the anti-imperialist nature of the non-alignment policy.

The Communist Parties of the liberated countries are the most consistent advocates of the peace-loving foreign policy of these countries, bringing pressure to bear on their governments to implement a genuinely neutralist line, a policy of resistance to imperialism and co-operation with the socialist countries.

In a resolution adopted early in 1961 on the political situation in India, the National Council of the Communist Party of India noted: "Ours was the first party in the country to advocate that a foreign policy of peace, anti-colonialism, co-operation with socialist countries and close friendship with African and Asian countries is in our genuine national interests." The Communist Party of India has repeatedly stressed the progressive significance of non-alignment. At its Seventh Congress in December 1964 it declared that the Communists of India supported the government in its efforts to steer a policy of non-alignment.

Neutralism is a natural course in the development of the new sovereign states. It is not an invention of any one statesman, although frequently it is associated with the names of individual leaders of the liberated countries.

It would be political short-sightedness to attribute the foreign policy of these countries to the subjective desires of individuals. Defining the roots of his country's neutralist policy in a speech in the Lower House on December 9, 1958, the late Jawaharlal Nehru declared: "It is a policy inherent

in the circumstances of India ... inherent in the conditioning of the Indian mind during our struggle for freedom, and

inherent in the circumstances of the world today---- It is

completely incorrect to call our policy `Nehru' policy. It is incorrect because all that I have done is to give voice to that policy. I have not originated it."*

The principles of neutralism are recorded in the programmes of the ruling parties of many African and Asian countries. In its Poll Manifesto and in the resolution endorsed by the 67th Congress on January 4, 1962, the Indian National Congress stated: "The Congress welcomes the repeated support accorded by Parliament and our people to the foreign policy

of the Government___This policy, based on the respect and

sovereignty of nations, the determination to maintain our national independence, non-alignment in respect of power blocs and military alliances, the ending of colonialism and the settlement of international disputes by negotiations and peaceful methods, has been found to be wise.''

The programme of the Convention People's Party of Ghana, approved and published by the Party's National Executive in May 1962, points out that non-alignment is the only acceptable policy for Ghana. "Non-alignment," it emphasises, "is a positive policy because it consciously seeks to alter relationpatterns inherited from colonialism. It is a positive policy also because the non-aligned countries can combine in putting forward their own solutions for international problems." In that document, it should be noted, neutralism is linked up with the country's economic development, African unity and the struggle for disarmament and world peace.

The decision adopted on September 22, 1960, by the Extraordinary Congress of the Sudanese Union, which proclaimed the Republic of Mali, lays emphasis on the need for a neutralist policy. The foreign policy of Mali is founded on that decision. In July 1963, Mali President Modibo Keita declared that the Sudanese Union was pursuing a policy of peace, co-operation and non-alignment with blocs.

The thesis of non-alignment with blocs occupies a prominent place in the programme of the Istiqlal Party, one of the major political organisations in Morocco. In Istiqlal,

* The Political Quarterly, October-December 1962, Vol. 33, No. 4, p. 398.

a book by Abdelkrim Galab, a leader of that party, one of the chapters is devoted to non-alignment.

Jomo Kenyatta, an outstanding figure in Kenyan politics, declared that his party, the Kenya African National Union, advocated positive neutralism.

The leaders of the political parties of the African countries still languishing under the colonial yoke likewise uphold a neutralist policy. One of them, Mario de Andrade, who heads the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola, noted that at the given stage positive neutrality "is the corner-stone of the foreign policy of the national liberation movement of Angola''.

The fact that most of the new sovereign states have proclaimed non-alignment as their policy shows that neutralism, as is noted in the joint Soviet-Mali Communique on May 30, 1962, conforms with the concrete situation obtaining in these countries.

Despite the marked differences in their internal political systems, the new sovereign states pursuing a neutralist policy occupy a similar stand on basic international issues. They refuse to join imperialist military blocs and advocate the peaceful settlement of all outstanding international issues, the speediest possible settlement of the problem of general and complete disarmament and the banning of nuclear tests. Most of the non-aligned countries oppose the creation of foreign military bases on their territories. Thus, the neutralist policy objectively restricts the sphere in which aggressive imperialist circles can act and narrows down their possibility of provoking military conflicts.

Among the neutralist countries there are a few with feudalmonarchist regimes to which, as may seem at first glance, many of the principles of non-alignment must be alien. The peace-loving foreign policy of these countries stems from the growing prestige and popularity of non-alignment in Asia and Africa and from the striving of their ruling circles to help improve the international situation. At the same time, the leaders of some monarchist states are trying to take the edge off the anti-imperialist nature of the neutralist line, but the very fact that they have adopted neutralist principles is a sign of the times.

For the new sovereign states the unity of all progressive forces is of great importance because it enables them to

proceed with their national development. The anti-- communist repressions in some of these countries weaken this unity, undermine the anti-imperialist front and play into the hands of old and new colonialists. Any split of national unity, suppression of democratic freedoms and persecution of progressive elements inevitably jeopardise national independence and are incompatible with the vital interests of these countries.

As we have already pointed out, Afro-Asian neutralism is a new phenomenon in world politics and one of the forms of struggle for peace and peaceful coexistence. African and Asian leaders call their policy of non-alignment positive, dynamic or constructive neutralism, thereby underlining its distinctions from the "permanent neutrality" of certain West European states.

Let us examine these distinctions.

Afro-Asian neutralism differs from traditional neutrality by its social, economic and political essence and by the number of countries that have proclaimed it as the pivot of their foreign policy. Neutrality was relatively accidental in international relations and was proclaimed chiefly in time of war. Present-day neutralism, on the other hand, has embraced a large number of countries and become their permanent political line in time of peace.

The neutrality of West European countries is primarily the outcome of international agreements guaranteeing permanent neutrality both in war and peace.

``Permanent neutrality" is often the result of a country's traditions and geographical location. A country adopting such a policy usually limits its participation in international affairs (Switzerland is not even a member of the U.N.), is inactive in the struggle for peaceful coexistence and does nothing to oppose imperialism.

The key difference between non-alignment and "permanent neutrality" is that the former is an active and not passive line in the struggle for peace. However, it does not mean that the neutrality of European countries like Austria or Sweden is devoid of positive significance in modern world politics. Unquestionably, it plays a positive role because it signifies their refusal to be involved in power blocs and to let other countries build military bases on their territory. For that reason it is an important step forward compared

2-Xl

with participation in imperialist blocs. This sort of neutrality reflects the special position of these countries in the system of European relations and is founded on international law. The neutral West European countries, for example, Switzerland, Austria and Sweden, have undertaken to refrain from joining military blocs.

On the other hand, as we have already noted, Afro-Asian neutralism springs from the national liberation struggle of the peoples of colonial and dependent countries and cannot be analysed in isolation from that struggle. Its mainsprings are the social and economic situation within the countries concerned and their need of lasting peace as a major prerequisite for economic development. That makes it not only an anti-war but also an anti-imperialist and anti-colonial policy aimed at consolidating political and economic independence. If a country's attitude to the cause of peace and the prevention of war is taken as the main criterion in assessing its foreign policy, it will be seen that in this sense as well non-alignment is much broader than traditional neutrality.

Non-aligned countries are doing their utmost to relax international tension. They are paralysing the imperialist forces, preventing world war from breaking out, and doing everything in their power to settle outstanding issues between the Afro-Asian states themselves. The leaders of these countries are of the opinion that traditional "permanent neutrality" falls short of the foreign policy objectives of the liberated countries, which are actively championing peace and friendship among nations and continuing their struggle against imperialism and colonialism. In Africa Must Unite, President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana writes: "Since war, if it comes, is likely to destroy most of us, whether we are participants or not, whether or not we are the cause of it, negative neutralism is no shield at all." He scathingly criticises countries which are artificially isolating themselves from the principal issues of modern times and refusing to participate in the examination of problems arising from the issues of war and peace and the strengthening of their own political and economic independence.

NEUTRALISM AND THE STRUGGLE

TO CONSOLIDATE NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE

There is a deep-rooted connection between the foreign policy of the new sovereign countries and their efforts to consolidate their national independence and promote their economic development.

This connection becomes all the more obvious if we bear in mind that economically most of the neutralist states still belong to the world capitalist system even though they occupy a special place in it. Although national independence has considerably reduced the political influence of imperialism in these countries, foreign capital still uses them as a market and as a sphere of investment.

Economic domination by imperialism and exploitation by foreign monopolies with all the attendant evils have not yet been completely abolished in these countries.

British, French, Belgian and Dutch monopolies are making every effort to retain their old positions in the economy of the neutralist countries and capture new positions through economic ``aid'', the conclusion of various agreements and large-scale ideological expansion. To this day the large West European concerns continue to thrive on non-equivalent exchange with the liberated countries. U.S. and West German imperialism are making ever deeper inroads into these countries. Taking advantage of the collapse of the West European colonial empires, U.S. and West German monopolies are busy strengthening their influence in the former colonies. Tens of millions of dollars annually pour into their safes from Asian and African countries.

Most of these countries are opposing imperialism, eradicating the legacy of colonialism and working to win economic

independence. Many of them-India, Indonesia, Algeria, the United Arab Republic, Ghana, Guinea and Mali-have improved their economic position in the world market. Changes have taken place in the pattern of their economy. They have also been successful in their struggle to nullify unequal economic relations with imperialist powers. But these are only the first steps towards the solution of the problems confronting them. A peace-loving, neutralist policy, implemented at a time when imperialism still clings to its political and economic positions in these countries, enables the latter to change their political and economic relations with the imperialist states and to shake off foreign monopoly oppression. At the same time, there is a dogged struggle in these countries between the forces favouring the capitalist way of development and progressive circles demanding the rejection of capitalism. By opposing imperialism and pursuing a peace-loving foreign policy, the neutralist countries of Asia and Africa are strengthening their political independence and bringing nearer their economic independence, which opens up new prospects for internal development. The struggle of the neutralist states for the attainment of these objectives and their efforts to consolidate peace are a major component of the world revolutionary process.

At international conferences, in the United Nations Organisation and at talks between governments, the new sovereign states repeatedly lay stress on the importance of the struggle for economic independence and co-ordinate their efforts in that direction.

The proclamation of neutralism and non-alignment with imperialist military blocs was the first foreign policy act of many of the countries that liberated themselves from colonial rule and was directed against old and new colonialists. In this sense, non-alignment is a continuation of the antiimperialist, national liberation struggle in the world arena.

Neutralism has enabled most of the liberated Asian and African countries to pursue an independent policy and oppose the attempts of the imperialists to regain control over them. This has, in particular, been pointed out by Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah, who declared that non-alignment had given Ghana the possibility of preserving her independence and sovereignty in international affairs and to trade with friendly countries.

Furthermore, non-alignment gives the new sovereign states greater security and wins for them broad international support, which under the present world balance is of considerable importance to them.

Neutralism and their consistent struggle in defence of peaceful coexistence, for a relaxation of world tension have won for the non-aligned Asian and African countries the international prestige and popularity that they now enjoy.

The history of the past decade irrefutably shows that the less developed countries that allow themselves to be drawn into imperialist military blocs lose their actual independence and the possibility of steering an independent foreign policy line and are forced to subordinate vital national interests to the "strategic objectives" of the imperialist powers. They are compelled to spend a considerable and ever-growing portion of their financial means on the ``joint'' military requirements of the bloc members, which seriously impedes their own economic development.

Alignment with imperialist military and political alliances inevitably brings the danger of involvement in the military adventures of the imperialist states.

Under the conditions obtaining in the liberated countries, neutralism not only helps to strengthen political independence and ensure international recognition but also creates the prerequisites for achieving economic independence and for establishing more equitable relations with the Western powers. Moreover, it reduces the possibilities for imperialist exploitation of the African and Asian countries, positively influences foreign trade and curbs the foreign monopolies. Broader relations with the socialist countries enable the neutralist Asian and African states to counteract imperialist economic domination, combat age-old backwardness and promote social and economic progress. "The material advantage that our extra-bloc foreign policy has given us," Sirimavo Bandaranaike told a Pravda correspondent in the summer of 1963, "is that we have been able to establish trade, economic and cultural relations with all countries of the world on a basis of equality.''

All-sided co-operation with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries is playing an important role in the struggle

the African and Asian countries are waging to consolidate their political independence, achieve economic independence and promote their national economy.

Today the assistance rendered by the socialist camp to the national liberation movement cannot be confined to the political, diplomatic and military spheres. Such aid has been and continues to be rendered. This became clear from the stand taken by the U.S.S.R. and other socialist countries during the Suez crisis in 1956, during the Anglo-U.S. aggression in the Lebanon and Jordan in 1958, during the liberation struggle of the Algerian people and at debates of colonial issues at the U.N. Many more examples could be given. But at the present, when the colonial system of imperialism has actually collapsed, economic, technical and cultural aid from the socialist countries is playing an increasing role in the destiny of the national liberation movement and in accelerating the world revolutionary process.

The Soviet Union is therefore extending considerable material and financial aid to African and Asian countries and thereby contributing to the liberation of their peoples from poverty, economic backwardness and imperialist colonial exploitation. By ensuring many liberated countries with a considerable portion of the investments and foreign currency revenues for economic requirements. Soviet aid has become an important factor of their independent economic development.

A feature of this aid is that it does much more than help to develop the key branches of economy. It must be emphasised that the Soviet Union extends economic and technical aid primarily to the state sector of the economy of the new sovereign countries. By building up a large state sector that can play the decisive role in promoting the national economy and rapidly reconstructing it, the liberated countries can uphold their economic independence in the struggle against powerful monopolies that seek to maintain and consolidate their domination over the economy of the former colonies and semi-colonies. But the paramount feature of the state sector is that it is an important prerequisite for the transition to non-capitalist development and the building of socialist economy. By helping to shape the state sector in Asian and African countries, the Soviet Union is actively assisting these countries in their struggle for non-capitalist development.

This weakens the world capitalist system and strengthens the cause of socialism throughout the world.

The economic and technical co-operation between the socialist and neutralist states is founded on Leninist principles of equality, mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs. The socialist countries extend aid to the African and Asian countries on reasonable and mutually advantageous terms without military and political strings. The African and Asian countries do not spend gold or foreign currency in promoting trade with the Soviet Union and other socialist states, paying for the goods they receive by reciprocal deliveries of traditional exports.

Soviet credits to the new sovereign states have amounted to 3,500 million rubles. Under agreements signed at government level nearly 600 projects are being built in the developing countries. Among them are irrigation systems, motor roads and key industrial enterprises, including 30 iron and steel plants and non-ferrous metal factories, more than 45 engineering and metalworking plants, over 20 chemical plants and oil refineries, 80 enterprises of light and food industries, 20 power stations and 20 building materials factories.

The many projects that have been completed and placed in operation include the Bhilai Iron and Steel Plant, a power station in Neivalley and the oilfields at Ankleswar in India, an auto-repair works and the Kizyl-Kala port in Afghanistan, a technological institute and a hospital in Burma, a sea port in Yemen, a coke plant, the biggest factory in the Middle East for producing antibiotics, an agglomeration factory, a machine-building plant and a refinery, cotton-spinning mills in the U.A.R., a radio station and a reinforced-concrete railway sleeper plant in Iraq, and a radio station in Guinea.

With Soviet assistance, the U.A.R. is building the mammoth Aswan Dam and power station on the Nile, which will increase that country's crop area by one-third and provide the power resources for her developing industry.

``No country is rendering the United Arab Republic such extensive and effective aid as the Soviet Union," Aziz Sidki, U.A.R. Minister for Industry said in an interview given to a Prauda correspondent. "The agreement on economic and technical co-operation between the U.S.S.R. and Egypt, signed in Moscow on January 29, 1958, plays an important role in our country's economic development.''

In Ghana Soviet assistance is being used to build industrial enterprises, a 200,000 kw power station at Bui on the Black Volta, fishing enterprises and model state farms.

In Mali part of the 40 million rubles granted by the Soviet Union as a long-term credit is to be used to enlist Soviet technical assistance in building a cement works, improving the navigability of the Niger and designing and surveying for the Mali-Guinea Railway.

Under general economic and technical co-operation agreements signed between the Soviet Union and Indonesia, the U.S.S.R. is helping to build an iron and steel plant on Kalimantan Island, a power and industrial complex, including a 120,000 kw hydropower station, at Asahan, an aluminium plant, a superphosphate works and several other industrial projects. Moreover, the Soviet Union is helping Indonesia to train teachers. The projects being built or planned under the Soviet-Indonesian agreements are of paramount importance in shaping Indonesia's independent national economy.

Other socialist countries are also rendering economic and technical assistance to the developing countries, helping them to build over 400 industrial enterprises, workshops and other projects.

Non-alignment has enabled India to build three iron and steel plants within a relatively short period with the assistance of different countries. One of these is the above-mentioned Bhilai plant, which, as we have already pointed out, was built with Soviet assistance. The Soviet Union's agreement to build the Bhilai plant compelled imperialist powers to build two other plants, although the terms on which they did so were not as advantageous to India as were the terms provided by the U.S.S.R. They are the plants at Rurkel and Durgapur built by a West German and a British firm respectively.

The favourable terms on which the Soviet Union and other socialist states extend economic aid to the liberated countries thus force the imperialist powers to make concessions to these countries when they sign economic agreements with them.

Consequently, neutralism not only consolidates the political independence of the new states and creates favourable conditions for their economic development but also helps to settle the key issues of modern times on whose solution the destiny of the world hinges.

THE NON-ALIGNED COUNTRIES AND THE MAIN ISSUES OF MODERN TIMES

The progressive role played by the new sovereign Asian and African states in the world is mirrored in their attitude to the main issues of modern times, primarily to the issue of peaceful coexistence.

Peaceful coexistence of the two opposing socio-economic systems facilitates the national liberation movement of the oppressed peoples and the struggle of the new sovereign states to consolidate their political independence and achieve economic independence. It does not in any way imply the cessation or a letup of the anti-imperialist national liberation struggle. Quite the contrary. Together with the successes of the socialist camp in the economic competition with capitalism, it promotes a further intensification of that struggle. Peaceful coexistence is not an abstract concept. It signifies a competition between socialism and capitalism, a competition in which imperialism is losing ground to the forces of world socialism, who are staunch champions of the national interests of all peoples fighting for liberation from colonial oppression. It is a historical fact that most of the new sovereign states became independent in time of peace.

In our day the struggle for peace, for peaceful coexistence is closely linked up with the struggle against imperialism and against colonialism, which is an offshoot of imperialism. The experience of the post-war years irrefutably proves that the struggle against imperialism as the main source of war, the struggle for peace, completely dovetails with the struggle for national liberation.

Together with the socialist countries, the neutralist and other peace-loving states form an extensive peace zone. A

nuclear war with its colossal toll of life and incalculable material destruction would cut short all the plans and undertakings of the new African and Asian countries and lead to the loss of the gains of the national liberation movement. It would expose the cause of national independence and economic regeneration, which is the cherished dream of the peoples of all the new countries, to mortal danger. That is appreciated in the neutralist countries.

With destructive thermonuclear weapons in existence, no country can be certain of its security until the arms race is stopped and nuclear weapons are banned. The new sovereign states are aware that effective as non-alignment is, it cannot shield them from the danger of involvement in international conflicts. That is why they ardently advocate peaceful coexistence. "Peaceful coexistence is essential and indispensable for the establishment of understanding between the nations at a time when nuclear weapons hang like the sword of Damocles over the head of mankind," Kwame Nkrumah told the 'Ghanaian -National Assembly on June 21, 1963. "... One of our great hopes in pursuing the goal of total African liberation and unity is the vista of world peace that it opens up. For the culmination of that goal we envisage the end of colonialism and neo-colonialism, the twin offspring of imperialism, the cause of much of the world's rivalry and divisions.''

The non-aligned countries are active supporters of equal and friendly co-operation between all states. The principles of peaceful coexistence underlie their policy. "War must be abolished not only from the life but also from the minds of people," Jawaharlal Nehru declared in an interview given to a Pravda correspondent. "This implies complete and general recognition of peaceful coexistence of countries with different systems. This implies the establishment of goodneighbourly relations and nations learning from each other___

I believe that the world is progressing towards universal co-operation. It has no other way, for the alternative to co-operation is war.''

Leaders of the non-aligned countries have repeatedly emphasised that when the issue concerns war or peace, the neutralist foreign policy does not signify neutrality.

Kwame Nkrumah said that non-alignment does not imply negative neutralism. No country in the world, he said, can

be secure if it stands aloof from the settlement of the international problem of war and peace.

``Non-aligned policy," Indonesian President Ahmed Sukarno stressed at the Belgrade Conference in 1961, "is not a policy of seeking for a neutral position in case of war.... Non-alignment is active devotion to the lofty cause of independence, abiding peace, social justice, and the freedom to be free.''

Those who try to belittle the policy of non-alignment cut a pitiful figure. "The recent crises have strikingly demonstrated the diminished role of intermediaries," Andre Fontaine, Le Monde columnist, wrote on December 12, 1962. He meant the African and Asian countries. Assertions of this kind clash with obvious facts.

The neutralist countries contributed towards the settlement of the grave conflict in the Caribbean Sea. The U.S. naval blockade of Cuba in October 1962 and the dangerous international crisis that this step precipitated in the Caribbean aroused serious apprehensions in the neutralist countries. Rallies and demonstrations protesting against the U.S. aggressive policy towards Cuba were held in these countries. The public at large and statesmen and political and trade union leaders in many of the African and Asian countries voiced their indignation at the provocations of the U.S. imperialists. Statements protesting against these provocations were made by the Political Bureau of the National Liberation Front of Algeria, the Moroccan Union of Labour, the Democratic Union Party of Somalia and other African and Asian political and trade union organisations.

The National Union of Workers of Mali sent the Confederation of Revolutionary Cuban Workers a message expressing the fraternal solidarity of the working people of Mali with the heroic people of Cuba and with their struggle for independence.

In the U.N. the African and Asian countries took steps to settle the Caribbean crisis. The U.A.R. representative in the Security Council demanded the abolition of the dangerous hotbed of war, emphasising that Cuba had the right to a political system of her own. On behalf of the neutralist states U.N. Secretary-General U Thant initiated a useful and important step aimed at averting a world conflict.

The Caribbean crisis drove home the need for a worldwide struggle against the threat of a thermonuclear war.

Another instance of the peace efforts of the neutralist states was their stand on the issue of the border conflict between China and India. The armed clash on the Indo-Chinese frontier gave rise to serious tension in Asia. The Cairo newspaper Al Coumhouria wrote that the events on the Indo-Chinese frontier filled the hearts of all Asian and African peoples with bitterness.

Afro-Asian countries took the initiative to achieve a peaceful settlement of the tense conflict between the two largest countries in Asia. In a message to the Heads of State and Prime Ministers of the U.A.R., Indonesia, Ghana, Burma and Cambodia on November 20, 1962, the Prime Minister of Ceylon proposed examining the possibility for a joint official appeal to India and China with the purpose of preventing a further deterioration of the situation caused by the frontier conflict in the Himalayas. A conference of six non-aligned Asian and African states-Ceylon, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Ghana and the U.A.R.-was held in Colombo, capital of Ceylon, in December 1962 with the purpose of helping to settle the conflict peacefully.

The Colombo Conference published a communique stating that the efforts of the participating countries to institute talks between India and China must be continued until a final settlement was reached. The six participating countries agreed on the wording of the proposals sent to India and China for a speedy settlement of the Himalayan conflict. Acting on the decision of the Colombo Conference, Sirimavo Bandaranaike went to Peking and Delhi to help the governments of China and India work out a mutually acceptable settlement of the dispute.

Public opinion in the Asian and African countries was wholly on the side of the six non-aligned Colombo Conference countries that made a sincere effort to help achieve a mutually acceptable settlement of the frontier conflict. There was grave alarm in the liberated countries that the Indo-Chinese clash was greatly undermining the solidarity and unity of the peoples struggling against imperialism and colonialism, for peace and peaceful coexistence.

In the autumn of 1963 the frontier conflict between Morocco and Algeria, instigated by influential imperialist circles,

aroused apprehension first and foremost in the African countries. President Modibo Keita of Mali and Emperor of Ethiopia Haile Selassie I came forward as mediators to seek a peaceful settlement between two new African states. On their initiative and with their participation. Heads of States of Algeria and Morocco met in Bamako, capital of Mali. These talks put an end to military operations. In November 1963, an extraordinary meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organisation of African Unity confirmed the unshakable determination of the African countries always to seek a peaceful and fraternal settlement of possible disagreements by talks in conformity with the Charter of African Unity.

The constructive stand of the neutralist countries on the basic issues of modern times is also mirrored in their approach to the problem of general and complete disarmament. The problem of stopping the arms race is of tremendous importance to all the peoples of the world, and the liberated countries are in the forefront in seeking its settlement.

In the neutralist countries of Asia and Africa, from the Indonesian Archipelago to the Sahara Desert, the people are showing concern for the destiny of the world and urging an end to the arms race. A Disarmament Day was sponsored in India by the All-India Peace Council on March 12, 1962. In June of that same year 97 prominent leaders of different countries met in Accra, where the keynote was a "World Without the Bomb". At the same time, a conference in Delhi discussed measures to combat the nuclear arms race. At that conference, Indian President Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, the world-famous philosopher, said that an end had to be put to war as a means of settling outstanding international issues. The keynote at both Delhi and Accra was that nuclear tests had to be banned and atom-free zones established in various parts of the world, particularly in Africa and Asia.

Imperialism and the arms race started by it have brought guns instead of butter, rockets instead of schools, nuclear and thermonuclear tests instead of the remaking of nature. A U.S. hydrogen-bomb-carrying jet bomber costs as much as 100,000 tons of sugar, a submarine with a rocket installation

as much as 55,000 tons of meat, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier as much as 2,750,000 tons of wheat. Imperialism uses technical and scientific achievements to stockpile weapons of mass destruction and to pollute the international situation instead of promoting the welfare and happiness of the peoples, instead of furthering their economic development.

On September 18, 1959, the Soviet Union submitted its historic plan for general and complete disarmament to the XIV U.N. General Assembly. The peace initiative of the world's first socialist state can become the turning-point in human history. For the economically less developed countries, most of which are neutralist states, it opens up tremendous prospects.

The military expenditures of these countries (including the Latin American states) swallow up a considerable portion of their national income (approximately $6,000 million a year). The neutralist Asian and African countries spend from 25 to 50 per cent of their revenues on armaments. More than five million men are serving in the armies of the new states of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Imperialist intrigues are forcing the neutralist countries to spend large sums of money on defence. In the economically less developed countries it takes the labour of over ten civilians to pay for the upkeep of one soldier. In these countries the war industry distracts considerable sums of money from necessary investments, hinders the solution of major economic problems and is a huge obstacle to the efforts to surmount economic backwardness.

``General and complete disarmament," Sekou Toure, President of Guinea, declared, "is a policy that is fully supported by the African countries.... The financial means and the human lives that could be saved as a result of universal disarmament would make it possible to greatly increase assistance to the underdeveloped countries and satisfy the aspirations of the peoples.''

Millions of people in the world today do not have the elementary right to satisfy their hunger. Yet, something like $120,000 million are spent annually on arms throughout the world. If even one-fifth of that colossal sum were to be spent on peaceful construction in the economically less developed countries it would come to more than $20,000 million a year or over $500,000 million in 25 years.

The Soviet disarmament programme submitted to the XVII U.N. General Assembly in 1962 envisages diverting for peaceful uses the means and resources released as a result of disarmament, which is of immense importance to the new sovereign states.

Part of the money released by disarmament for the economic development of the new national states together with their own increased efforts and accumulations would considerably raise their standard of living within the lifetime of the present generation through, for example, the development of new centres of industry. The employment for peaceful ends of the resources now being spent on military requirements would improve the economic and social conditions in the developing countries and bring them closer to the presentday level of industrial production of highly developed countries like Britain and France.

Some of the propositions of the Soviet draft disarmament programme have been included in the joint Soviet-U.S. Declaration that was unanimously endorsed at the XVII U.N. General Assembly.

The developing countries require huge resources in order to free themselves from the vise of economic backwardness. These resources could be provided by general and complete disarmament and would enable the Asian and African countries to build giant projects capable of transforming their economy. Research institutes, educational establishments and new cultural centres would spring up. The more fully and quickly disarmament is implemented the more rapidly will the gap between the highly industrialised countries and the new Asian and African states be narrowed down.

Another advantage that the plan of general and complete disarmament holds out for the neutralist countries is that it envisages the dismantling of foreign military bases. Some of these bases are in Africa and Asia. It may be recalled that U.S. intervention in the Lebanon in the summer of 1958 was facilitated to a large extent by American military bases in Turkey. The naval and air base at Aden was used by the British imperialists for their armed aggression against Egypt in 1956. Britain's ruling circles are doing their utmost to preserve their military bases in some African countries.

French war bases are scattered about West and Central Africa-in Mauritania, Niger, Cameroon and Chad and also

on Madagascar, which Paris calls an aircraft carrier with its guns trained on the Indian Ocean.

Military bases are weapons of colonialism and a constant threat to the independence and state sovereignty of the liberated countries of Africa and Asia. They are bridgeheads for aggression, subversive activity, espionage and wrecking, a means of starting conflicts between the liberated countries, and a threat to world peace.

But all that will be changed when the plan for general and complete disarmament is translated into reality.

The peoples of the African and Asian countries have already achieved notable successes in their struggle for the dismantling of foreign war bases. Such bases no longer exist in Egypt, Mali and Ceylon, and the French base at Bizerta has also been deactivated.

French troops were withdrawn from Algeria in 1964, a year in advance of the appointed time, so that now there are only small French garrisons at the Mers el Kebir base and at the Sahara bases as envisaged by the Evian agreements. In March 1964, the Government of the Lebanon formally demanded that Britain and the U.S.A. deactivate their bases in that country. It is worth recalling that the U.S. air base at Wheelus Field in the Lebanon is not only one of the largest in the Mediterranean area but also one of the most important on foreign territory generally.

The struggle of the sovereign North African states against imperialist military bases has influenced other countries in Africa. At the close of April 1964, the National Assembly of Chad Republic voted for the withdrawal of French troops from the country. Identical demands were made by Upper Volta and the Central African Republic. The struggle to turn the Mediterranean into a peace zone was stepped up by U.A.R. President Nasser in a speech made in Cairo on February 22, 1964, when he said that all foreign war bases in that area of the world had to be dismantled. "They threaten our security," he said, "and must be abolished." U.S. imperialist attempts to plant bases in India and Indonesia came to nothing. The Cairo Conference of Non-Aligned Countries in the autumn of 1964 adopted a determined stand against military bases. The demand for their withdrawal figured prominently in the Declaration adopted by that conference.

The deactivation of foreign bases and the dissolution of military blocs would enhance the independence of all the neutralist states. Moreover, they would be joined by the Asian countries involved in CENTO and SEATO. Disarmament would thus enhance the prestige and influence enjoyed by the neutralist countries.

The significance of joint action by the socialist and neutralist countries for general and complete disarmament is obvious. If imperialism is deprived of nuclear weapons its pressure on the non-aligned countries would weaken considerably. Small wonder that influential imperialist circles are seeking to prevent agreement on general and complete disarmament.

There is no foundation either for the attempts to represent the struggle of the Soviet Union and other peace-loving countries for disarmament as aimed at cutting the ground from under the peoples who have risen against imperialism. This fabrication is rejected by the general public in most of the neutralist African and Asian states. A rebuff to slander of this kind was given by the delegates of Mozambique, Kenya, Zanzibar and Southern Rhodesia at the Third Conference of the Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Organisation at Moshi in 1963. Indeed, the huge armies maintained by the members of aggressive military blocs and the upkeep of foreign troops and bases on the territory of other countries not only threaten world peace but are a serious obstacle to the national regeneration of the Asian and African peoples. The stand of the neutralist countries on general and complete disarmament and the banning of nuclear tests was demonstrated at the sittings of the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee in Geneva. Eight members of that Committee-India, the U.A.R., Burma, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Brazil, Mexico and Sweden-have been extremely active in helping to stop nuclear tests.

In the Eighteen Nation Committee the neutralist representatives gave their backing to the Soviet proposal for the conclusion of a non-aggression pact between the NATO and Warsaw Treaty countries.

A special resolution on general and complete disarmament was adopted at the Conference of Heads of State and Government of the African Countries in Addis Ababa in May 1963. It called for banning the production and testing of nuclear

3-5«l

weapons, the destruction of existing nuclear stockpiles and the dismantling of foreign bases on African soil. The conference participants unanimously appealed to the Great Powers to reduce the stockpiles of conventional weapons, stop the arms race and sign a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

The neutralist states reject the persistent attempts of bourgeois propaganda to portray the so-called nuclear balance in a rosy light and present it as necessary not so much for the imperialist powers as for the African and Asian countries themselves. The wild idea of a "nuclear shield" finds no support in Asia and Africa.

Broad sections of the public and many press organs of the new sovereign states welcomed the Soviet proposal (of May 20, 1963) for declaring the Mediterranean area free of rocket and nuclear weapons. Today the setting up of atomfree zones is one of the most pressing international problems. A settlement of this problem would not only reduce the threat of a thermonuclear war but would also strengthen the principles of neutralism and non-alignment underlying the foreign policy of many liberated countries situated along the Mediterranean.

Support for the Soviet proposal has been pledged by a number of leaders of the non-aligned countries. In an interview to Le Monde, printed on July 5, 1963, U.A.R. President Nasser said that his country whole-heartedly supported the Soviet .proposal for declaring the Mediterranean Basin an atom-free zone. "We are resolved," he said, "to back up any international agreement aimed at abolishing all forms of weapons not only in the Mediterranean area.''

The Soviet proposal was favourably received not only in Southern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa but also by the Addis Ababa Conference of African States.

The Algiers Conference for Denuclearising the Mediterranean Basin, held early in July 1964, contributed considerably towards the struggle against the threat of a thermonuclear war, for peaceful coexistence. In its resolutions, the conference demanded the withdrawal of all nuclear stockpiles and existing military establishments from the Mediterranean Basin, the prohibition of the manufacture, import, dissemination and stockpiling of other atomic weapons and setting up new military bases, the evacuation of

all foreign troops, the abrogation of all military treaties and agreements in the Mediterranean and the banning of new similar treaties and agreements.

It was emphasised at the conference that the conversion of the Mediterranean into an atom-free zone would contribute towards the movement for general disarmament and would be a decisive step towards freeing the whole world from nuclear weapons. It would also give an impetus to turning the Balkans, the Adriatic, the African continent and other regions into denuclearised zones.

As long ago as November 24, 1961, on the initiative of ten African states-Ghana, Guinea, Congo (Leopoldville), Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, the U.A.R., Sudan, Sierra-Leone and Ethiopia-the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution on converting the entire African continent into an atom-free zone.

The Partial Test-Ban Treaty, signed in Moscow on August 5, 1963, was welcomed in the neutralist countries. "The signing of the nuclear test-ban treaty in Moscow," Jawaharlal Nehru told a Soviet correspondent, "must be welcomed by everyone who cherishes peace. Although only a partial agreement which does not take us far along the road to disarmament it is nevertheless of tremendous significance." He stressed that the Soviet Government "had made a special contribution to this treaty, a contribution that merits a high appraisal and congratulations''.

The Moscow Treaty was received with warm approval by many other leaders of the non-aligned countries. Gamal Abdel Nasser declared: "When yesterday we heard about the nuclear test-ban agreement between the Soviet Union, America and Britain we were relieved because it was a step towards the

realisation of peace-----We are also interested in the end of

the cold war because we, the developing countries and the countries which have stamped out imperialism, are the battlefield of the cold war.... We depend on our Armed Forces to maintain our freedom so that we may be able to map out our independent policy.''

The overwhelming majority of the new sovereign countries promptly announced their readiness to sign the Moscow Treaty. While welcoming the treaty, the liberated Asian and African countries expressed the hope that it would mark the beginning of a new stage in international relations and prepare the ground for further agreement on the road to

y

35

general and complete disarmament, which is the cherished goal of aU the peoples of the world.

In August 1963, the Conference of Foreign Ministers of the Organisation of African Unity at Dakar passed a special resolution welcoming the Partial Test-Ban Treaty and urging all the African countries to align themselves with it. That frustrated the attempts of certain circles to compromise the treaty in the eyes of the African peoples.

tries and Peoples, has been active in the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggle; it did not recognise concessions to colonialism. In speeches and articles, Afro-Asian leaders repeatedly stress that the liberation of their countries is one of the most important stages in the settlement of the cardinal task of the attainment of freedom by all peoples of the African continent and other regions of the world where colonialism still exists. "I made it quite clear," Kwame Nkrumah wrote, "that Ghana's freedom would be meaningless if it was not linked with the total liberation of the entire continent of Africa."*

The active opposition of the liberated countries to colonialism consolidates the solidarity of the Afro-Asian peoples. The Afro-Asian solidarity movement, which is spearheaded against imperialism and colonialism, is founded expressly on the neutralist policy and therefore develops successfully. The foundations for this anti-imperialist solidarity of the countries that have won freedom and countries fighting for liberation from colonial oppression were laid at the historical Bandung Conference.

The flags of 29 countries were hoisted in Bandung, Indonesia, in April 1955. The Bandung Conference embraced both Asia and Africa. It showed that the former colonies and dependent countries had become sovereign states and that the Western powers had lost their monopoly over international affairs. "We are once more masters in our own house", was the tenor of the statements of many Asian representatives at Bandung. The arrival of delegations from some African countries demonstrated that the abolition of colonialism was in sight, that the last bastion of colonial exploitation was collapsing.

Bandung should not, of course, be considered solely in the neutralist light. It was attended by some Asian socialist states and also by countries with a Western orientationTurkey, Iran, Thailand, the Iraq of Nuri es-Said, the Philippines, South Vietnam and Japan.

However, the chief role at Bandung was played by peaceloving forces. The fact that the conference was attended by

The young neutralist Asian and African states were born in the struggle against colonialism and are for that reason active opponents of all forms of colonial rule.

``Colonialism," Kwame Nkrumah said, "is a fundamental cause of war, because it is an iniquitous system which generates intense hate and produces conflict between nation and nation.''

Neutralism does not imply renunciation of active opposition to imperialism and colonialism. The leaders of most of the non-aligned countries regard their neutralist policy as a tangible anti-imperialist, anti-colonial force.

Non-alignment, Modibo Keita stressed, "will never signify that we shall be passive in face of foreign domination, in face of force against the right of nations to self-- determination''.

The peoples fighting colonialism are receiving strong support from the new sovereign states that have shaken off the shackles of colonialism. In the period immediately after the Second World War, the socialist countries and the international working-class movement were the only allies of India, Indonesia, Burma and other countries that won independence at that time. Today the peoples still languishing under the yoke of colonialism have another ally-the neutralist countries.

Having won national sovereignty themselves, the neutralist Asian and African countries are demanding liberation for the countries and territories still ruled by the colonialists. The Mali Republic declared that country's representative in the U.N. Special Committee for the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun-

* Kwame Nkrumah, I Speak of Freedom. A Statement of African Ideology, London, 1961, p. 133.

representatives of Egypt, Nepal, Yemen, Cambodia, the Gold Coast, the Lebanon, India, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Syria was significant. Bandung has become a milestone in the history of Afro-Asian neutralism, a stage in the formation of the neutralist foreign policy of the liberated countries. The policy of the imperialist powers with their military blocs was opposed by the peace-loving policy of the Afro-Asian countries, where the ideas of friendship and solidarity were becoming increasingly predominant.

That was appreciated by many imperialist political leaders, who made every effort to thwart the anti-colonial solidarity of the Afro-Asian countries, divert them from the struggle for peace and peaceful coexistence and sow discord at the Bandung Conference itself. But Bandung had steadfast friendsthe socialist states. In a statement on the eve of the Bandung Conference, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R. declared: "The peoples of the Soviet Union have complete understanding for the struggle of the Asian and African countries against all forms of colonial rule, for political and economic independence." Messages of greeting were sent by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. and by the Presidiums of the Supreme Soviets of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kirghizia and Turkmenia.

Despite the extensive pressure brought to bear by the U.S.A. and other imperialist powers, most of the Bandung participants acted in conformity with their experience of struggle and with the aspirations of their peoples for progress. Colonialism and neo-colonialism were bitterly denounced.

Take, as an example, the speech of Ahmed Sukarno, one of the leading figures of the national liberation movement in Asia. He said: "We are often told 'colonialism is dead'. Let us not be deceived or even soothed by that. I say to you, colonialism is not yet dead. How can we say it is dead so long as vast areas of Asia and Africa are unfree. And, I beg of you, do not think of colonialism only in the classic form which we of Indonesia, and our brothers in different parts

of Asia and Africa, knew----It is a skilful and determined

enemy, and it appears in many guises. It does not give up its loot easily. Wherever, whenever, and however it appears, colonialism is an evil thing, and one which must be eradicated from the earth.''

The Bandung participants pledged their support for the struggle of all colonial peoples. They called for a peaceful settlement of the Algerian problem, declared their solidarity with the independence movement in Tunisia and Morocco, backed Indonesia's lawful demand for the return of West Irian and sharply denounced racial discrimination in the South African Republic. The most pressing world issues were reflected in the Bandung Communique, which condemned nuclear weapons and declared that disarmament was vital. The Bandung Declaration on the Promotion of World Peace and Co-operation gave voice to the innermost aspirations of mankind. It called for respect of the fundamental rights of man, of the aims and principles of the United Nations Organisation and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, and for the peaceful settlement of all international issues.

The Bandung spirit, for which China, India, Indonesia, Egypt and the other countries voted, created in the Asian and African continents a favourable atmosphere for the national liberation movement. It has become a synonym and symbol of Afro-Asian solidarity. The past few years have shown that this solidarity would never have been such a major force in the struggle against colonialism and for peace and friendship among nations if it had locked itself within geographic or racial boundaries.

The Bandung principles underlie the concept of neutralism and have in many ways determined the foreign policy of the liberated Asian and African countries.

On April 30, 1955, the late Jawaharlal Nehru told the Indian Parliament that the Bandung Conference had brought more than half the population of the world into international politics. No wonder that its results aroused apprehensions in imperialist circles. "The West," Klaus Mehnert, an ideologist of the West German imperialists, declared, "should do everything in its power to prevent the creation of an Afro-Asian trade union." That is his name for the Bandung Conference. The principles proclaimed at Bandung have won wide recognition throughout the world. The corner-stones of the Afro-Asian solidarity movement laid by Bandung are political unity of the liberated countries in face of the united front of the imperialist powers, and economic co-operation

and mutual assistance in the struggle against monopolies. That is why any split in the Bandung camp and any conflict between countries that have freed themselves from colonialism bring grist to the mill of the imperialists.

The principles underlying Afro-Asian solidarity as formulated at Bandung were further extended at subsequent conferences. The First Afro-Asian Solidarity Conference, held in Cairo (December 26, 1957 to January 1, 1958), was attended by representatives of 45 countries, and the second conference, held at Conakry (April 11-15, 1960), by representatives of 55 countries. In line with the aspirations of the African and Asian peoples, the resolutions and decisions of these conferences called for peace and peaceful coexistence, disarmament, the banning of nuclear tests, the outlawing of racial discrimination, the granting of freedom and independence to countries still under colonial rule, the promotion of economic, technical, social and cultural co-operation between nations, and unity in the struggle against colonialism and imperialism. These conferences helped to unite the peaceloving countries of Asia and Africa. The Cairo Conference set up a Permanent Secretariat of the Organisation of Afro-Asian Solidarity with headquarters in the Egyptian capital, while at Conakry the conference adopted the Charter of that Organisation. One of the features of the Conakry Conference was that its decisions included the demand of the African peoples for immediate, real and not nominal independence. The third conference in Moshi, Tanganyika (February 1963), enhanced the anti-imperialist Afro-Asian solidarity movement. At the week-long Moshi Conference, representatives from 60 African and Asian countries discussed ways and means of combating colonialism and the threat of nuclear war, and measures for consolidating the unity of the Asian and African countries. The documents adopted at Moshi included a declaration, a political resolution and a resolution on economic problems. The conference demanded the immediate implementation of the U.N. General Assembly Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. In addition, it insisted on the eradication of imperialist influence in the liberated countries and on the nationalisation of foreign monopoly investments. It also took a determined stand against U.S. neo-colonialism and the Common Market.

The Moshi Conference whole-heartedly subscribed to the principle of general, controlled disarmament and peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems. It recognised that the national liberation movement was intrinsically bound up with the struggle against the imperialist plans of starting a thermonuclear war.

The conference participants urged that all the disputes and disagreements that may arise between Afro-Asian countries should be settled peacefully. Imperialist propaganda futilely forecast that the conference would end in a deadlock. The Moshi decisions showed that broad public circles in the African and Asian countries were determined to strengthen the solidarity movement of the two continents in the struggle against imperialism and colonialism.

Some political leaders, it should be noted, try to give a nationalist and even a racial hue to the Afro-Asian solidarity movement, to counterpose it to the struggle of all progressive forces for peace and peaceful coexistence, against the threat of another world war. This is incompatible with the aims of the national liberation movement and only encourages the most aggressive imperialist circles.

The meeting of the Afro-Asian Solidarity Organisation's Executive at Nicosia, Cyprus, in September 1963 gave further proof that the Afro-Asian solidarity movement was gaining momentum. The overwhelming majority of the delegates demonstrated their appreciation of the need for a close bond between the struggle against colonialism and the struggle for peace. The Executive approved the Moscow Test-Ban Treaty, re-emphasised the need for closer co-operation between the Afro-Asian solidarity and other anti-imperialist movements and reaffirmed its fidelity to the principles of peaceful coexistence of independent countries with different socio-political systems and to the struggle for peace, for general and complete disarmament, for the banning of nuclear tests, the destruction of nuclear stockpiles and the dismantling of foreign bases.

The Fourth Afro-Asian Solidarity Conference, held in Winneba, Ghana, in May 1965, gave further proof of the growing unity of the Afro-Asian peoples in the struggle against imperialism and colonialism, for world peace.

More and more people in Africa and Asia are realising that any attempt to isolate and tear the national liberation

movement away from the world revolutionary process would only weaken that movement and strengthen the position of imperialism in the liberated countries.

Buddhists in South Vietnam in its agenda. The Indian Government sent U.N. Secretary-General U Thant a message expressing serious concern over the persecution of the Buddhist population of South Vietnam.

The anti-colonial stand of India and other neutralist states in the United Nations Organisation facilitated the struggle of Tunisia and Morocco for independence and helped to set the date of independence of a number of African colonies. During their long national liberation struggle the heroic people of Algeria had faithful allies in the new sovereign states in the U.N. The imperialist policy in the Congo has repeatedly aroused stern protests in the neutralist countries.

In the U.N., the African and Asian countries are condemning the French policy of using the Sahara as a nuclear testing ground and have time and again denounced the repressive measures of the British colonialists in East Africa.

The neutralist countries are actively facilitating the work of the Special Committee, set up by the U.N. General Assembly to implement the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. All the key posts in that committee are held by representatives of the non-aligned Asian and African countries. On the recommendation of these countries the committee first and foremost examined the question of granting immediate independence to colonial and trust territories in Africa with a total population of approximately 50 million. In the committee the neutralist states flatly rejected the claim of the advocates of colonialism that some African countries are not prepared for independence.

The non-aligned countries do not confine themselves to general declarations condemning colonialism. They co-- ordinate their policy of assisting peoples still languishing under colonial rule. In the struggle against colonialism they find practical ways of helping the movement for the national liberation of dependent countries. At the Addis Ababa Conference in May 1963, for example, it was decided to set up a co-ordinating committee to assist the national liberation movement in dependent African territories. The committee began functioning in June 1963 in Dar es Salaam, capital of Tanganyika, and many African countries have contributed

The anti-colonialist struggle of the emergent countries is also reflected in the position adopted by them at the United Nations Organisation. To a certain degree their stand during the Suez crisis was instrumental in forcing the British, French and Israeli governments to withdraw their troops from Egypt. Of no less importance was their use of the U.N. rostrum for exposing the U.S. and British military adventures in the Arab countries in 1957 and 1958.

As a result of the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism, the liberation of Africa began soon after that of Asia. Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan, Ghana and Guinea were admitted to the U.N. in 1956-58. In 1960, eighteen independent African countries became U.N. members, and towards the summer of 1965 their number rose to 36.

In the U.N. the neutralist African and Asian countries expose the fascist policy of the Salazar regime in the Portuguese colonies and denounce Hitler's disciples, who have turned the South African Republic into an abominable preserve of racism. The question of apartheid in South Africa was raised at India's request as far back as 1946 at the I U.N. General Assembly. With the support of all anti-imperialist forces, the African countries are working to secure the expulsion of the South African Republic and Portugal from the U.N. and the adoption of international sanctions against these two colonial states.

Guided by the resolutions passed at the Conference of Heads of State and Government of the African Countries in Addis Ababa, more and more African states are breaking off diplomatic relations with the Salazar regime, boycotting goods from Portugal and the South African Republic and closing their ports and airfields to the ships and aircraft of these states.

In September 1963, a group of African and Asian countries published a memorandum demanding that the XVIII U.N. General Assembly include the question of the persecution of

to its fund to aid fighters for African freedom. In some African states plans have been laid for enlisting volunteers for national liberation armies. A decision on this issue was adopted, in particular, by a national conference of the Sudanese Union, the ruling party of the Mali Republic.

The new sovereign states are determined to put the speediest possible end to survivals of the colonial system, whose existence is a source of world tension.

SOUTH-EAST ASIA,

A BULWARK OF NEUTRALISM

The emergence of new sovereign states in place of former colonies and their independent development were accompanied by the proclamation of a foreign policy of their own. Neutralism and non-alignment with aggressive military blocs have become part and parcel of the general political declarations that have been made by the governments of most of the liberated Asian and African countries. Early in the 1950s it became obvious that NATO, CENTO and SEATO were instruments of imperialist policy directed not only against the U.S.S.R. and other socialist countries but also against the independent line of the liberated states. The history of the Asian and African neutralist policy has therefore been one of continuous struggle of the new sovereign states against imperialist military blocs. Resistance to the policy of blocs has become one of the major foreign policy tasks of these countries.

Initially non-alignment meant precisely and primarily nonalignment with the military blocs that were being set up by the imperialists.

South-East Asia-home of Bandung, symbol of Afro-Asian solidarity against imperialism and colonialism-is one of the bastions of neutralism. In it are great Asian countries such as India and Indonesia, and also Ceylon, Nepal, Burma, Laos and Cambodia. The population, territory and economic resources of the neutralist group in South-East Asia make it a formidable force.

Imperialist circles are doing their utmost to impede the unity of the neutralist African and Asian countries and their friendship with the socialist states. In this effort a major part has been assigned to SEATO, whose members are the U.S.A.,

Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines. Imperialist powers-the U.S.A., Britain and France-play first fiddle in that bloc, and no matter what role they assign to Pakistan, the Philippines and Thailand they are unable to attract the overwhelming majority of the sovereign countries of South-East Asia. That is admitted, for example, by Collective Defence in South-East Asia, published in New York by the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Without mincing their words the authors of that publication say that SEATO has placed the Western powers "in the invidious position of wishing to defend countries, which do not wish to be defended, from dangers the existence of which their governments deny in public''.

The idea of setting up SEATO was carried out in 1954 after Western aggressive circles had suffered defeat in Korea and Vietnam. It showed that they had not given up their plans of suppressing the national liberation movement and forcing new forms of colonialism on South-East Asia.

Washington makes no secret of SEATO objectives. On September 5, 1954, before that aggressive bloc was given final shape, New York Times explained that SEATO was `` necessary'' because it would "count heavily against not only the communist powers but the neutralists of Asia as well". The U.S. imperialists spared no effort to help set up military dictatorships in Pakistan, Thailand, South Vietnam and other countries, where militarists seized power on the pledge that they would combat communism and neutralism. Under the plans laid by the Washington strategists, these military cliques were to be the means of bringing pressure to bear on the foreign policy of non-aligned countries such as India, Cambodia, Burma and Indonesia.

SEATO brews plots and coups against the national liberation movement and the neutralist foreign policy of the SouthEast Asian countries.

The imperialists are devoting special ``attention'' to India, Following the emergence of the Indian Republic, they focussed much of their effort on drawing India into their aggressive bloc. The U.S. based its calculations with regard to Indonesia, Burma and Ceylon on the same political ``foundation''.

The question whether India, the largest country in SouthEast Asia would be able to withstand U.S. pressure and

uphold her foreign policy line was mooted for a long time by the world press. Her and the other South-East Asian countries' refusal to submit to imperialist dictation played an important role in the subsequent history of neutralism, strengthened the position of the peace-loving forces and weakened imperialism. India contributed towards stopping the wars in Korea and Indochina. At the Geneva Conference on Indochina in 1954 her representatives kept a close watch on the progress of the talks and were in contact with the heads of the delegations. She helped to bring closer the views of different countries with the objective of stopping the war in Indochina and achieving peace in spite of the fact that on the insistence of the U.S.A. the Indian Government was formally not admitted to the talks in Geneva.

India denounced the imperialist aggression against Egypt in 1956 and set herself against the Eisenhower-Dulles Doctrine proclaimed in 1957 to ensure the U.S.A.'s military and political interests in the East.

In the United Nations Organisation and at international conferences India has championed the Asian and African peoples oppressed by the colonialists. She demanded the cessation of the colonial war in Algeria and scathingly condemned the crimes of the Portuguese colonialists in Angola and the racist policy of the rulers of the South African Republic. The liberation of the Portuguese colonies of Goa, Damao and Diu in December 1961 strikingly illustrated her anti-colonial policy. This lawful act of the Indian Government was welcomed by all opponents of colonialism and imperialist oppression. The Soviet Government sent the Government of India a message congratulating it on this resolute eradication of seats of colonialism on Indian territory.

The reaction to this lawful act of the Indian Government was different in the Western capitals. "Serious concern" was expressed by the British Government in a note to India. A message couched in similar terms was sent by the U.S.A. Following the liberation of Damao, Diu and Goa, the president of United States Time Corporation declared that his firm had lost its desire to build a clock and watch factory in India. The dollar magnates attempted to use their investments to force India to change her foreign policy. "The behaviour of the Americans and their imperialist allies on the Goa problem may be described as truly unprecedented,"

wrote the Indian newspaper ledj. "These champions of freedom, who claim they are the defenders of the 'free world', were so staggered by the liberation of territories that have languished in colonial slavery for four centuries that they completely lost their senses. The fact that in this question the U.S.A. supported Portugal against India shows the imperialist substance of its policy-----The U.S.A. tried to railroad

through the Security Council a resolution censuring India. The Soviet Union vetoed that resolution.''

While opposing colonialism, India is at the same time actively advocating peaceful coexistence. India, it must be noted, was one of the countries that helped to work out the now famous five principles of peaceful coexistence. She has steadfastly insisted on the restoration of China's legitimate rights in the U.N.

The Soviet Union has highly appraised this peace-- loving policy and the role that India plays in settling urgent world problems. In line with its Leninist policy of peace and friendship, the Soviet Union has helped the Indian people, who have shaken off British colonial rule, to consolidate their neutralist stand and oppose the economic pressure of the imperialists. The course ot events has shown this to be a correct policy, that it conforms with the interests of peace and world security.

The imperialists, on the contrary, are making every effort to undermine India's foreign policy. United States foreign Policy in Asia, studies prepared and published in Washington in 1959 at the request of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee and considered as the most valuable ``aid'' for U.S. diplomats in South-East Asia, declares that within the next decade the U.S. must, in regard to India, pursue a " diplomacy in depth". The substance of this policy is that in India the "United States should not so isolate its interests with Congress Party fortunes that these other parties are ignored''.

In line with this "diplomacy in depth", imperialist circles are entering into contact with reactionary groups in India, in particular, with the Swatantra Party, a bellicose reactionary organisation that came into being some years ago. The leaders of the Swatantra Party and also of another reactionary organisation, the Jana Sangh Party, have for long been opposing the neutralism of the Indian Government and demanding a revision of the country's foreign policy.

Reactionary elements gave battle to India's progressive forces during the election campaign in the spring of 1962. The U.S. press did not conceal that it desired the defeat of the supporters of India's neutralism. On February 2, Time magazine wrote that "... Americans have an important stake in this outsize election.... Menon's defeat ... would be the most dramatic repudiation of Nehru's aggressive socialism and left-leaning neutralism since India's independence''.

On February 22, 1962, at the height of the elections, John K. Galbraith, who was U.S. Ambassador in India at the time, announced that India was being granted credits totalling 250 million rupees for projects linked up with her fiveyear economic development plan. The U.S.A.'s attempts to influence the parliamentary elections in India are fully confirmed by the Indian Weekly, which wrote as far back as in May 1960 that the U.S. State Department was doggedly utilising every possibility to undermine neutralism in Asia.

The results of the Indian parliamentary elections, which reiterated the country's fidelity to neutralism, gave the rulers of the imperialist powers no peace. Washington decided to ``punish'' India. In June 1962, promised U.S. aid was reduced by $88,000,000. The well-informed Swiss newspaper Neue Zurcher Zeitung wrote: "Indian economic observers explain the reduction in aid by the fact that many U.S. congressmen are dissatisfied with India's foreign policy. They want to apply 'shock therapy' to make her more tractable''.

In the non-aligned countries this decision was assessed as a "monopoly crusade against Asian neutralism". The Indian press emphasised that the move to reduce U.S. aid was nothing less than "Washington's vengeance on India" for her stand on many world issues, in particular, on the question of Goa.

On July 4, 1962, Neue Zurcher Zeitung wrote that "there has recently been a noticeable cooling in U.S.-Indian relations___In Washington it has been decided that in future

the Indians must worry about the financing of their fiveyear plan themselves; one of the main motives behind this decision is the intention to make them feel directly that the policy pursued by Nehru and Menon will affect India's economic position. It is believed that this is the only way that these politicians can be made to realise the consequences of their political line.''

4-561

The situation on the Indo-Chinese frontier deteriorated in the autumn of 1962. That inflicted great harm on the unity of the anti-imperialist front in Asia, placed India's progressive forces in an extremely difficult position and dealt a blow at the policy of neutralism.

For many years the rulers of the imperialist powers had been looking for a convenient excuse to start a high-powered offensive against Afro-Asian neutralism. The frontier conflict in the Himalayas, which proved a "veritable find" for the imperialists, was the excuse they wanted.

They are particularly jubilant over the fact that one of the parties in the conflict is a socialist country. They would have liked to use this dispute to discredit the idea of peaceful coexistence and also the friendship and co-operation between the socialist countries and the new independent Asian and African states.

Imperialist propaganda went so far as to say that AfroAsian neutralism had demonstrated its flimsiness, failed the test of time and become bankrupt and that the most sensible thing India and the other new sovereign states could and should do under the circumstances was to completely and irrevocably relinquish their neutralist foreign policy and closely co-operate with the imperialist powers in the military and political fields.

During the uneasy autumn of 1962 the headlines of the leading bourgeois mouthpieces blared forth: "Neutralism Has Collapsed", "Mortal Shock for Afro-Asian Countries" and "Non-alignment Peters Out". "The Indian policy of nonalignment ... has broken down...," Walter Lippmann, New York Herald Tribune columnist, wrote in November 1962. "Non-alignment has suffered a shock of realism which must leave it permanently changed," declared the British Daily Telegraph. These words were echoed by The Financial Times, mouthpiece of British big business, which tried to prove that non-alignment was devoid of "real value". The Times of London forecast in November 1962 that the whole neutralist and potentially neutralist world would re-examine its position and said that in India faith in non-alignment with blocs and in coexistence had been dampened.

The imperialists calculated that the frontier dispute with China would force India and other countries in Asia and Africa to repudiate neutralism and friendly co-operation with

the socialist states. The New York Times information service reported on December 16, 1962 that if India wanted firm aid she would have to turn to the West. The same service reported on December 31, 1962 that the U.S. Government expected India to align herself with the Western powers in the near future and hoped that other non-aligned countries would realise that a middle course in the conflicts between East and West would not give them any special security. The hopes of world reaction were expressed with perfect candour on December 2, 1962 by another U.S. newspaper, New York Herald Tribune, which declared that "the non-aligned members are confronted with a crisis which could blow up the

club altogether----The sooner the club disappears from the

international scene, the better for all concerned, above all the `non-aligned' countries''.

In the Western capitals the calculation was and still is that the frontier conflict between India and China would split the neutralist group and cripple the principles of peaceful coexistence.

Forgetting their statements of the summer of 1962, the imperialists launched a campaign of aid to India. With incredible speed the Western powers began supplying arms to India in order to show their ``friendly'' attitude to that country. They hoped to kindle a major war between India and China and force India to give up her policy of non-- alignment with aggressive blocs. U.S. and British political and military missions went to India. Heinrich Liibke, President of the Federal Republic of Germany, was among the leading Western politicians who visited India in that period. His provocative statements in that country showed that the Bonn revanchists were planning to use the Himalayan dispute in their own interests. In India herself reactionary circles became more than usually active.

In a speech in December 1962, C. Rajagopalachari, leader of the Swatantra Party, openly demanded the repudiation of the Indian Government's neutralist policy. This campaign continued even after military operations ceased on the IndoChinese frontier.

The leaders of Jana Sangh, Swatantra and the Right Socialists insisted on the government turning down all talks on the border issue and opposed the proposals framed by six countries at a conference in Colombo. The Swatantra leader

4*

51

openly demanded the conclusion of a military alliance with the imperialist powers. In November 1962 he declared that India should go the whole way towards the Western camp. The foreign policy resolution of the Jana Sangh Party Congress contained a point on the need for a "reappraisal and reorientation" of India's foreign policy.

The intrigues of the enemies of India's independent foreign policy were resisted by broad public circles. "What other foreign policy is the nation to follow but the policy of nonalignment?" the Indian magazine Link wrote in this connection, adding, "Do these people want us to become the stooge of a military power and become a pawn in the cold war?''

At a series of rallies early in January 1963 Jawaharlal Nehru gave a rebuff to the attempts of the reactionaries to entrust India's defence and armed forces to foreign powers. He stressed that the Soviet Union was supporting the Indian Government's policy of non-alignment.

The question of India's acceptance of the Colombo Conference (end of 1962) proposals was submitted by Nehru to Parliament, which voted in favour of the Government's policy of seeking a peaceful settlement of the Indo-Chinese frontier dispute. India accepted the proposals of the Colombo Conference.

The Indian people gave their whole-hearted backing to the neutralist policy outlined by Nehru, Indian President Radhakrishnan, and other prominent leaders of the ruling National Congress Party, including Sanjivayya and Indira Gandhi. A movement in support of non-alignment spread throughout the country.

Hundreds of rallies and meetings hailing the proposals of the Colombo Conference and non-alignment with aggressive blocs were held throughout India early in 1963. On February 28, 1963, thousands of people demonstrated in Delhi against the intrigues of the reactionaries. Industrial workers, bank employees, schoolchildren and students carried placards with the legends: "We Have No Room in India for Foreign Military Bases", "Down With Military Alliances" and "The Enemies of Non-alignment Are Enemies of Our Freedom''.

This demonstration in defence of the fundamental principles of India's foreign policy was organised by the All-India Trade Union Congress. The Indian proletariat reiterated its readiness to defend its country's independent, peace-loving

foreign policy. The Communist Party of India, vanguard of the country's patriotic forces, stated:

``The Communist Party, in co-operation with Congressmen and all other democratic elements, will conduct a united nation-wide campaign:

``to support the Prime Minister and the Government of India in their efforts to consolidate the cease-fire and to create conditions for an honourable settlement through negotiations;

``to support the nation's basic policies of non-alignment, peaceful coexistence, Afro-Asian solidarity and anti-- colonialism, democracy... .''

All patriotic forces in the country aligned themselves with India's neutralist policy. "If we repudiate our peaceful and realistic foreign policy," the weekly India wrote, "we shall be unjust to the present and future generations. Military alliances like SEATO, NATO and CENTO have fostered hate and a cold-war atmosphere. Neutralism was and is the best policy that any new independent country can pursue in furtherance of its own interests and the interests of world peace.''

Acts like the signing of the agreement between All-India Radio and the Voice of America on the relay of broadcasts to South-East Asia via Calcutta and the decision on India's participation in joint air exercises with some imperialist powers aroused serious apprehensions in the country. Many Indian press organs assessed them as running counter to the principles of non-alignment. These acts were codemned by the Central Secretariat of the Communist Party of India, which passed a resolution stating that the joint exercises of the air forces of India, the U.S.A., Britain, Canada and Australia would only play into the hands of the opponents of neutralism, "try to portray India before our friends throughout the world as a country that has already renounced non-alignment with blocs and adheres to that principle in words only''.

On August 7, 1963, Nehru made it plain that the agreement of relaying Voice of America programmes by All-India Radio was incompatible with non-alignment. His stand was approved by the Executive of the Indian National Congress parliamentary group. In a foreign policy speech in the Upper House of the Indian Parliament on September 16, 1963, Nehru again reaffirmed India's fidelity to the principles of neutralism. "We think," he said referring to the policy of non-align-

ment, "it is right now here today and any swerving away from it would be harmful to our practical interest, to our freedom, to our integrity, apart from any threat to the cause of world peace.''

In March 1964, a few months before his death, Jawaharlal Nehru told Triloki N. Kaul, the Indian Ambassador in Moscow, that regardless of who came to power in India, that country's policy of non-alignment and peaceful coexistence would remain immutable because it reflected the will of the huge majority of the Indian people. Those words had the ring of a political behest. The concept of neutralism, worked out and put into practice by Nehru, had nothing in common with isolation and passiveness, with aloofness from burning world issues. Nehru strongly opposed the policy of forming military and political alliances like SEATO and CENTO, assessing them as a direct threat to peace.

On May 27, 1964, the world was informed of the death of Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. The death of that outstanding politician and statesman, leader of the national liberation movement of the Indian people, who had played a prominent part in formulating and upholding the principles of neutralism and non-alignment, was taken as a signal by Indian reactionaries to start a new offensive against the independent foreign policy of the Republic of India. Numerous wishful articles in Indian reactionary publications and in influential newspapers in the West openly stated that with Nehru's death his foreign policy would also inevitably die. First and foremost, the reactionaries tried to put their own man at the head of the Indian Government. Almost on the very day of Nehru's funeral, Morarji Desai, former Minister for Finances and puppet of the Indian monopolies and Western imperialists, whom, together with S. D. Patil, Nehru had expelled from his Cabinet at the close of August 1963, put in a claim to the office of Prime Minister. The efforts of Kamaraj. Chairman of the ruling Indian National Congress, to secure the unanimous agreement of the Party leadership on the choice of a successor to Nehru ran against formidable obstacles put up by Indian reactionaries. Shastri, Nanda and Desai figured as possible candidates for the leadership of the ruling party's parliamentary group and, thereby, to the office of Prime Minister. Public pressure forced Desai to withdraw his candidature before the voting. The crisis was

averted. On June 2, 1964, Lai Bahadur Shastri, Minister for Home Affairs and prominent figure in the Indian National Congress, was elected leader of the ruling party's parliamentary group and was entrusted with forming a. new Indian Government.

Immediately upon taking office, the new Prime Minister declared that India was determined to continue Nehru's policy of peace and peaceful coexistence, anti-colonialism, neutralism and non-alignment with military and political blocs, and promote friendship and co-operation with the Soviet Union. That dashed the hopes of Indian and international reaction.

However, the reactionaries continued their intrigues. Link, the well-known Indian weekly, wrote that after the death of Jawaharlal Nehru certain circles in the government backed the efforts to change India's foreign policy. This trend, the weekly pointed out, was not accidental. The foreign policy pause, that inevitably set in after Nehru's death, encouraged and activated the foreign powers in their striving to turn India away from the road she had chosen for herself. The weekly noted that the attempts to lure India into the trap of Western global strategy had become importunate. C. Rajagopalachari, leader of the extreme right Swatantra Party, came out with a provocative speech in which he called for an end to the foreign policy that was being pursued in the "image of Nehru" and urged the launching of a campaign with the objective of achieving a firm alliance with the West. President Radhakrishnan's visit to the U.S.S.R. in September 1964 lashed the reactionaries into fury.

The imperialists and their agents attacked the foreign policy not only of India but also of Ceylon, Burma and Indonesia. Western propaganda, spearheaded by the United States Information Agency (USIA), was further activated in India and other neutralist countries. The Ceylonese magazine Tribune wrote:

``At the moment, the two matters on which the USIA devotes most attention are:

``(1) the liquidation of neutralism and non-alignment....

``In many capitals of neutralist Asian countries ... the USIA now seeks to carry on subtle propaganda that India's neutralist policies have come to an end. In this, the USIA

pursues a definite objective. The U.S. Information Agency tries to wean other neutral Asian nations from neutralism by^stressing that India has abandoned neutralism.

``... The USIA also devotes a great deal of effort to convince the Indian people that neutralism is outdated. Thus, the insistent demands that the policy of neutralism be abandoned made by the representatives of some Indian political parties, especially Jana Sangh and Swatantra, are not accidental." The point of departure of the imperialist strategists was that India's repudiation of non-alignment would undermine and destroy the entire doctrine of non-alignment, which is the corner-stone of the foreign policy of India and many other countries in Asia and Africa. The far-reaching objective of imperialism was to tear this corner-stone out of the edifice of non-alignment and neutralism in Asia and elsewhere.

At the end of October 1964, the reactionary forces in India started a frantic campaign for nuclear armaments for India. They claimed that if India made her own atomic bomb it would give her greater international prestige. This had the far-reaching goal of undermining India's policy of nonalignment and peaceful coexistence. In the Indian National Congress, as well, some circles supported the demand for an Indian nuclear weapon.

At the session of the All-India Committee of the Indian National Congress, held early in November 1964, the debate hinged around the question of whether India should have a nuclear weapon. The majority at the session opposed the claims of the reactionary parties and their adherents, justifiably pointing out that the possession of nuclear weapons would seriously affect India's political and economic position. However, there were voices favouring a re-examination of India's traditional foreign policy following the testing of an atomic bomb in China. This was reflected in several amendments proposed for the official resolution, which set forth the negative stand of the Indian National Congress leadership on the question of nuclear armaments for India. Prime Minister Shastri declared that India would carry on with her non-alignment policy and work not for the production but for the abolition of nuclear weapons. He emphasised that India was staunchly devoted to non-alignment and peaceful coexistence and could not entertain the thought of hiding behind a "nuclear umbrella". Referring to the demands for

alignment with Western blocs, he declared: "I am most afraid of any kind of alignment, which might lead to infringement of our sovereignty.''

Foreign Minister Swaran Singh, who spoke after the Prime Minister, noted that India's foreign policy was founded on the principles of non-alignment and peaceful coexistence and conformed with the interests not only of the country itself but of the whole world. This policy was getting increasing support and was being adopted by an ever growing number of countries in Asia and Africa. The forces of non-alignment, Swaran Singh said, were major world forces and India, together with other peace-loving countries, should mobilise public opinion in support of peace and disarmament. Only the most determined struggle for disarmament, against the spread of nuclear weapons, the Indian Foreign Minister stressed, could save the world from catastrophe. In the course of the debate, the amendments moved by some of the participants, were dropped and the official resolution was adopted unanimously without amendments. India's foreign policy was thus endorsed by the leadership of the ruling party.

A further telling blow was dealt the imperialists and their agents by the World Conference for Peace and International Co-operation in Delhi on November 15-18, 1964. The very fact that that conference, which attracted Indian public opinion, was held in India demonstrated the important role played by that country in the world struggle against the threat of war, for the final abolition of colonialism. In a speech at the conference Indian Prime Minister Shastri said his Government supported peaceful coexistence, disarmament and international co-operation. He stressed that non-- alignment was important to India because it helped to strengthen peace and achieve disarmament. "We want to preserve our independent policy. For its sake we must remain non-aligned," he declared, adding, "The world must raise its voice against nuclear weapons. It would be suicidal for India to enter the arena of nuclear weapons production. We are against having a bomb of our own and consider that the same policy must be pursued by all Asian and African states.''

The Delhi Conference passed decisions approving this stand and expressing the hope that the peoples and governments would curb the forces of war and utilise their resources, now being spent on armaments, to improve the living standard of

millions of people whom colonialism and imperialism had doomed to poverty and ignorance. A mass rally presided over by the well-known Indian civic leader Aruna Asaf Ali was held in Delhi on November 18, 1964 in support of the resolutions endorsed by the conference.

A heated, stormy foreign policy debate took place in the Indian Parliament at the close of November 1964. Forming a united front, the reactionaries decided to give battle to Shastri and his government. They demanded a complete re-examination of the policy of non-alignment and peaceful coexistence. Supported by the Right Socialists and some elements within the ruling Indian National Congress, leaders of the Swatantra and Jana Sangh parties demanded that the government take steps to create an Indian nuclear weapon and establish a close military alliance with the imperialist states. The notorious reactionary Kripalani declared that India's only choice was to align herself with the West

The intrigues of the reactionary circles met with determined resistance from the progressive forces in the Indian Parliament. The vast majority of the members voted in support of the Indian Government's policy directed against nuclear weapons production. Krishna Menon, former Defence Minister and a prominent figure in the Indian National Congress, pointed out that "to achieve the abolition of the nuclear weapon India and other countries must now act much more energetically.... India must under no circumstances align herself with the nuclear race". K. Kumaran, Communist Member of Parliament, emphasised that India must adhere to her policy of non-alignment and suggested the convocation of a conference of all political parties with the object of drawing up a programme for explaining the advantages of non-alignment to the people.

Prime Minister Shastri, who spoke in the debate, reaffirmed that India had to continue the Nehru policy and that production of a nuclear weapon of her own would be contrary to India's traditional policy and would hinder her economic development. He rejected any possibility of India utilising nuclear energy except for peaceful purposes. India's general line, he said, was to rouse public opinion against the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons. He declared that India would carry on with her policy of peace, non-alignment and neutralism. The policy of peace and friendship initiated

by Nehru, he said, must be continued for the welfare of India and the world.

On November 25, 1964, the Lower House of the Indian Parliament approved Shastri's foreign policy by a majority vote.

The reactionary campaign for an Indian nuclear weapon was part of the struggle of the overt and covert opponents of Nehru's foreign policy. They found no support among the Indian people, who are resolved to follow Nehru's neutralist line. This was shown by the results of the elections in November 1964 in the electoral district where Nehru always stood for office. The Indian National Congress candidate was Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, Nehru's sister and a prominent political and civic leader. Her chief adversary was a representative of the United Socialist Party which had criticised the foreign policy of the present Indian Government. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit won the election with a majority of 58,000 votes.

For Jawaharlal Nehru and all progressive forces of India friendship with the Soviet Union was the corner-stone of the policy of non-alignment and peaceful coexistence. Nehru wrote that the friendship between the Indian and Soviet peoples was founded not on temporary expediency or transient advantages but had deep roots and could withstand the test of time. It is no accident that Indo-Soviet relations are a classical example of peaceful coexistence. Both countries, despite their differing socio-political systems, are actively seeking to relax world tension, achieve general and complete disarmament and settle all outstanding issues by negotiation. India was the first country to subscribe to the Moscow TestBan Treaty. She supported the Soviet proposal for the settlement of all outstanding territorial disputes by negotiation. In April 1964, at the preparatory conference on the convocation of the Second Bandung Conference of Afro-Asian Countries, India resolutely rejected the attempts to isolate the U.S.S.R. from the new sovereign states. The Indian representative demanded that the Soviet Union be invited to the conference. India's democratic, progressive forces have always sided with the Soviet Union in the struggle to unite and co-ordinate the efforts of the Asian and African peoples with those of the world socialist system, thoroughly appreciating that the unity and solidarity of the anti-colonial and

anti-imperialist front was the sole guarantee of the triumph of the national liberation movement and world peace.

Shortly before Nehru's death, the U.S.S.R, and India reached agreement on the building of an iron and steel plant at Bokaro. The first section of that plant will have an annual output capacity of 1,500,000 tons of steel ingots. The state iron and steel plant that is to be built at Bokaro with Soviet assistance may be offered as a classical example illustrating the difference in the approach of socialist and imperialist countries to the industrialisation of neutralist India. Some years ago, when the Indian Government first announced its desire to build a plant at Bokaro, the U.S. Government initiated talks on technical and economic aid to India. However, in the course of these talks, which took a long time, it became clear that the U.S.A. was utilising India's eagerness to build an iron and steel plant in order to impose terms that were incompatible with her national interests, particularly with the development of the state sector. Indian public opinion rejected the U.S.A.'s importunity. "The building of the plant at Bokaro became a matter of prestige for India," H. D. Malaviya, leading Indian economist and journalist and editor-- inchief of the influential progressive magazine Socialist Congressman, wrote in an article for the Soviet weekly Za Rubezhom. The Indian Government appealed to the U.S.S.R. The Soviet Union's agreement to build another giant iron and steel plant in India was received as further testimony of IndoSoviet friendship, as a striking manifestation of the Leninist policy of assisting peoples fighting imperialism and working to consolidate political independence.

The state visit of Indian President Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan to the Soviet Union in September 1964 and the agreements reached there on an extension of co-operation between India and the U.S.S.R. were further proof of the strengthening friendship between the two countries.

Indian Prime Minister Lai Bahadur Shastri's visit to the Soviet Union in May 1965 was another important milestone in Indo-Soviet co-operation.

Let us turn to another great South-East Asian countryIndonesia. For many years that sovereign state has been waging a persevering struggle for the right to pursue a peaceloving neutralist policy. At sessions of SEATO Indonesia is frequently the target of undisguised threats. Certain circles

in the U.S.A. have for a long time supported the Masjumi reactionary organisation in Indonesia and the Dar Ul-Islam terrorist gangs. The agents of these gangs have made several attempts on the life of Indonesian President Sukarno. In America the Vincible, Emmet John Hughes, a prominent U.S. journalist who was an assistant to President Eisenhower and headed the foreign departments of Lite and Time magazines, wrote: "The American use of force, caught in such conflict, has tended towards the middle way of irresolution-as it demonstrated, for example, in confronting the Indonesian civil war that erupted early in 1958." Further, he said that "... covert assistance was given to the rebels, while formal political conduct continued to pay full respect to Sukarno". The Indonesian people have long ago realised that this double game of the U.S. imperialists is none other than a disguised means of supporting internal reaction, which advocates alignment with aggressive blocs, and that it is nothing more than a tool in the struggle against neutralism. The " diplomacy in depth" in India and the double game in Indonesia are one and the same thing.

The imperialists had every ``reason'' to be dissatisfied with Indonesia's foreign policy. In September 1954, the Indonesian Government turned down an invitation to attend the conference in Manila that was convened by the imperialist states to lay the foundation for SEATO. The SEATO organisers did their best to force Indonesia to join the bloc. Economic pressure was brought to bear by U.S. ruling circles. But the young sovereign country firmly stuck to its independent policy.

The further activation of this policy was largely due to the Bandung Conference, in whose convocation the Indonesian Government played a major part. Indonesia vigorously protested against the tripartite aggression against Egypt in 1956. Ruslan Abdulgani, Secretary-General of the Bandung Conference and representative of Indonesia, declared that Egypt's security was Indonesia's security. The Indonesian Government called on the Afro-Asian Bandung countries to take joint action with the purpose of halting the aggression against Egypt. In Delhi in November 1956, on Indonesia's initiative, the countries that had worked together to convene the Bandung Conference denounced the imperialist aggression against Egypt.

Indonesia has always been among the countries opposing imperialist intrigues. The so-called Federation of Malaysia, consisting of Malaya, Sarawak and North Borneo and set up in September 1963 under the aegis of Britain, was opposed by Indonesia, which assessed it as a threat to the freedom and independence of the new South-East Asian states. "The greatest danger of Malaysia," the British Labour weekly Tribune admitted, "is its threat to the neutralisation of all the critical area south of China.''

Indonesia does not confine her foreign policy activity to the struggle against colonialism. She has always taken an active part in examining other fundamental issues of modern times. The Soviet proposals for general and complete disarmament were supported in Indonesia by both the government and the people. "Indonesia is one of the active fighters against colonialism and imperialism, for peace and peaceful coexistence," said AH Sastroamidjojo, prominent Indonesian statesman and civic leader. "The Bandung Conference has become an extremely important milestone in the political life of the Afro-Asian countries as a whole and of Indonesia herself.''

Indonesia has agreed that the speediest abolition of survivals of the Second World War and the signing of a German peace treaty would be a decisive contribution to the consolidation of peace in Europe. Her government signed the Moscow Test-Ban Treaty. Indonesian Foreign Minister Subandrio spoke in favour of the Soviet proposals for the peaceful settlement of territorial and frontier disputes. In her anti-imperialist struggle Indonesia has the support of the U.S.S.R. During her armed struggle against the colonialists in 1945-49 she received moral and diplomatic assistance in the U.N. from the Soviet Union. In resisting the foreign intervention in 1958, suppressing the anti-government revolt on Sumatra and Sulawesi and liberating West Irian, Indonesia depended on Soviet political, material and military assistance. The U.S.S.R. supports Indonesia in her struggle against neo-colonialism, one of whose manifestations is the emergence of Malaysia. A vivid example of this support was the Soviet stand in the Security Council in 1964 when the conflict between Indonesia and Malaysia was debated.

An important role in the struggle of the new sovereign states of South-East Asia for peace and peaceful coexistence

is played by Burma, which actively resists aggressive blocs that have woven and continue to weave a neo-colonialist web around her. These imperialist intrigues are opposed by the Soviet Union, which has complete understanding for Burma's peace-loving neutralist policy. The joint Soviet-Burmese Communique, signed on February 18, 1960, stressed that " Burma's policy constitutes a positive contribution towards the maintenance of world peace and commands respect in the Soviet Union". The U.S.S.R. and the other socialist countries have time and again exposed the acts of the imperialists and their agents against Burma. Such was the case in 1954 and in 1961, when Burma appealed for assistance to the U.N. These countries are Burma's staunch and reliable allies.

Referring to the foreign policy of the Ne Win revolutionary government, the Burmese newspaper Cheihmou wrote: "At the second conference of non-aligned countries, our delegation headed by the Foreign Minister had the opportunity of stating how firmly the revolutionary government is adhering to its strict neutrality. It must be made clear that the neutral policy of the revolutionary government of the Burmese Union does not tolerate alignment with any bloc and excludes all striving to create a third bloc; it is founded solely on the concepts of anti-imperialism, disarmament and world peace.''

Laos is another neutralist South-East Asian country, whose independent policy excites alarm in SEATO headquarters. For several years the struggle of the Laotian people for independence and unity has been running into collision with the aggressive acts of imperialist circles, who aim to turn that country into a military and political bridgehead in SouthEast Asia.

The attempts of the U.S.A. and its agents to involve Laos in the SEATO bloc have caused widespread dissatisfaction among the Laotian people. In August 1960, the pro-- imperialist administration was overthrown and replaced by the Government of Prince Souvanna Phouma, which proclaimed neutralism at the foundation of its foreign policy. A new political party, which called itself neutralist, was formed a year later. This party, founded by Prince Souvanna Phouma, held its first congress on October 1, 1961 in Sient-Kuang. At that congress it adopted a programme of peace and neutrality and a charter. An important step of the new govern-

ment was the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.

U.S. ruling circles refused to reckon with the will of the Laotian people. The British magazine Eastern World wrote that "... Washington will consider neutralism respectable only if it cannot be prevented". With the help of its SEATO allies, the U.S.A. imposed a blockade on Laos and incited a reactionary revolt.

However, these imperialist plans of the U.S.A. misfired. The people of Laos led by patriotic forces headed by Neo Lao Hak Sat and its leader Prince Souphanouvang rose to the struggle against the U.S. agents, for an independent policy. The rebels found themselves with their backs to the wall. Washington faced the prospect of the rout of its puppets. In March 1961, under these conditions, U.S. President Kennedy was forced to recognise neutralist and independent Laos. However, reactionary circles in the U.S.A. did not give up their attempts to prevent Laos's existence as a truly independent and neutralist state.

In response to these intrigues the patriotic forces in the country intensified their struggle for Laotian neutralism. This struggle received the full support of the socialist countries, and nothing came of the imperialist intrigues.

On June 11, 1962, a coalition government of national unity headed by Prince Souvanna Phouma was formed after prolonged talks between the three main political forces in Laos. The new government proclaimed that it would pursue a neutralist policy. Soon afterwards, the signing of the Geneva agreements created the prerequisites for restoring peace in Laos, A major role was played in this by the Soviet Union. "The Laotian people," Sri Savang Vathana, King of Laos, declared during a state visit to the Soviet Union, "will always remember the leading role that the Soviet Union played as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference. The agreements signed by all the parties concerned are a memorable event for Laos because they enabled the country to achieve peace and follow the road of neutrality,"

To this day, however, the imperialists and their agents in Laos have not calmed down as is shown by the assassination of Laotian Foreign Minister and ardent champion of neutralism Kinima Folsena in the spring of 1963. This terrorist act

was followed up by further imperialist intrigues against the peace-loving, neutralist policy of Laos.

Foreign interference in Laotian affairs is preventing that country from tackling urgent domestic problems despite the fact that more than two years have passed since the signing of the Geneva agreements, which opened for Laos the possibility of development along the road of peace and neutrality. Immediately after they were forced to accept a ceasefire in the civil war and sign the international agreement in 1962, influential circles in the U.S.A. began undermining the new coalition government of Laos and place obstacles in the way of talks between representatives of the three political groups in the country. In spite of its commitments to withdraw its military personnel from Laos, the U.S.A. sent further groups of military personnel in the guise of "civilian advisers" and unilaterally gave and continue to give military and economic aid to the Right-wing group. Pursuing its tactics of abolishing the neutralist group by ``merging'' it with the Right-wing group and ``eroding'' the neutralist armed forces, the U.S.A. is openly interfering in Laotian affairs. In the period since May 1964, U.S. aircraft have carried out provocative spy missions over Laos and attacked objectives held by Patet Lao and Left neutralist troops. The Soviet Union, which insists on a peaceful settlement in Laos, the strict fulfilment of the Geneva agreements and giving that country the possibility of pursuing its independent, neutralist policy, has denounced these provocations. The firm stand taken by the U.S.S.R. and other real friends of Laos has cooled the ardour of the U.S. ruling circles. In its turn, this enabled representatives of the three political groups to meet in Paris. Laos is vitally interested in lasting peace and neutrality. Given good will, the three political groups could smooth over existing differences and open the way to a peaceful settlement of the Laotian problem on principles of neutralism and non-alignment.

In the struggle against the imperialist policy of involvement in aggressive blocs a major part is played by Cambodia. Small wonder that that country has been a SEATO target for nearly a decade. Prince Norodom Sihanouk, head of the Cambodian Government, wrote that the imperialist powers have assigned to his country "a definite place and role in their political plans in Asia.... The Great Powers of the

5-561

65

West would have liked us to renounce our neutrality and align ourselves with their camp, i.e., to partially renounce our freedom and ideals of tolerance and peace." Pro-- imperialist groups in Thailand and South Vietnam are assisting in the provocations against neutralist Cambodia. It is no secret that these groups claim some Cambodian provinces. They dream of parcelling out that neutralist country. In June 1958, South Vietnamese troops attempted to seize part of the Cambodian province of Rattanakiri. An anti-government plot directed from South Vietnam and Thailand with the assistance of Western powers was uncovered in February 1959. This took place at a time when Cambodia was preparing for a referendum on her foreign policy. On June 5, 1960, the Khmer people voted in favour of a neutralist policy and nonparticipation in military blocs.

The intrigues against Cambodia were stepped up in the summer of 1962 when South Vietnamese and Thai troops began provoking incidents on the Cambodian frontier. Matters reached a point where, on July 20, 1962, Prince Norodom Sihanouk told the National Assembly: "South Vietnam and Thailand are increasing their threats against us and it is quite possible that we shall be unable to avert war." Unquestionably, without approbation by Washington, neither South Vietnam nor Thailand would have dared to start provocation against Cambodia. When the pro-imperialist forces began a new series of provocations against that country, the newspaper Pravda warned that "those who like to play with fire should not forget that Cambodia has loyal friends who will not leave her in the lurch".*

Cambodia's proposal for creating a neutral zone in SouthEast Asia was an important contribution towards easing international tension and strengthening peace in that part of the world. At the close of 1962, Prince Norodom Sihanouk made the suggestion that an agreement on international guarantees of Cambodian neutrality after the Laos pattern should be signed. This suggestion was supported by all peace-loving forces. Imperialist circles, however, opposed Cambodia's proposal for an international conference to work out guarantees for her neutrality and territorial integrity.

Lately U.S. imperialist circles and their obedient South Vietnamese puppets have begun not only to threaten Cambodia but to stir up border conflicts and attack her from the air. Late in 1963 these provocations compelled the Cambodian Government to turn down U.S. aid, while in October 1964, after a raid on Cambodian territory by U.S.-Saigon troops, it warned Washington that if the U.S. would not abandon that policy it would break off diplomatic relations. The Cambodian Government repeatedly appealed to the Security Council against U.S. and South Vietnamese aggression. The Cambodian memoranda show up the barbarity of the U.S.-South Vietnamese aggressors. The unceasing intrigues against Cambodia's independence and neutrality forced her to break off diplomatic relations with the U.S.A. in the spring of 1965.

The Soviet Union has consistently supported the Cambodian Government in its efforts to strengthen national independence, peace and neutrality and in its defence of the country's territorial integrity. The people of Cambodia know that they will always have the support of the Soviet Union in their just struggle against colonialism.

For many years SEATO headquarters has been planning to disrupt the neutralist policy of Ceylon. But it has evidently lost sight of the fact that the Ceylonese people are determined to uphold their neutralist line. India and Ceylon, it will be remembered, were among the organisers of the Bandung Conference. In 1956, Ceylon forced the British to deactivate their military bases on her territory.

When the Ceylonese Prime Minister Solomon Bandaranaike was killed in September 1959 many people wondered what would happen to the country's neutralist policy. Although initially the reactionaries within the country, backed by SEATO intrigues, had some success, the obstacles in the way of the neutralist policy were removed. With the support of progressive forces the Ceylonese Freedom Party won the elections in 1960. In July 1960, through the lips of Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the new Prime Minister, Ceylon reiterated her adherence to neutralism and non-alignment. The calculation of the imperialist powers that the removal of a neutralist leader, who was objectionable to them, would bring Ceylon into their aggressive bloc came to nothing.

5'

67

Pravda, July 27, 1962.

At the end of January 1962, the imperialists made another attempt to push Ceylon away from neutralism. Local reactionary elements joined forces to overthrow Sirimavo Bandaranaike's Government. But the anti-government conspiracy ignominiously collapsed.

Early in 1963, Ceylon again became the target of pressure from U.S. imperialism. In February 1963, the U.S. Government declared that it was stopping ``aid'' to Ceylon because that country had refused to pay compensation for requisitioned foreign property. Once more U.S. ``aid'' was used as a means of bringing pressure to bear on the foreign policy of a neutralist country. The Nigerian newspaper West African Pilot wrote that the U.S.A. decided to bring home to Ceylon and other neutralist countries that if they wanted U.S. aid they would have to renounce freedom of action in both domestic and foreign policy. It would be worth recalling that at the time the Government of Ceylon was making a large effort to bring about a peaceful settlement of the frontier dispute between India and China.

Ceylon's neutralist policy has always been supported and appreciated by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. The peace-loving foreign policy of the South-East Asian neutralist countries vividly shows their growing role in world politics. Despite imperialist intrigues these countries are continuing their struggle for peace and peaceful coexistence, for the triumph of these principles on a world scale and in the relations between the Asian countries themselves.

NON-ALIGNMENT IN THE ARAB EAST

The colossal petroleum wealth and the exceptionally important strategic location of the Arab East determine the policy pursued in that region by imperialism, which is seeking to preserve its position there. Arab neutralism has seriously alarmed the imperialist monopolies, which are tenaciously clinging to their mercenary aspirations.

The following is a brief review of the struggle the Arab countries are waging for their independence against imperialist military blocs.

The overthrow of the pro-imperialist monarchy in Egypt in July 1952 stimulated the national liberation movement in the Arab East and strengthened the hand of the adherents of an anti-imperialist foreign policy.

In the early 1950s, Egypt refused to take part in a military bloc with the U.S.A., France and Turkey. The noted British historian C. M. Woodhouse wrote: "Despite the participation of the U.S.A. and Turkey, the Egyptian refusal was essentially a snub to the two former great powers in the Middle East; and there was no alternative but to accept it, and to drop the plan."* But the imperialist powers did not drop their plan of involving Egypt in a pro-Western bloc. They embarked upon the formation of an aggressive bloc in the Middle East with redoubled energy.

In February 1954, as a prelude to the Baghdad Pact, Turkey and Pakistan signed a military agreement. This step was scathingly criticised by the Soviet Union, Egypt and India. The Egyptian Government emphatically refused to have any-

* C. M. Woodhouse, British Foreign Policy Since the Second World War, London, 1961, p. 39.

thing to do with that aggressive bloc. "Had I aligned myself with a power that had been in occupation of my country for 70 years against another power, against whom we have no claims, I would have lost the confidence of my people," U.A.R. President Abdel Nasser told John Foster Dulles.

In April 1955, the Soviet Government issued a statement emphasising that the formation and extension of imperialist military groupings were serving the aims of colonialism, threatening the independent peoples of the Middle East, contravening the principles of the U.N. and running counter to the interests of peace and international security. Rafik Bachour, Vice-President of the Syrian Parliament, said at the time that the 'Soviet Union had barred the way to an extension of the domination of the imperialist military bloc in the Middle East. "Participation in military pacts of blocs with the Great Powers does not serve peace; essentially, it often has the reverse effect," declares the July 12, 1955 joint statement of the Indian Prime Minister and the President of Egypt. Nehru and Nasser met several times in the course of that year. The two neutralist leaders made it understood that they were against imperialist military blocs. However, the Baghdad Pact, consisting of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Britain, was formed on November 22, 1955, only to blow up three years later. But before it melted it poisoned the atmosphere in the Middle East.

If Egypt did not join their camp it would get neither arms nor economic aid, the Western powers threatened. But Egypt found a solution. She signed an agreement with Czechoslovakia on arms deliveries without political terms. In 1955, the Soviet Union purchased a large quantity of Egyptian cotton and thereby rid Egypt of the grave economic consequences of the imperialist blockade. Egypt thus obtained the means of standing up against the military and political pressure of the colonialist powers.

The Suez crisis flared up in 1956, bringing the Middle East into the focus of world tension. In London it was believed that it would not take much to depose Nasser. At the U.S. State Department it was said that "... Nasser could and should be 'cut down to size' ".*

On July 19, 1956, the U.S. Government withdrew its offer of financial aid for the Aswan Dam, and the British Government did the same on the following day. This was flagrant, outright pressure on a sovereign neutralist country in retaliation for showing preference for friendly economic and political relations with socialist countries to involvement in aggressive military blocs. The remaking of Egypt's economy was threatened. In order to obtain the means for building the High Dam, Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal on July 26, 1956. As a counter measure the imperialist states tried to make Egypt accept a plan of ``international'' control over Suez.

The support given to Egypt by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries played the decisive role in the Suez crisis. India, Indonesia and Ceylon likewise sided with Egypt. Invoking its veto, the Soviet Union blocked the `` international'' control plan in the Security Council. On October 31, 1956, British and French armed forces attacked Egypt.

The world tensely watched Egypt's armed struggle against British, French and Israeli forces. At all stages of that crisis the Soviet Union consistently upheld the interests of the victim of aggression.

On November 2, sixty-four delegations in the U.N. voted for a cease-fire and the withdrawal of the aggressor troops from Egyptian soil. This U.N. decision was ignored. British aircraft continued to bomb peaceful Egyptian towns.

On November 5, the Soviet Union issued a stern warning to the aggressors. Two days later, the aggressors had no alternative but to stop military operations and begin withdrawing their troops from Egypt.

``Your support," U.A.R. President Nasser said on April 29, 1958, during a visit to the Soviet Union, "and your ultimatum were the factors that upheld freedom and morale in that region of the world.''

Testimony of this kind is important even today when some people attempt to prove that the Soviet Union refuses to support the national liberation movement. Millions of people in the liberated countries know who actually helps the new Asian and African states in their struggle to consolidate their economic and political independence. Even an adversary of the Soviet Union like former U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson had to admit that in the Suez crisis the

* C. M. Woodhouse, British Foreign Policy Since the Second World War, p. 58.

Western bloc suffered defeat as a result of the efforts of the Egyptian people and the firm support received by them from the socialist countries.

The imperialist defeat in Egypt was a heavy blow for NATO and the Baghdad Pact. It gave rise to sharp differences among the imperialist powers and further stimulated the national liberation movement in the Middle East.

The world knows what the Suez crisis meant to the imperialist powers. In Britain, Prime Minister Anthony Eden was forced to resign. As regards the neutralist countries, the Suez crisis was further proof that the heyday of imperialist rule had gone.

The U.S.A. became the chief inspirer of the Baghdad Pact after the British fiasco in Egypt. On November 29, 1956, the U.S. State Department officially announced its backing of that pact. The U.S.A. tried hard to make Syria and other Arab countries repudiate neutralism and take orders from the imperialists. At the same time, a plan was proposed for forming, under U.N. auspices, an international consortium, which would take over the management of all the pipelines in the Middle East. Thus, aspiring to strangle the freedom and independence of the Middle Eastern countries, the monopolies planned to seize all the petroleum wealth of the Arab states. The unity of the Arab peoples, however, matured in the struggle against imperialist blocs and pacts, for national independence. Their co-operation with the socialist countries likewise grew stronger and broader. Under these conditions, early in 1957, U.S. imperialism proclaimed the Eisenhower Doctrine. The U.S. President bluntly declared his intention to use U.S. armed forces to ``defend'' the Middle Eastern countries against ``aggression'' by any country "controlled by world communism''.

What really lay behind the new doctrine was the thousands of millions of dollars invested by U.S. monopolies in the Middle East. Its main objects were to combat the national liberation movement of the Arab peoples and, at the same time, neutralism. The "... Eisenhower Doctrine," the British researcher John Marlow admitted in his book Arab Nationalism and British Imperialism, "was an attempt to achieve what the British had failed to achieve in the Baghdad Pacta weaning of the Arab world away from neutralism and into the Western camp.''

7?

The imperialists were particularly worried about ``their'' oil pipelines in Syria. Turkey actively contributed towards the intrigues against that neutralist country. In the U.N., the Soviet Union supported Syria's complaint against Turkey, an ally of the U.S.A. On February 11, 1957, the Soviet Government called upon the Great Powers to refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of the Middle Eastern countries. This call was ignored by the U.S. imperialists, who sought freedom for their aggressive actions in the Middle East.

However, the Eisenhower Doctrine, acclaimed by U.S. propaganda as an effective means for combating neutralism in the Middle East, proved helpless to change the further course of events.

Revolution broke out in Iraq, the very heart of the Baghdad Pact, on July 14, 1958.

On the next day U.S. marines landed in the Lebanon in an effort to influence the events in Iraq. At the same time, British troops were flown to Jordan. "Behind the U.S. armed intervention in the Lebanon," said a Soviet Government statement on the events in the Middle East, "is the striving of the petroleum monopolies of the U.S.A. and other Western powers to preserve their colonial rule in the Middle East as well as the obvious bankruptcy of their policy in the Arab East and the collapse of the Baghdad Pact and the notorious Eisenhower-Dulles Doctrine."*

Imperialism brought the Middle East to the brink of war, which was only averted thanks to the efforts of the Soviet Union, other socialist countries and all peace-loving forces.

In the years that followed, the imperialists continued their dogged attempts to undermine the neutralist policy of the Arab countries and denude it of its anti-imperialist content.

Neutralism in the Arab East was further strengthened by the overthrow of the corrupt feudal-monarchist regime in Yemen, as a result of which the Yemeni Arab Republic was proclaimed. In retaliation, imperialism stepped up its hostile activity in the Arab countries. This activity became particularly marked after the coup in Iraq in February 1963, which brought to power leaders of the extreme nationalistic Baath Party, who instituted a reign of terror in the country.

» fravda, July 17, 1958.

The reactionary policy of the Baath Party suited the imperialists, who craved vengeance for the 1958 revolution and were out to force Iraq to return to the aggressive CENTO pact. The reactionary coup thus seriously threatened the neutralism of the Arab countries. The overthrow of the reactionary Baath regime on November 18, 1963, laid the beginning for Iraq's return to co-operation with other Arab countries and to neutralism. Iraq was represented at the Cairo Conference of Non-Aligned Countries.

Continuing their struggle for the consolidation of political and economic independence, Arab progressive forces are resisting imperialism and its agents, who are bending every effort to undermine Arab non-alignment, which is one of the major gains of the national liberation movement.

NEUTRALISM SPREADS IN AFRICA

The imperialists were eager to have Africa's vast resources and manpower behind their plans of aggression. When they first mounted their cold war against the socialist countries and the national liberation movement, they strove might and main to enmesh Africa in a web of strategic bases. They even devised a project for an African bloc, and naturally reserved the front seat in it for themselves. When France entered NATO in 1949 she dragged the territory of Algeria into its sphere of operation against the will of the Algerians. Morocco and Tunisia, too, became part of the Atlantic system at that time through the expedient of various military agreements.

Soon after the Second World War, the United States established a large air base at Wheelus Field near the city of Tripoli in Libya, and in 1950 reached an understanding with France to build air bases in Morocco. The U.S. Navy was allowed the use of the naval base at Port-Lyuntey on Morocco's Atlantic coast. Britain had first-class bases in the Suez Canal zone until 1954, and tried to use them again some years later. After her Suez adventure folded, Britain built war bases in Kenya. In the meantime, the French imperialists maintained a thick web of bases in the various countries of North Africa, in particular at Bizerta and Mers el Kebir. The imperialist war bases in Tropical Africa were part of the so-called second line of defence of the capitalist world.

After the mid-fifties the imperialists enlivened their activities in Africa in response to the mounting national liberation movement of the African peoples, which was delivering one country after another from colonial bondage. On gaining political independence many of the former African colonies

proclaimed neutralism as the guiding principle of their foreign policy. It is the highlights of this process on the African continent that we shall review in this chapter.

The Suez crisis gave strong impetus to the spread of neutralism in Africa. The African countries that won political independence borrowed the neutralist formula from ex-- colonial Asian countries that had won independence at earlier dates. But there is a number of countries in Africa that as yet have no clearly denned foreign policy. Besides, there are countries that still languish under the colonial yoke, which constitute a body of "potential neutralists''.

The collapse of the Baghdad Pact, the triumph of neutralism in some of the Arab countries and the heroic freedom struggle of the Algerians exercised a strong cumulative influence on the national liberation movement in Africa and, among other things, on the fortunes of neutralism. A fresh fillip to neutralism was given by the emergence in West Africa of three new independent states-Ghana, Guinea and Mali-which made non-alignment the keystone of their policy. So did developments in the Congo, whose first Prime Minister, Patrice Lumumba, a stalwart son of Africa, opted for neutralism in his country's foreign policy.

The struggle against the dirty war in Algeria and the intervention in the Congo taught the independent African countries to concert their efforts and co-ordinate their foreign policies. In January 1961, six independent African statesMorocco, the United Arab Republic, Ghana, Guinea, Libya and Mali-held a conference in Casablanca, also attended by spokesmen from Algeria and Ceylon. The conference crowned its work with the Casablanca Charter, whose signatories declared their determination to fight on in common for the liberation of the entire African continent from foreign rule and for the final abolition of colonialism and neo-- colonialism. They proclaimed, too, that they would adhere rigorously to the principles of neutralism.

``Since the Casablanca group was formed," wrote the journal West Africa, "it has developed a definite policy on one other matter reflecting the `neutralism' which its members profess-a dislike of foreign military bases or military entanglements outside Africa."*

* West Africa, February 10, 1962, p. 141.

The distinctive feature of African neutralism is that it binds up non-alignment with the problem of African unity in the struggle against imperialism, for the rapid extirpation of the aftermaths of Western colonial rule. The programme of Ghana's ruling Convention People's Party, for example, stresses that a co-ordinated foreign policy is one of the common goals of Africa's newly-independent states.

Neutralist policy, as we see, does not imply neutrality as regards the struggle for peace and the fight against imperialism and colonialism. "We do not wish to be in the position of condoning imperialist aggression from any quarter,"* was how Kwame Nkrumah elucidated this point.

More of the newly-free African countries are joining the struggle for peace and peaceful coexistence, for neutralist policy and for the final extirpation of the consequences of imperialist rule. In Nigeria, for one, conflicting forces clashed over her military agreement with Britain, signed on January 5, 1961, soon after the country's independence was proclaimed. Half a year later at Lagos, the majority at an all-Nigeria conference of various political, public and trade union organisations on questions of foreign and domestic policy, spoke out for a neutralist course. The resolution passed at the conference said it was desirable and necessary to abolish the military agreement with Britain. On January 21, 1962, the agreement was annulled. The Government of Nigeria officially announced that positive neutralism and non-alignment was the corner-stone of its foreign policy.

``We shall not be entangled in any alliance in the European or Asian theatres of military strategy and logistics," wrote Nnamdi Azikiwe, who is now President of Nigeria. "But we shall be free to decide whether perpetual or partial or benevolent neutrality will serve our national interest. We shall co-operate with the African states on the basis of equality and we shall encourage coexistence with the nations of the world, in spite of their peculiar ideological concepts."**

The young African states have dependable friends in the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries. The Declara-

* Kwame Nkrumah, I Speak ot Freedom. A Statement of African Ideology, Melbourne-Toronto, 1961, p. 144.

** Zik, A Selection from the Speeches of Nnamdi Azikiwe, Cambridge, 1961, p. 202.

tion on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, submitted by the U.S.S.R. to the XV U.N. General Assembly, was described by Kwame Nkrumah as a strong blow to colonialism.

In response to the proclamation of the Republic of Guinea on October 2, 1958, the French imperialists applied bald economic pressure and attempted to isolate the newly-founded state from the outer world. So the Soviet Union stretched out a helping hand to Guinea. The moral and political support of the socialist community helped considerably to strengthen Guinea's political independence. Socialist countries concluded advantageous trade agreements with her, and her international isolation, which the imperialists had hoped to engineer, was thus averted.

State visits to the U.S.S.R. by Sekou Toure, Kwame Nkrumah and Modibo Keita went a long way in promoting and consolidating friendly relations between the Soviet Union, Guinea, Ghana and Mali.

The persevering efforts of the three African countries to advance the principles of the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, promote an easing of international tension and secure a lasting peace, have been acclaimed by peace-abiding people all over the world. In appreciation of their outstanding contributions to the cause of peace, Kwame Nkrumah, Sekou Toure and Modibo Keita have been awarded International Lenin Prizes For the Promotion of Peace Among the Peoples.

Their neutralist policy creates considerable difficulties for the African countries, particularly the ex-colonies of France. The latter saddled them with politico-military agreements, which restrict their sovereignty and freedom of action on the international scene. In some of them French war bases exist to this day.

``Very often," writes Kwame Nkrumah, "these methods are adopted in order to influence the foreign policies of small and uncommitted countries in a particular direction. Therefore we, the leaders of resurgent Africa, must be alert and vigilant."*

Furthermore, the imperialists pin considerable hopes on fanning contradictions between the young African states and

* Kwame Nkrumah, op. tit., p. 128.

try to create trouble between the different groups of newlyfree countries on the African continent.

At the same time, the imperialist groups are trying hard to tear the African countries away from the neutralist Asian countries and thus explode Afro-Asian unity. The London Times, for example, in an article entitled "African Neutralism and Asian", voiced alarm over the possibility of the young independent African countries following in the footsteps of such staunch neutralists as India and Indonesia, for "the Asian neutralists," the paper lamented, "have gone through the phases of disowning military entanglements, evicting foreign bases, and seeking closer diplomatic and economic ties with the communist bloc."*

Lately, the imperialist powers have been using their socalled Common Market (European Economic Community) to undermine African neutralism, split the independent African states and subvert Afro-Asian solidarity. They hope their Common Market will hinder the independent African countries from carrying through a neutralist foreign policy.

It is common knowledge that the E.E.C. is much more than an economic alignment. It has a distinctly political complexion. Konrad Adenauer, the ex-Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, made no bones about avowing this fact. "For the six countries joined in the European Economic Community," he said, "it is first and foremost a political undertaking-----I can safely say that this political aspect

has so far been the main trend in all our dealings.''

Many leaders of the imperialist powers, such as France's President de Gaulle, Belgium's Foreign Minister Spaak, and the late U.S. President Kennedy, have also repeatedly underscored the political complexion of the Common Market and its intimate relation to the policies and practices of NATO.

Today, when the bulk of the Asian and African countries have won political independence, the governing groups of Western Europe are taking pains to keep their former colonies in the Common Market orbit and thereby retain the possibility of exploiting them. It was with this object in view that they induced 18 African countries to sign a treaty of

Times, January 9, 1961.

7.9

association With the Common Market in Yaounde, the Cameroon, on July 20, 1963.*

Propagandists in the pay of the West European monopolists have the thankless job of camouflaging the neo-- colonialist aims of the Common Market. They go out of their way to describe it in a light that would appeal to the millions of people in Asia and Africa. They claim that the African countries cannot build up their economy without West European ``aid''. "Anyone who thinks that Africa's development can continue without Europe, that Africans no longer need Europe, are in grave error," said Otto Schmidt, Deputy to the Bonn Bundestag and a spokesman of the West German monopolies for whom the Common Market is a toll of farreaching expansionist plans on the African continent.

The eagerness of the West European imperialists to involve some of the African countries in the Common Market is bound up with their pet project of reviving the old Eurafrica plan in the new international environment as a means of bolstering the economic power and political influence of West European capitalism with the vast African reserves of raw materials and manpower. The effort made by the West European powers to draw the African countries into the orbit of the European Economic Community, said the joint Soviet-- Ghanaian Communique issued during the Soviet visit of Ghana's President Kwame Nkrumah, is "a plan aimed at hitching the African countries to Europe's imperialism, preventing African countries from pursuing an independent neutral policy, obstructing mutually advantageous economic contacts between them and retaining the African countries as suppliers of raw materials for the imperialist powers".**

It is an open secret that in spite of its internal contradictions, West European capitalism is striving to work out a joint approach to African problems and to co-ordinate the activities of the West European powers on the African continent. Common Market plans in Africa embody collective policy on the part of the West European colonialists, who are bent on exploiting the newly-free countries under new guises.

* The eighteen African countries are Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, Upper Volta, Niger, Ivory Coast, Dahomey, Congo (Brazzaville), Chad, Central African Republic, Gabon, Malagasy Republic, Togo, Cameroon, Congo (Leopoldville), Somalia, Ruanda and Burundi.

** Piavda, July 26,1961.

The late Jawaharlal Nehru, for one, described the Common Market as possibly a more powerful means of controlling the less developed countries than those used when one country directly controlled her colonies.

The imperialists hope that the entaglement of some of the African countries in the Common Market will create differences between the independent African states and subvert their joint struggle for the extirpation of the consequences of colonialism and for the achievement of economic independence. They hope, too, that it will tear many young African countries from such neutralist and anti-imperialist stalwarts at the United Arab Republic, Ghana, Guinea, India and Indonesia, and thereby create a rift between the nonaligned countries of Asia and Africa, undermine their solidarity in the struggle against imperialism, and slow down the national liberation movement.

In this far from easy task the West European imperialists expect to exploit whatever remains of their waning influence in their former colonies, above all Senegal, the Ivory Coast, Dahomey, Niger, Upper Volta, Mauritania, Chad, Gabon, the Central African Republic, Congo (Brazzaville), Cameroon, and the Malagasy Republic. All of these countries, which gained independence in 1960, have military agreements with France.

The more far-sighted political leaders in Africa today are conscious that association with the European Economic Community will inevitably force the young sovereign states to depart from their neutralist course. Kwame Nkrumah, one of the neutralist leaders actively opposed to the Common Market, describes it as "the greatest danger Africa faces at the present time." Speaking in Accra at the opening of the African Freedom Fighters' Conference in May 1962, Nkrumah declared that "the Common Market is aimed ... at preventing us from following an independent neutralist policy''.

``Association with the European Economic Community," said Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Prime Minister of the Federation of Nigeria, "is incompatible with the policy of nonalignment.''

The Government of Tanganyika stated that association with the Common Market not only contradicts its plan of economic development, but also the principles of positive neutralism.

6-561

In March 1963, after concluding their negotiations in Brussels with Common Market officials, the respective Ministers of Tanganyika, Uganda, Kenya and Zanzibar announced that they had declined to conclude an agreement on full ``association'' with the European Economic Community. They gave to understand that such an agreement would conflict with the policy of non-alignment pursued by their countries. Resistance to the plans of the Common Market is also mounting in the ``associated'' African countries. At the parliamentary conference of European and African countries in Strassbourg as far back as the summer of 1961 spokesmen of the ``associated'' countries expressed their fear that involvement in the Common Market may create a split in Africa, isolate the African countries from other newly-independent states and injure Africa's neutralism. The neutralist tendencies of the former French colonies were distinctly demonstrated at this conference.

Africa's progressives are resisting the Western policy of spreading the Common Market sphere of operation to the African continent. The Third Conference of the Peoples of Africa, held in Cairo in March 1961, condemned the "project of involving African countries in colonial economic blocs that strive to keep the African economy in a poorly developed condition". The conference described the Common Market as a mortal danger to the African countries. The colonialist plans of the Common Market were also strongly criticised at the Third Afro-Asian Solidarity Conference at Moshi in 1963. The African countries are eager to propel inter-African economic co-operation, which they regard as an important damper on the neo-colonialist plans of the European' Economic Community.

It is not only in behalf of their national economies that the liberated countries oppose the Common Market. They are also bent on safeguarding their right to follow an independent foreign policy and buttress Afro-Asian solidarity in the struggle against imperialism.

The Addis Ababa Conference of the Heads of State and Government of 32 African Countries in May 1963 was of the utmost importance to the future of the African continent. It created the Organisation of African Unity (O.A.U.) and adopted the O.A.U. Charter, which reiterated the basic principles of the non-alignment policy. The resolutions passed at

the conference gave substance to the main trends in the foreign policy of the independent African countries. They urged peace, general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and struggle against colonialism.

The conference demanded that states which are allies of the colonial powers choose between friendship with the African peoples and support of their oppressors. The conference urged all independent African countries to break off diplomatic and consular relations with the South African Republic and Portugal. It suggested that volunteer organisations be constituted in the independent African countries to assist the various African national liberation movements. The Heads of State and Government at the conference favoured closer intra-African co-operation, better co-ordination among African countries in the United Nations and adherence to the U.N. resolution on making Africa an atom-free zone.

``We shall not make Africa safe by simply declaring it a nuclear-free zone," said Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, the Prime Minister of Nigeria, at the Addis Ababa Conference, and added that if war were to break out, Africa would be directly involved in it. What the African nations want, he continued, is world peace and mutual understanding among the Great Powers.

The resolutions of the Addis Ababa Conference called on the powers to destroy their nuclear stockpiles. They urged the Western powers to wind up their war bases in Africa and terminate military occupation of African territories, and prompted the African countries to repeal all military agreements with foreign states.

These appeals became the corner-stone of the Organisation of African Unity.

In the relatively short time since its establishment, the O.A.U. has won immense prestige throughout the continent. The African countries approach it every time they need a supreme arbiter, and the peoples in the few remaining African colonies regard it as a dependable support in their struggle for national liberation. The O.A.U. exerts strong pressures on the colonial powers, and demands the immediate and complete liberation of all the peoples still under their yoke. It renders the national liberation movement on the African continent moral and material assistance.

6-

83

The satisfactory settlement of the acute border conflict between Algeria and Morocco was an important accomplishment of the O.A.U. For the first time in history, an African problem was settled by the Africans themselves, who used the O.A.U. machinery, instead of approaching the United Nations. In response to an O.A.U. appeal, the vast majority of the sovereign African countries associated themselves with the .Moscow Partial Test-Ban Treaty. Political, economic, scientific, technical and cultural co-operation among the African countries is expanding under the auspices of the O.A.U., and various specialised O.A.U. commissions have begun operating. The Organisation of African Unity is giving effective backing to African states on the world scene. It is now a factor the imperialist powers are compelled to reckon with. G. Mennen Williams, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, admits that the Organisation of African Unity functions as an instrument of stability and of political, economic and social co-operation on the continent. Speaking of O.A.U. mediation in the Algeria-Morocco and Somalia-Ethiopia conflicts, Williams declared in the spring of 1964 that it achieved notable results for an organisation that had existed for less than a year, and doubly notable, because it represented relatively young countries.

The Addis Ababa Conference laid the foundation for political co-ordination and military, economic and cultural cooperation among the African countries. Le Monde wrote on June 22, 1964, that "O.A.U. members, who now have standing co-ordinative bodies at their service, depend less than they did in the past on the Great Powers and enjoy a definite influence in the opposition movements of the still dependent countries. They are now creating an 'international pressure group', more consistent and effective than the Afro-Asian group in the United Nations, and these days the world will have to reckon with it.''

The work done so far by the O.A.U. shows that most of the African leaders attach far greater importance to their common goals and tasks than to their particular or group interests. The first big test faced by the Organisation of African Unity was the Conference of the Foreign Ministers of Africa on August 2-11, 1963, in Dakar, which suggested that all groups of African countries should strive to reorganise themselves in pursuance of the principles and the spirit

of the Addis Ababa Charter, the basis of the O.A.U. Speakers at the Dakar Conference voiced their support of the Moscow Partial Test-Ban Treaty and urged the Great Powers to work on assiduously for universal disarmament. The African countries were recommended to sign the Moscow Treaty.

In the beginning of 1964 the O.A.U. had to help relieve the tense situation created by unrest among African soldiers in the countries of East Africa, which brought about a British armed intervention in Tanganyika, Kenya and Uganda. At the request of the Tanganyika Government, an extraordinary session of the O.A.U. Council of Foreign and Defence Ministers in February 1964 at Dar es Salaam worked out a settlement of the conflict.

With the border conflict between Somalia and Ethiopia grown more acute in early 1964, the Dar es Salaam Conference urged the two countries to conclude a cease-fire. A group of observers was sent to the scene of the conflict. The Somalia Government issued orders to cease fire on the Somalia-Ethiopian border, and the same decision was passed by the Ethiopian Government. Speakers at the Dar es Salaam Conference also discussed the territorial dispute between Somalia and Kenya and called on the two countries to end the border incidents once and for all. As we see, the Dar es Salaam Conference acquitted itself admirably and did much to normalise the situation in East Africa.

The second conference of O.A.U. Foreign Ministers, attended by observers from some of the African national liberation movements, took place in Lagos, the capital of Nigeria, on February 24-29, 1964. This time the O.A.U. Foreign Ministers dwelt at length on the racial policies of the governing group in the South African Republic. They decided on measures prohibiting aircraft and ships proceeding to or from South Africa to fly over, land or anchor in African countries. The O.A.U. Council of Ministers recommended the Special U.N. Committee on the South African Government's Policies of Apartheid to enforce effective economic sanctions against the South African Republic. Cape Argus, a South African newspaper, reported that the O.A.U. had suggested to businessmen in the African countries to break off all contacts with South Africa. The businessmen were told that if they refused, they would themselves be boycotted. The Lagos session also examined the situation in Southern Rhodesia. It

was stressed in its resolution that if the British Government permitted the white minority of Southern Rhodesia to proclaim ``independence'', the independent African countries would review their attitude towards Britain and all other countries that recognise this ``independence''. An all-African government of Southern Rhodesia would then be formed in exile with the support of all the independent African countries. A resolution on the proclamation of an atom-free zone in Africa pointed out that the O.A.U. Council of Ministers had unanimously adopted a project declaring "allegiance to the principle under which Africa is proclaimed an atom-free zone". A resolution was also passed concerning the settlement of conflicts between African countries. Speakers pointed out that all conflicts between African countries should be, first and foremost, submitted to the O.A.U. They should not be submitted to the U.N. Security Council unless the O.A.U. fails to find an accommodation.

The Council of Ministers suggested that the O.A.U. member-countries work for a fuller representation of the AfroAsian group in the Security Council.

``The meeting in Lagos," said Bareima Bocoum, the Foreign Minister of Mali, "gives us every reason to say that the Organisation of African Unity is able to resolve all problems now facing Africa, and possesses the tools that will enable us to surmount all obstacles along the path charted in Addis Ababa.''

The O.A.U. session, Bocoum stressed, has also taken account, against the background of common problems, of the question of non-alignment, "one of the principles of the O.A.U. Charter", and adopted a decision that members should abandon all commitments that conflict with the conception of neutralism.

By decision of the Addis Ababa Conference, a committee for co-ordinating aid by the independent African countries to the national liberation movement in the still remaining colonies was formed in Dar es Salaam, the capital of Tanganyika. It consisted of representatives of nine countriesAlgeria, the United Arab Republic, Guinea, Senegal, Nigeria, Congo (Leopoldville), Tanganyika, Uganda and Ethiopia. The fourth session of this Committee of Nine, held in June 1964, summed up the results of the struggle against imperialism in the preceding year. Apart from its permanent members, rep-

resentatives of the national liberation movement in the dependent countries were invited to attend the session. Amilcar Cabral, Secretary-General of the African Independence Party of Portuguese Guinea and the Cape Verde Islands, who spoke at the session, pointed out that the firm stand taken by the African countries in the United Nations and other international organisations, coupled with their diplomatic boycott of Portugal, has effectively furthered the exposure of Portuguese colonialism and helped to isolate the Salazar Government.

The very first steps of the O.A.U. showed that it is viable and effective. The promoters of regional inter-state groups in Africa have had to heed this fact.

After the Organisation of African Unity was established, the Casablanca and Monrovia groups announced their dissolution. The leaders of the Afro-Malagasy Union, who did not openly come out against the O.A.U., tried to prove, however, that it was desirable to maintain regional unions despite the ``parallel'' existence of the O.A.U., claiming that such unions ``supplemented'' it.

The continued existence of the Afro-Malagasy Union in defiance of the Addis Ababa Conference decision on the dissolution of all inter-state organisations in Africa, roused objections among some of the African leaders. Sekou Toure, President of Guinea, said in August 1963, for example, that the Afro-Malagasy Union was designed to emasculate the dynamic content of the African Charter adopted at the Addis Ababa Conference.

It will be recalled that ever since its inauguration the AfroMalagasy Union had been distinctly politico-military in complexion and had established a joint general headquarters and a supreme council of defence. Besides, the members of the Afro-Malagasy Union concluded a "joint defence" agreement with France. French military bases studded their territories. Spark, a Ghanaian weekly, pointed out on this score that at Addis Ababa and at other conferences the heads of the African states had subscribed to the principle of non-alignment and had thereby declared themselves against foreign bases in Africa.

Spark pointed out that the Western powers had so-called defence systems in Africa, and added that the method of

hitching individual African countries to any of the big military blocs conflicted with the idea of non-alignment, to which all Africa had subscribed.

The leaders of the Afro-Malagasy Union were made to heed public opinion. A meeting of the heads of state and representatives of the Union in Dakar on March 7-10, 1964, decided on a reorganisation, proclaiming itself henceforward to be the Afro-Malagasy Union for Economic Co-operation, with its seat in Yaounde, the capital of Comeroon. Moktar Ould Daddah, President of the Afro-Malagasy Union, declared that henceforward the Union would deal chiefly with questions of economic, technical and cultural co-operation, and would leave the political aspects to the Organisation of African Unity. He said that the Union* would gradually merge with the O.A.U.

For all this, the leaders of the Afro-Malagasy Union see fit to maintain "special bonds with France in the context of multilateral co-operation". This indicates that some of the Afro-Malagasy Union leaders intend to preserve the politicomilitary complexion of the reorganised body. In the long run, plans of this sort are grinding the axe of the imperialist groups and conflict with the principles of non-alignment.

The Second Conference of the Heads of State and Government of the African Countries, held in Cairo from July 17 to July 21, 1964, was another milestone in the forging of African unity. It summed up the efforts made by the African countries to fortify their political and economic co-operation since the Addis Ababa Conference, and represented a new step forward along the uneasy and thorny path to unity: The Assembly of African Heads of State and Government, as the Cairo Conference was officially named, was attended by 20 Presidents, two Kings, one Emperor and the Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers of 33 independent African countries.

Also present at the conference as observers were the Prime Minister of Zambia (Northern Rhodesia) Kenneth David Kaunda, Chairman of the Provisional Government of the

Republic of Angola Roberto Holden, and leaders of many national organisations of African countries still under colonial rule. United Nations Secretary-General U Thant attended the conference and made an address. Gamal Abdel Nasser, President of the United Arab Republic, who was elected Honorary Chairman of the Conference, noted in his opening speech the immense bearing the Cairo Conference had on the future of the African peoples. "In Addis Ababa," he said, "we established an entity for the Organisation of African Unity. This entity we should now provide with its nervous system and powerful muscles. Yet, deepening of mutual understanding is the guarantee ensuring that the Organisation's nervous system and powerful muscles could operate according to a united will. There would be no contradiction leading to division or paralysis.''

Nasser urged the African countries to intensify their pressure on the colonialists, to collaborate actively on the international scene, and to promote African solidarity with Asia and Latin America. He stressed that it was essential for the African countries to play their part in the struggle for peace. "We have devoted our greatest interest to the cause of peace," he concluded, lavishing high praise on the Moscow Partial Test-Ban Treaty.

The Cairo Conference gave prominence to the problem of abolishing the remnants of colonialism in Africa. Jomo Kenyatta, who was then Prime Minister of Kenya, pointed out that Africa would never act on the world scene to the full extent of its powers, until all the countries under imperialist domination regained their freedom. The conference discussed the foreign bases in Africa, urging their withdrawal, and acclaimed the idea of making the African continent an atomfree zone.

The leaders of Free Africa called for determined and effective measures against the fascist rulers of the South African Republic and Salazar Portugal. Milton Obote, the Prime Minister of Uganda, denounced the disgraceful conduct of the NATO countries, which supported the Portuguese colonialists and the South African racists.

Many African leaders drew attention to the danger of neo-colonialism and urged concerted action by the free countries to combat it. Amilcar Cabral, the Secretary-General of the African Independence Party of Portuguese Guinea and

* In February 1965, a conference of the Afro-Malagasy Union for Economic Co-operation in Nouakchott (Mauritania) passed a decision restoring the political nature of the group, which was renamed the Afro-Malagasy General Organisation.

the Cape Verde Islands, spoke at the conference on behalf of the national organisations of African countries still under colonial rule. He appealed to the African states for greater assistance to the freedom fighters of Africa.

The African leaders were agreed that solidarity and cohesion called for continued efforts. They stressed, however, that struggle for unity did not imply the self-isolation of the African continent. Africa, said President Nasser, was fighting for unity, but this did not mean that it wanted to fence itself off from the rest of the world. The conference, he added, stretched out its hand to everybody fighting for progress.

The problems of African unity held pride of place in the speeches made at the conference. Collaboration among African countries sprang, above all, from the concerted and persevering struggle against colonialism and its consequences. But the paths of the various African countries diverge in the process of development, creating obstacles to unity. This was a factor that already came to the surface at the Cairo Conference. There were differences of opinion about the ways and means of achieving closer cohesion among the African countries. President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana urged the immediate establishment of an all-Africa government, and was, in the main, backed by the representatives of the Republic of Guinea and Algeria. But most of the leaders suggested the more gradual approach of extending the spheres of co-operation and, primarily, the sphere of economic relationships. The debate culminated in a decision to establish a special committee for examining Ghana's proposal.

The conference outlined further practical steps to carry forward the principles of O.A.U. policy worked out at Addis Ababa in 1963. The resolutions passed in Cairo mirrored the determination of the African countries to stamp out the remnants of colonialism in Africa and buttress their solidarity in the struggle against imperialism.

The political declaration of the conference reaffirmed the stand taken by the African countries at Addis Ababa on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, universal disarmament and a nuclear-free zone in Africa. The conference branded the apartheid policy of the South African Republic and asked all countries to boycott that racist state. Special bureaus were set up under the O.A.U. Secretariat to co-ordinate actions

related to the boycott of the South African Republic and Portugal. The stand taken by the African leaders against the racist regime in South Africa caused considerable anxiety among Verwoerd's followers. "The attack on the South African Government's policies at the African leaders' summit meeting in Cairo," wrote the Rand Daily Mail on July 22, 1964, "was the most sustained and planned attack ever made at any international conference.... At Addis Ababa last year there was a strong attack upon South African race policies. Yet for sheer concentration on the subject there was nothing at the conference in Ethiopia to compare with the massiveness of the attack this year.''

The conference decided that the Organisation of African Unity would have its permanent headquarters in Addis Ababa. Diallo Telli Boubacar, of Guinea, was elected Secretary-- General of the O.A.U. Also appointed were his four deputies, representing Algeria, Dahomey, Kenya and Nigeria.

Speaking about the conference, Sekou Toure said the idea that triumphed in Cairo was that African unity is a means of speeding the political and economic liberation of the continent.

The imperialist groups were annoyed by the outcome of the Cairo Conference. They had hoped in vain that contradictions between the African states would gain in intensity. On July 3, The Scotsman had predicted that they were growing more acute. But the comments that appeared in the Western press after the conference had closed were of an entirely different tenor. "The Conference proved again," wrote the New York Times dejectedly on July 24, "that nothing unites new nations so much as the desire to liberate others." The paper warned that the new states were now organising on a continental basis.

The summit meetings in Addis Ababa and Cairo laid the groundwork for closer co-operation among the independent African countries primarily in the anti-colonial and anti-- imperialist context.

The solidarity of the African countries is opposed, first and foremost, by the neo-colonialist designs of the imperialists, who are eager to retain and consolidate their positions in Africa in the new environment. They are trying to exploit the African craving for unity for their own ends, to emascu-

late it of its anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist purport, toput the countries of the African continent under their influence, and thereby consign the Organisation of African Unity to extinction. Western propaganda is trying to press home the point that Africa's future depends on close economic and political collaboration with the former metropolitan countries. The colonialist doctrine of so-called inter-dependence, which declares the metropolitan countries and their former colonies as economically complementary and mutually dependent, and, what is more, unable to develop separately, is getting extensive publicity. The imperialists are working strenuously to obscure the struggle for African unity by their call for "the amalgamation of Europe and Africa''.

They pin their hopes on the European Common Market or, more precisely, on the so-called association of African countries with the European Economic Community, whereby they expect to put a large group of newly-liberated Africaa states under the indirect control of the six West European Common Market countries, all of which are at once active members of NATO. The association of 18 sovereign African countries with the E.E.C. has thus created a grave impediment to African unity on an anti-imperialist basis and conflicts with the proclaimed goals of the O.A.U.

The O.A.U. goals were also imperilled by the situation in the Congo, which deteriorated in the autumn of 1964 due to the foreign armed intervention in that country's internal affairs. Bombers, transports and military personnel were shipped to the Congo from the United States. All attempts made by the U.S. to camouflage its actions, fell through. -The U.S. press reported that on the advice of Assistant Secretary of State G. Mennen Williams, Tshombe had appealed to a number of African countries to send their troops and help him suppress the Congolese patriots. It reported, too, that the United States had volunteered to pay for the upkeep of these troops. But the leaders of the African countries concerned rejected this dubious and highly dangerous project.

The increasing United States armed intervention in the Congo's affairs and the enlistment by the Tshombe government of white mercenaries in the South African Republic and Southern Rhodesia to fight the Congolese patriots created dismay and deep alarm in many of the independent African states. Some of them suggested late in August 1964 that the

Organisation of African Unity should be called upon to settle the Congolese problem.

An extraordinary session of the O.A.U. Foreign Ministers Council convened in Addis Ababa on September 5-10 1964, to discuss the situation. The Foreign Ministers denounced Tshombe in no uncertain terms for employing foreign mercenaries in his fight against the rebels, and a decision was passed forthwith to send to the Congo (Leopoldville), the Congo (Brazzaville), and Burundi a reconciliation commission consisting of representatives of Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Nigeria, Cameroon, Somalia, Upper Volta, Tunisia and the United Arab Republic under the chairmanship of the then Prime Minister of Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta. The commission was to "help and encourage the Government of the Congo (Leopoldville) in effecting a national armistice" and to "work in every possible way for the restoration of relations between the Congo and the neighbouring countries''.

Tshombe, who was present, rejected the idea of an armistice and objected to the commission's dealing with "the Congo's domestic question''.

All the same, the O.A.U. reconciliation commission approved the set of measures designed to secure peace and order in the Congo. It was decided that the members of the reconciliation commission would go to the Congo (Leopoldville), the Congo (Brazzaville) and Burundi to examine the situation on the spot. At first, the Congo (Leopoldville) Government agreed to assist the commission in "establishing contacts with the leaders of the belligerent parties", but subsequently Tshombe declared that he disagreed with the decision.

After Tshombe left Nairobi, where the special reconciliation commission was convened, it was decided to send a delegation consisting of the representatives of Ghana, Guinea, the United Arab Republic, Kenya and Nigeria, to the United States in order to ``prevail'' upon Washington to stop sending arms to the Congo.

Late in September, the O.A.U. delegates headed by Joseph Murumbi, Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office of Kenya, departed for Washington. But the U.S. Government refused to deal with the O.A.U. delegation on the pretext that Tshombe was not represented on it. Thereby Washington showed its contempt for the O.A.U., which yields considerable authority in Africa.

The imperialist intervention in the Congo's internal affairs in late November 1964, when Belgium, the United States and Britain, supported by other NATO powers, organised a fresh armed intervention in the Congo, was an outright challenge to the African countries, to all independent non-aligned countries and all peace-abiding forces. Belgian paratroopers were air-lifted in U.S. transports to Stanleyville, where they massacred the Congolese rebels. This occurred at an hour when the special O.A.U. commission for reconciliation in the Congo was searching for ways and means of achieving a peaceful settlement. Somewhat earlier, the Cairo Conference of Non-Aligned Countries had on the suggestion of Algeria voiced its support of the practical efforts made by the O.A.U. in relation to the Congo problem. News of the landing of Belgium paratroopers in Stanleyville dismayed all decent people on the African continent. Curses were showered upon the modern colonialists from Nairobi, Cairo, Conakry, Khartoum, Algiers and Accra.

The African group in the United Nations denounced the U.S. and Belgian armed aggression in the Congo. An extraordinary sitting of the group, convened on the initiative of the Algerian delegation, ostracised the representative of the Tshombe government. The sitting issued a joint communique, voicing indignation over the armed intervention of the United States and Belgium and putting upon these two countries the onus of responsibility for the toll in human lives claimed by the interventionists. The governments of many non-aligned African countries issued protests. The Government of Kenya, for example, stressed in its statement that the armed intervention undertaken by the United States and Belgium in the Congo went against the decisions of the Organisation of African Unity and proved that these two powers were unwilling to respect the O.A.U. The Republic of Tanzania protested emphatically against Belgian paratroopers being delivered to the Congo in American aircraft from a British air base. The undisguised foreign interference in the Congo's affairs. President Julius K. Nyerere of Tanzania pointed out, was an insult to the whole continent and would inevitably create a stir in other independent African states.

Angry demonstrations of protest against the armed intervention in the Congo were held in many African capitals. The aggression in the Congo caused the press in some African

countries to return to the question of an African armed force to repel colonialists. Algeria, for example, declared that the country was prepared to supply arms and ammunition to combat the imperialists in the Congo.

To be sure, not all the African countries took this firm stand. Some of the African political leaders are still associated with the imperialist groups. But it is not they any longer who spell out the attitude of the African continent as a whole. The young sovereign states embarked on non-capitalist development play an increasing role today in Africa's antiimperialist struggle. The more conclusive are the socioeconomic changes in these countries^ the more devoted and irreconcilable they are in their struggle against colonialism of all shapes and forms and the more consistent in their antiimperialist neutralist policy.

Africa was not alone at the time the imperialists and their agents held their witches' sabbath in Stanleyville. Many Asian countries made strong public declarations of solidarity. In an official message to the Governments of the United States and Belgium, the Indian Government expressed its alarm over the situation created in the Congo by the landing in Stanleyville of Belgian paratroopers from U.S. transports. It declared its deep sympathy for the sentiments of the African peoples over the intervention in the Congo. India's Prime Minister Lai Bahadur Shastri urged the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from the Congo. The Congolese, he said, should be given a chance to settle their own domestic affairs.

The Soviet Union and the other socialist countries took a firm stand in behalf of the Congo's legitimate rights. In a letter to the Chairman of the Security Council, the Soviet representative in the U.N. described the landing of Belgian paratroopers in Stanleyville as an outright armed intervention by Belgium, the United States and Britain in the Congo's domestic affairs, and branded it as yet another act of violence against the Congolese. The Soviet Government demanded an immediate stop to the armed intervention and the withdrawal from the Congo of all Belgian troops and foreign mercenaries. It put the responsibility for the aggression entirely on the Governments of Belgium, the U.S.A. and Britain. Statements to this effect were made by the Soviet Government to the Governments of Belgium, the U.S.A. and Britain, stressing

that "the acts of aggression in the Congo are an outright challenge to the African states who have demanded a stop through the Organisation of African Unity to the foreign intervention in the internal affairs of the Congo. These acts are a gross violation of the United Nations Charter and create a threat to international peace and security."*

The special O.A.U. reconciliation commission for the Congo, convened in Nairobi at the close of November 1964, denounced the imperialist aggression in the Congo. The commission demanded that the foreign armed intervention cease immediately, and urged all mercenaries to be withdrawn from the Congo. It called for a cease-fire and suggested that after the hostilities end a round-table conference of the leaders of all Congolese political parties be held in the Congo, followed by country-wide democratic elections under O.A.U. supervision. The commission also suggested that the Heads of African States and Governments gather for an extraordinary session to discuss the situation in the Congo.

The armed intervention in the Congo was a hostile act against all the free African states. What the imperialists were after was to disrupt the Organisation of African Unity. By saddling the Congo with the neo-colonialist Tshombe regime they wanted to intimidate Africa, check its political development and paralyse the policy of non-alignment and neutralism. But the desperate measures taken by the colonialists are of no avail. The African peoples are determined to achieve complete and final liberation. The sovereign African states are part of the world-wide anti-imperialist front. The further development of friendship and co-operation between the young African states, the Soviet Union and the other countries of the socialist community, and the neutralist states of other continents, is an earnest of success in the fight for the final abolition of colonialism, consolidation of their political independence and conquest of economic independence, for African unity on an anti-imperialist foundation, peace and the policy of non-alignment.

THE BELGRADE CONFERENCE OF NON-ALIGNED COUNTRIES

The Conference of Non-Aligned Countries in Belgrade was a milestone in the struggle waged by the neutralist countries for peace and peaceful coexistence.

Twenty-eight countries* were represented at the Belgrade Conference, which convened from September 1 to 6, 1961-- a time when international tension generated by the policy of the imperialist powers had reached a new peak. The imperialists went out of their way to exert pressure on the conference and induce it to adopt resolutions to their liking. Before the conference opened, the bourgeois propaganda machine launched a campaign of ideological brain-washing. The monopoly-controlled U.S. press set the ball rolling. The Hew York Times, Time magazine, the New York Herald Tribune and other U.S. papers and magazines were quickly joined by the press of Federal Germany in their attacks on the peace-abiding foreign policy of the neutralist states. The West German Government sent memorandums to the noncommitted nations, setting out Bonn's point of view on the German problem. The Bonn Foreign Minister threatened in so many words to break off diplomatic relations with any Afro-Asian country that intended to recognise the German Democratic Republic.

Aiming to create a rift between the socialist and neutralist countries, imperialist propaganda insidiously alleged that the Soviet Union was opposed to the Belgrade Conference.

* Afghanistan, Algeria, Burma, Cambodia, Ceylon, Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Lebanon, Mali, Morocco, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Republic, Yemen, Yugoslavia, and others. Brazil, Bolivia and Ecuador sent observers. The members of the Belgrade Conference represented a population of more than 750 million.

* Pravda, November 26, 1964.

7-561

But the attempt to play off the neutralist countries against the socialist community fell through. In a message to the Belgrade Conference the Soviet Government acclaimed the important work done by the uncommitted countries in their search for solutions to the key issues of our time.

The intensive propaganda pressure on the conference by Washington, Bonn and their NATO allies had no effect whatsoever. The Belgrade Conference came out strongly for general and complete disarmament and the banning of nuclear weapons tests, for the peaceful coexistence of countries with different socio-economic systems and for confining the use of outer space solely to peaceful purposes. The neutralist countries called for a world disarmament conference, the elimination of the economic inequality inherited from colonialism and imperialism, and asserted their right to decide for themselves how they would use foreign economic aid. The conference stressed the legitimate right of the People's Republic of China to sit in the United Nations. Some of the Afro-Asian statesmen advocated a revision of the United Nations structure in accordance with the distribution of forces in the world today and the emergence of three groups of states. The speakers stressed time and again that an armed conflict in any part of the globe was liable to escalate into a destructive world-wide conflagration. President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana criticised the idealism shown by the people who thought that an armed conflict between the Great Powers would create havoc and suffering to the Great Powers only.

The Belgrade Conference denounced the imperialist practice of planting war bases in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It backed Cuba's lawful demand about the closing down of the U.S. base in Guantanamo, which the United States maintain unlawfully on Cuban soil.

The conference rejected the ``theory'' that cold war was inevitable. To preserve peace and prevent a world war was the universal demand issued by the Belgrade Conference. It described world wars as an anachronism and as a crime against humanity, declaring that peaceful coexistence was the sole alternative to war. However, the policy of peace and non-alignment did not, as President Sukarno pointed out in his speech, rule out struggle for independence, for the right to be free, against social injustice.

The conference condemned imperialism and colonialism. All speakers were of like mind in assessing the causes of tension in international relations. They saw the root of tension in imperialism and colonialism. "The question of peace and war," said Kwame Nkrumah, "is only a reflection of other problems, and no final solution to it can be reached unless a massive, deliberate and concerted effort is made to liquidate colonialism completely, thoroughly and finally.... Colonialism is a fundamental cause of war.''

He was quite right. Suffice it to recall the Suez conflict, and the events in the Congo and in Cuba. In the past ten years, colonialism has time and again pushed the world to the brink of disaster. The conference demanded an end to apartheid and racial discrimination, to armed coersion of the peoples breaking the shackles of slavery, and called for the immediate evacuation of imperialist troops from African soil.

Unanimously, the conference paid tribute to the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to the Colonial Countries and Peoples issued on the initiative of the Soviet Union by the XV U.N. General Assembly.

The German problem was a prominent issue at the conference, and understandably so. The neutralist countries do not occupy themselves solely with their own problems. The future of Germany troubles all minds in our time. The continuous danger of a new world-wide conflict breaking out in the heart of Europe affects the countries of Asia and Africa, though they may be far removed from Europe. Most of them have never seen a living German militarist. Their towns have not been raided by the Luftwaffe. Armoured fascist divisions have not rolled across their land, killing all living things in their path. But the peoples of many now neutralist Asian and African countries fought on the side of the anti-Hitler coalition and helped to deliver the world from the brown plague. Their soldiers fought heroically against fascism in the mountains of Italy, the fields of France, in Cyprus and in the suburbs of Amsterdam. Many sons of India, Senegal, Morocco and Ethiopia fell in the battle against fascism.

Two decades have passed. Again, the problem of Germany is troubling mankind. Surviving Hitler generals ensconced at NATO headquarters deliberate plans for a new world war.

'*

99

Few can tell what code names their plans have, but it is quite certain that they imperil the lives not only of Russians and Frenchmen, Greeks and Danes; they also imperil the interests of the Afro-Asian countries.

Bonn collaborated with the French imperialists who tested new weapons in the Sahara. West German mercenaries of the notorious Foreign Legion gained a vile reputation among the peoples of Indochina and Algeria. The Bonn Government gave its blessings to more than 400,000 former Wehrmacht effectives to join the Legion, and they left blood and tears in their wake in Asia and Africa, ravaging cities and villages.

The peoples of Asia and Africa follow the dangerous developments in West Germany with deep apprehension. Like all the other peoples of the world, they want the German problem, including the problem of West Berlin, settled once and for all. They know that rifle shots fired at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin may reap a harvest of nuclear explosions all over the world.

The public in the neutralist countries supports the Soviet proposals to normalise the situation in Central Europe. In Accra, Delhi, Conakry and Djakarta people are coming to realise that a German peace treaty which will write finis to the Second World War is the only means of muzzling the revenge-seekers in Bonn.

The uncommitted countries in Asia and Africa want the German problem to be settled peacefully. "Among the many lamps signalling danger to peace," Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia told the Belgrade Conference, "that of Berlin glows most desperately, as if it would frantically attract thereby the attention of all men devoted to the cause of peace." The leaders of the peace-loving Afro-Asian countries reiterated their opinion that negotiations between the Great Powers were the only right way of settling the German problem peacefully.

The neutralist countries recognise that two German states exist in the world today, of which the German Democratic Republic, Germany's first workers' and peasants' state, is successfully building a socialist society.

On September 1, 1961, President Nasser of the U.A.R. declared in Belgrade:

``The German problem, if we wish to put matters back to their proper perspective, is a direct result of the circumstances of World War II which led to the division of Germany and the establishment of a different social system in each of the two parts." The U.A.R. President pointed out that a settlement of the German issue would bring about a general improvement in international relations.

President Sukarno of Indonesia stressed in his speech at the Belgrade Conference that the existence of two German states had to be recognised. "Common sense must prevail," he said. "Yes, and common sense demands the recognition of the temporary de facto sovereignty of two Germanies as a big reality. Common sense also demands that West Berlin should not become the playground of Big Power conflicts, or ideological conflict.''

President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana spoke at length on the German problem in his highly emotional address. "It is sixteen years now since the last war came to an end," he said, "and yet no peace treaty has been signed with Germany. In my view, the conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany

is urgent and long overdue___Everyone knows that there

are two Germanies, created as a result of the last war----

This fact is so fundamental in any consideration of the German problem that to my mind it is only reasonable that the world should accept the present facts of the situation; that is to say, there is a State of West Germany and there is a State of East Germany. The nations of the world should therefore recognise the existence of these two states to enable them to coexist peacefully. Such recognition, I am sure, would contribute tremendously to the preservation of peace.''

Speaking at the conference on September 2, 1961, the late Jawaharlal Nehru noted that the German issue and the Berlin problem were the chief sources of current international tension. "It seems to me obvious," he said, "that certain facts of life should be recognised.''

Sirimavo R. Bandaranaike, then the Prime Minister of Ceylon, called the following day for an immediate resumption of direct negotiations between the East and West. "For the success of such negotiations," she said, "it would be essential for the two Germanies to participate in the discussions.... We feel that a settlement on these lines would permit the

reunification of Germany on conditions acceptable not only to the German people but also to those countries who, with good reason, have cause to fear a revival of German militarism.''

Sardar Mohammad Daoud Khan, then the Prime Minister of Afghanistan, told the Belgrade Conference on September 1, 1961 that "the problem of Germany is basic to the future of world peace and to the implementation of disarmament''.

``The present crisis over the situation in Berlin, which has confronted the world with most regrettable concern is, in fact, a part of the greater problem of Germany," he said, and added: "It should be acceptable, in all cases, that Germany should not be turned into a starting-point for another world war. In the same manner, the most natural policy for Germany should seem to be a policy which could be satisfactory for all parties in the interests of world peace.''

It was not Communists who said all this. The ideological mould of most Afro-Asian leaders is far removed from communism. But what they said was imbued with one and the same basic idea: it is absolutely imperative to extirpate the survivals of the Second World War, and to conclude a German peace treaty with the cognisance that two Germanics exist in the world today. The realistic view of the German problem is shared by many Afro-Asian leaders.

Most of the African and Asian countries have friendly economic and political ties with the German Democratic Republic, which is rendering them selfless assistance. The Hallstein Doctrine, aimed at isolating the G.D.R. on the international scene, has backfired. "The Federal Republic will probably succeed in prompting its Atlantic Allies and a few other countries to continue the policy of non-recognition of East Germany," writes Wilhelm Grewe, the former F.R.G. Ambassador to the United States. "But it will not succeed in making the countries of the neutral and non-aligned world do the same. The latter are inclined to follow the more convenient and often much more advantageous policy of recognising two German states."*

Most of the neutralist countries are of one mind that the efforts to attain a peaceful solution of the German problem,

one of the most important international issues today, deserve their support.

The Belgrade Conference adopted the following documents: a Statement on the Danger of War and an Appeal for Peace, a Declaration of the Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries, a Charter of Non-Alignment, and a Concluding Statement.

They reasserted the attitude of the neutralist countries to the main international problems, and appealed to the Governments of the U.S.S.R. and U.S.A. to conduct negotiations in the interests of international peace and security.

The Belgrade Conference of Non-Aligned Countries is convincing evidence of the fact that the weight of the neutralist states of Asia and Africa in world politics has increased.

The outcome of the conference caused dismay among the imperialists, for it betokened an end to their hopes of entangling the neutralist countries in their cold war against the socialist community.

On September 4, 1961, the New York Herald Tribune said that the neutralist countries were, in effect, obviously not neutral and that, for this reason, the United States should mete out punishment to them. The American press did not bother to conceal what Washington intended to do with the neutralist countries that gravitated towards the "Moscow view" on the problems of Berlin and disarmament. On September 15, 1961, Time magazine wrote that to the United States, which has given more than $8,000 million in aid to the nations represented at Belgrade since 1946, their stand was deeply disappointing.

Former Vice-President Richard Nixon declared in the New York Herald Tribune that the United States was "fed up to the teeth with some neutral leaders," and Republican Senator Keating said his country did not wish to exert itself "to help people who do not have a genuine understanding and appreciation of our position''.

In September 1961 the U.S. Senate passed an amendment to the Foreign Aid Bill, authorising ``aid'' primarily to countries which "have our view of the world crisis".* The imperialists suited their actions to their words and hastened

* New York Times, September 9, 1961.

* W. Grewe, Deutsche Aussenpolitik der Nachkriegszeit, Stuttgart, 1960, S. 151.

to ``react'' to the Belgrade Conference. On September 25, 1961, a U.S. State Department spokesman declared that the proposal of the Government of Ghana to sign documents concerning U.S. financial assistance to the Volta hydropower development was ``unacceptable'' to the United States.

This was a sequel to a series of other developments. In July 1961, a Ghanaian delegation headed by Kwame Nkrumah set out on a ten-week tour of the socialist countries. The conversations Nkrumah had with the statesmen of the socialist countries revealed an identity of views on a large number of international matters. Agreements were concluded for a further expansion of economic and cultural co-operation between Ghana and the socialist states.

``Osagyef o saw at first hand the achievements of socialism," the Ghanaian Times wrote on July 26, 1961. "He saw and took greater inspiration from the way in which 15 autonomous republics have been welded into a gigantic, monolithic Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This was his own dream interpreted into reality and we are sure he is more than ever emboldened in his mission to ensure the unity and freedom of the whole of Africa.''

In September 1961, Kwame Nkrumah was one of the most active champions of peace at the Belgrade Conference and spoke vehemently against imperialism and colonialism.

These were the circumstances that prompted the State Department to make its statement of September 25, 1961. The well-informed West German Industriekurier reported on October 7, 1961, that the United States was following developments in Ghana with considerable alarm. Washington was displeased over the retirement of the pro-Western Finance Minister Gbedemah, and deeply troubled by Ghana's attitude towards the Berlin question and the support she gave to the Soviet proposal for reorganising the United Nations. Aid to Ghana was held up. The United States press did not conceal the fact that Washington's decision was prompted by the outcome of the Belgrade Conference, which had displeased the U.S.A. The New York Times wrote that the United States was holding up its support of the Volta project, because President Nkrumah's statement on international matters had created deep concern.

Kwame Nkrumah sent messages to the late U.S. President Kennedy, in which he reasoned the neutralist foreign policy

of his government. Washington realised that it had to change tactics. At the close of 1961 the U.S. Government announced the granting to Ghana of credits amounting to $133 million for completing the hydro technical project on the Volta.* "The view that prevailed in the Administration was," wrote the New York Times on December 16, 1961, "that it was better to have the West rather than the Soviet Union move in with aid to Ghana. Officials recalled the case of Egypt's Aswan High Dam in 1956, when the United States withdrew its support of the project and the Russians stepped in.''

The U.S. action showed conclusively once again that the imperialists are eager to exploit the economic weakness of the liberated countries for their own ends. But in the contemporary environment, when selfless assistance is available from the socialist states, the plans laid by the imperialists are running into the mounting resistance of the young national states.

* All the same, on December 16, 1961, the New York Times wrote: "Under the terms of the loan agreements the money is expected to be made available to Ghana in stages so that any sharp deviation in President Nkrumah's political of fiscal course could be dealt with before all the funds are spent.

THE SECOND CONFERENCE OF NON-ALIGNED COUNTRIES

The developments after the Belgrade Conference show that non-alignment is a powerful and effective means of consolidating political independence, forging economic independence and containing imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism. It is not surprising, therefore, that the vast majority of the new sovereign African states have declared their adherence to neutralism and non-alignment. The number of non-aligned states has grown and the West has been compelled to admit the popularity of non-alignment. The prominent West German military magazine, Wehrwissenschcdtliche Rundschau, wrote in August 1964 that it is "quite possible to speak about the idea of positive neutrality, which is gaining ground continuously and coming to the fore in political dealings between the governments of the NATO countries, on the one hand, and the newly-independent states, on the other''.

The more important changes of the last few years on the international scene were wrought with the active participation of the non-aligned countries, which are contributing substantially to the consolidation of peace and the efforts to mitigate the international climate. Many of the uncommitted countries have declared since the conclusion of the Moscow Partial Test-Ban Treaty that they intend to work for a further strengthening of the peace. "The positive results of the First Conference of Non-Aligned Countries in 1961, the latest developments on the international scene and the new trends in the world today make it essential to hold a Second Conference of Non-Aligned Countries," wrote the Cairo Al Akhbar on March 2, 1964.

The uncommited countries noted that the peaceful coexistence policy had imparted new content to the basis of the foreign policy of the young sovereign states. The basis in question is non-alignment with any of the existing politicomilitary groups, an approach defined some years before when the international situation had been raised to a fever heat by the imperialists. The Yugoslav journal, Medjunarodna Politika, wrote on January 5, 1964, that in the new situation, "with its emergence beyond the initial framework, the very conception of non-alignment must go through a process of far-reaching change". Many statesmen in the non-aligned countries underscored the need for shifting the emphasis of neutralist policy on efforts to promote the principle of peaceful coexistence. Some of the liberated countries declared that the concept of "a neutralist state" should be broadened. The Cairo Al Goumhouria pointed out on this score that "under the new conception, due to the changed international situation, many countries pursuing a neutral policy may be considered as non-aligned even if they have certain commitments under defensive pacts, provided, of course, these commitments have no practical implications. This applies above all to most of the Latin American countries ... also, it applies to some European countries." The paper also named a few African states which the former colonial powers are trying to saddle with various military agreements.

The sponsors of the Second Conference of Non-Aligned Countries were aware that due to the successes and increased popularity of neutralism some countries had begun to depart from passive neutrality and gravitated towards active, positive neutralism. This is true of, say, the Lebanon, which is invigorating her relations with other Arab countries that effectively pursue a neutralist course.

The neutralist states launched preparations for a new conference. On May 16, 1963, President Tito of Yugoslavia and President Nasser of the United Arab Republic stressed in a joint communique that the non-aligned countries were contributing more and more to the general efforts of relieving tension and fortifying peaceful coexistence, and added that they had "exhaustively studied the possible forms and trends for further actions by the non-aligned countries''.

On October 14, 1963, President Nasser and former Ceylon Prime Minister Bandaranaike came forward with what was

already a specific proposal-to convene the Second Conference of Non-Aligned Countries. Later, Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia, the late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India, and President Al-Sallal of the Yemen, associated themselves with this proposal. Many other Asian and African countries commented on it favourably. A favourable response also came from some Latin American countries, and even from European ones. On February 7, 1964, for example, the Foreign Minister of Finland announced that the Finnish Government was positively interested in the goals of the conference. The Finnish statement said that since Finland was interested in the views of other neutral and non-aligned countries, the Finnish Government had decided to send an observer to the conference.

A preparatory meeting of Belgrade Conference countries gathered in Colombo, Ceylon, in March 1964, culminating in a decision to hold the Second Conference of Non-Aligned Countries in Cairo in October 1964. The Colombo meeting stressed that the conference was open to all countries that were not bound by restricted politico-military alliances and supported the basic principles of non-alignment as defined in Belgrade in September 1961.

The announcement of a fresh conference of non-aligned countries created anxiety among the imperialists. The United States tried to prevail on certain countries to stay away from the conference. The Al-Ahad, a Lebanon newspaper, reported in March 1964 that the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was disgruntled by the Lebanon Government's decision to attend the conference. The U.S. Ambassador, the newspaper reported, tried to prevail on high-ranking officials to attend the conference in the capacity of observers only. It should be noted, however, that, obviously inspired from without, certain groups in some of the neutralist countries tried to parry the plan for a Second Conference of Non-Aligned States with plans of a second Afro-Asian conference. But their scheme fell through. Most papers in the Afro-Asian countries stressed that the two conferences were compatible and that neither of them ruled out the other.

The imperialists awaited the opening of the Cairo Conference with uneasy minds. Washington and Bonn were particularly nervous. "Three years have passed since their first one at Belgrade," wrote the New York Herald Tribune

on October 2, 1964, "yet the true nature of the association is still something of a mystery to most people. It's much easier to explain what they are not than what they are. One of their most striking features is that they are neither neutralist nor non-aligned." To prove its contention, the paper brought forward ``arguments'' which revealed quite against its will what imperialist politicians would like neutralist foreign policy to be. "That can easily be proved by a glance at some of the (un) Neutralist International's leading spirits. India, for example, was not exactly neutral or peace-loving (somehow regarded as an attribute of neutrality) when it invaded and wrested Goa from Portugal. Nor was Indonesia when it extorted West New Guinea from the Netherlands with an under-the-table assist from the United Nations-----

``From these examples it is clear that there is nothing in the code of the neutralist that need interfere with national aggrandisement, through force of arms if necessary.''

Yes, neutralism and non-alignment do not imply by any means that neutral and non-aligned countries will consent to remnants of colonial rule surviving in their territory. Quite the reverse. Neutralism is one of the ways of combating colonialism.

The governing groups in the Federal Republic of Germany, too, showed as lively an interest in the Cairo Conference as they had in the one at Belgrade. The West German press reported that Bonn diplomatic observers were straining themselves at the time of the Cairo Conference "to direct vacillating diplomats along the Bonn course''.

The Second Conference of Non-Aligned Countries was held from October 5 to 11, 1964, in the big assembly hall of Cairo University, which had been the venue of previous important international gatherings. It was attended by the heads of states and governments and other authorised representatives of 47 Asian, African and Latin American countries, and by observers from 10 other countries.* Also present were spokes-

* Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Ceylon, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville), Cuba, Cyprus, Dahomey, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritanian Islamic Republic, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia,

men of a few regional organisations, such as the Organisation of African Unity and the Arab League, and of many of the African and Arab national liberation movements. The Japanese Socialist Party, too, sent a group of observers headed by Saburo Eda, a member of the Party's Central Executive Committee.

The Cairo Conference, attended by twice as many countries as the one at Belgrade in 1961, was irrefutable evidence to the fact that neutralist policy had gained in significance and that the young sovereign states had advanced to prominence in world affairs.

The international climate at the time of the Cairo Conference was incomparably better than it was in the storm-laden September of 1961 when, troubled by the explosive world situation, the leaders of 25 non-aligned countries gathered in the Yugoslav capital with the resolve to uphold peace and peaceful coexistence and strike a blow against imperialism and colonialism.

Disgruntled by the large attendance at the Cairo Conference, the imperialists attempted to lay a mine under it. They executed the so-called Operation Tshombe, sponsored by the U.S. State Department, which was designed to secure Congo Prime Minister Tshombe's presence at the conference. The State Department ordered U.S. Ambassadors in a number of neutralist countries to prepare the ground for Tshombe's admission to the Cairo Conference. But it was a crude manoeuvre and ran into the strong resistance of an overwhelming majority of Cairo delegations.

The leaders of the non-aligned countries had no objections to the Congo Republic participating in the Cairo Conference, but they had strong objections to Tshombe, tainted as he was by his connections with the imperialists. The sponsors of the conference sent a telegram to Congo President Kasavubu on October 4, 1964, inviting him to head the Congo delegation and keep Tshombe at home. The decision to shut the door on Tshombe, the telegram pointed out, was impelled by the desire to deliver the conference from needless difficulties

likely to obstruct its work. However, Tshombe came to Cairo all the same and tried to take part in the conference. His attempt fell through. He was made to leave the U.A.R. capital, and in a telegram to the Organisation of African Unity from Athens blamed the United Arab Republic for having obstructed his admission to the conference. The heads of the O.A.U. member-states present at the conference held a special sitting to examine Tshombe's charge, and rejected it firmly. The O.A.U. announced that the decision to ban Tshombe from the conference was passed not by the United Arab Republic, but by the conference as a whole, and that it had the backing of the leaders of Africa.

Operation Tshombe, devised by the imperialists with the purpose of alienating and splitting the neutralist countries, was a dismal failure. The Cairo Conference demonstrated the unity of the neutralist countries in face of imperialist intrigues.

The expulsion of Tshombe, an imperialist puppet, from the conference added to its anti-imperialist complexion. Active struggle against imperialism and colonialism and concern for world peace and prevention of a nuclear war were the main topics dealt with by the speakers. The speakers protested against racial discrimination, demanded the immediate liberation of the colonial peoples, called for a peaceful accommodation of political conflicts, objected to force being used in settling territorial disputes, advocated peaceful coexistence, and urged a nuclear weapons ban and general and complete disarmament.

The general discussion at the conference centred on problems of global significance rather than the specific issues native to Africa, Asia and Latin America alone. This applies above all to the question of peace and peaceful coexistence. "We, who met in this Conference," said India's Prime Minister Lai Bahadur Shastri, "have come from four continents consisting of many countries. We belong to various civilisations and different political systems. We talk different languages. However, there is a basic unity among us that is in our general outlook on the big problems facing our world today." The Indian Prime Minister added that the policy of peaceful coexistence was the basis of the international relations maintained by the non-aligned countries. He suggested a five-point programme: nuclear disarmament, peaceful settlement of border conflicts, liberation from foreign rule,

Uganda, United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zambia.

Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Finland, Jamaica, Mexico, Trinidad and Tabago, Uruguay and Venezuela sent observers. As we see, nearly half the members of the United Nations attended the Cairo Conference.

L

removal of aggression, subversion and racial discrimination, acceleration of economic development through international co-operation, and full support of the United Nations and its development programme.

The issue of peaceful coexistence was treated far more broadly in Cairo than in Belgrade. In 1961, the non-aligned countries urged a rejection of force in the settlement of controversial questions, and peaceful competition between countries with different social systems. They were more specific in Cairo and called for the kind of effective peaceful coexistence that implied all-round economic co-operation in behalf of peace and the independence of all nations.

The vast majority of speakers devoted much of their addresses to the beneficial effects of the Moscow Partial Test-Ban Treaty. Many of the neutralist leaders came out in support of the Soviet proposal for an international pledge to settle territorial disputes and conflicts by peaceful means. Josip Broz Tito, President of Socialist Yugoslavia, presented an exhaustive analysis of the international situation and stressed that the efforts of all the peace-loving peoples and governments were yielding results. He described the Moscow Treaty as a positive international action.

In search of a relaxation of international tension, many of the delegates favoured a realistic approach to the German problem. Nkrumah and Tito pointed out that the solution of the German problem had to be based on the existence of two German states. Prime Minister of Cambodia, Norodom Kantol, suggested that the two German states should be admitted to the United Nations on an equal footing.

``The government and population of the German Democratic Republic note with satisfaction that the representatives of the non-aligned countries proceeded in the discussion of the German question from the existence of two German states," said a statement of the G.D.R. Foreign Minister on this score.

A ``conception'' is being peddled lately that the non-- alignment policy is becoming pointless due to the improvement of East-West relations and should confine itself to economic matters and the specific problems of the developing countries. In his opening speech President Nasser referred to the contentions that non-alignment was impracticable in the contemporary world, and explained that it was by no means a passive approach to the problems of the world. "The proof

is that we have endeavoured to deal with all problems of our age," he said. Stressing that non-alignment was not a commercial transaction or a deal between East and West, he added: "Non-alignment is a policy for the sake of peace based on justice.''

Many of the speakers noted the growing prestige of neutralist policy in various countries. Secretary-General of the O.A.U., Telli Diallo, said that the rapid development of the African continent testified to the success of non-- alignment, whose basic principles were formulated at the conferences in Bandung, Belgrade and Addis Ababa. The interests of the African peoples, Diallo stressed, are bound up closely with the policy of non-alignment and peaceful coexistence, the struggle against imperialism and racial discrimination and efforts for general disarmament and lasting peace.

President Sekou Toure of Guinea, Prime Minister Mohammed Yusuf of Afghanistan, Prime Minister Milton Obote of Uganda and many other neutralist leaders described nonalignment as an effective instrument in the struggle for a relaxation of international tension, against colonialism. They did not mince words to name the men who opposed the policy of non-alignment. "Imperialism," said Mohiro, the Burundi representative, "is the first enemy of the non-aligned countries.''

A number of delegates underscored the close relation between non-alignment and the African effort to achieve economic independence. President Moktar Ould Daddah of Mauritania said the uncommitted countries should make the most of non-alignment in realising their economic plans.

Speakers at the Cairo forum repudiated imperialist propaganda to the effect that sympathies for socialism conflicted with the principle of non-alignment. "We who claim to be non-aligned," said Kwame Nkrumah, "must have the right to choose the political and economic philosophy which we consider most suitable for our rapid development and advancement.''

The conference in Cairo showed that the non-alignment policy is an increasingly articulate factor in world politics and that it operates to the best advantages of peace and peaceful coexistence, against imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism. The principles of non-alignment, said the

8-561

Programme for Peace and International Co-operation adopted in Cairo, are growing into a progressively dynamic and powerful force promoting peace and an improvement of the life of mankind.

The speakers voiced their indignation over colonialism and neo-colonialism. President Kwame Nkrumah levelled caustic criticism at the behaviour of the imperialists in Africa and other regions of the globe. He accused the Western powers of gross interference in the domestic affairs of the Congo Republic. He said that the situation in the Congo, racked by internal strife that was incited by white mercenaries, foreign arms and outright intervention, harboured a danger for all

Africa.

President Alphonse Massamba-Debat of the Congo ( Brazzaville) pointed out that the Cairo Conference had said ``no'' to imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism, and ``yes'' to the principles of peaceful coexistence, fraternal co-- operation, equality of all peoples and world peace, which would collapse unless the problems of the world are actively and realistically discussed. Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia demanded immediate liberation of territories still under colonial rule and an end to racial discrimination.

Amilcar Cabral, the Secretary-General of the African Independence Party of Portuguese Guinea and the Cape Verde Islands, also spoke at Cairo. The support that the freedom fighters had from the heads of the delegations of non-aligned countries, Caibral said, inspired them in their struggle and fortified their faith in the non-alignment policy.

The neutralist countries denounced the imperialist plans of planting war bases in the Indian Ocean. "It is claimed that one of the reasons for the establishment of a military base in the Indian Ocean," said Kawawa, the Vice-President of Tanzania, "is the protection of the East African countries. But no East African countries have asked for such protection. During the last century, imperialists signed countless documents with our forefathers offering protection to them. These documents were called treaties. But the protection the imperialist powers offered was very similar to the protection given by one gang of robbers against another gang of robbers. We have not asked for protection. Protection against whom?''

The non-aligned countries spoke strongly in behalf of revolutionary Cuba and flayed the designs nurtured against

her by U.S. aggressive groups. The conference resolutions urged the removal of the U.S. war base from Guantanamo, which is in Cuban territory, and the lifting of the imperialist blockade of Cuba. The resolution condemning U.S. policies vis-a-vis Cuba was passed in the presence of a large group of observers from Latin America, after Washington had succeeded in imposing on the Organisation of American States a decision to break off relations with Cuba. This was doubly significant and represented a big political victory for Cuba at the Cairo Conference. It should be noted that the very fact of Cuba's participation in the Cairo Conference engendered copious comments in the world press, although Cuba also attended the conference in Belgrade. Oswaldo Dorticos, the President of Cuba, explained in an interview to Le Monde that Cuba was a member of the socialist family and that the Cuban people had chosen the politico-economic system they thought most suitable for themselves, but that this option could in no way affect Cuba's adherence to the non-aligned world.* The Republic of Cuba played a prominent part at the Cairo Conference, and the backstage attempts of the U.S. State Department to create a ``vacuum'' round the Cuban delegation did not succeed.

The members of the Cairo forum treated the speeches of the Latin American observers with deep understanding. The head of the Mexican delegation. Ambassador Manuel Moreno Sanchez, said that the goals of non-alignment coincided completely with the goals of Mexican policy, of which the cardinal one was maintenance of peace and freedom of the peoples of all the world. Sanchez defined Mexico's foreign policy principles as maintenance of peace, opposition to foreign bases, determination to stay out of blocs, general and complete disarmament, rejection of nuclear weapons, proclaiming Latin America a nuclear-free and demilitarised zone, recognition of the right of peoples to self-determination, friendly relations with all countries irrespective of their social system and ideology, and resolve to safeguard the security of Mexico.

The Argentine delegation declared its country's faith in the principles of non-alignment and the right of all nations to freely determine their own future. General Antonio Seleme

* Le Monde, October 11-12, 1964. «'

115

L

Vargas, head of the Bolivian delegation, noted that his country was eager to see Latin America proclaimed a nuclear-free zone and believed that disputes between states should be settled by peaceful means. General Vargas urged the banning of nuclear weapons.

All heads of states and other leaders of delegations present at the conference set out their views on the key issues of our time in the course of the general discussion, which was strongly anti-imperialist in tenor. The general discussion showed that the non-aligned countries were of a single mind in their desire to promote universal peace, combat the danger of nuclear war and achieve the final abolition of colonialism.

It stands to reason that differences of opinion, particularly on international issues, arose in Cairo here and there, since countries with different socio-political systems were represented. Some of the countries had embarked on socialism, others had proclaimed socialist construction as their policy, still others followed the capitalist path, and, lastly, a few had not yet cast off feudalism. The countries represented at Cairo differed, too, in political structure. The delegations had somewhat divergent ideas about the policy of non-alignment. Some of the countries represented at Cairo were still committed in one way or another to various politico-military blocs, and some still had foreign bases in their territory. Many had won their independence more recently than others, and had only just proclaimed neutralism as the basis of their policy. Others, which were participating in the conference of non-aligned countries for the first time, were still experiencing foreign pressures, though eager to carry through an independent policy. It was not at all surprising that they regarded non-alignment as a means of liberating themselves from foreign leading strings and looked to the non-aligned countries for support. The non-aligned states naturally could not bar these countries, which were striving for an independent policy, from their gathering. They were perfectly right to welcome their wish of following the non-alignment policy, since it served the interests of peace and promoted the national liberation movement. This, among other things, explained the presence in Cairo of some African states that were still under strong imperialist influence, and of some of the Latin American states represented by observers.

But in spite of this social and political diversity, the countries at the Cairo Conference gave their vote unanimously to a progressive programme of action aimed at fortifying peace and thwarting the imperialist policy of war and economic piracy. Despite imperialist intrigues and differences of opinion over specific issues, the Cairo Conference adopted agreed resolutions on a wide range of international problems.

It passed a declaration entitled, Programme for Peace and International Co-operation. One of the focal points of this Programme was its attitude to the principles of peaceful coexistence. In the circumstances, the Programme noted, mankind should consider peaceful coexistence as the only way of fortifying world peace, based on freedom, equality and justice for all peoples.

With admirable courage, the Programme specifically named the enemies of peace and the culprits of international tension. "Imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism," it said, " constitute a basic source of international tension and conflict because they endanger world peace and security." The Programme recommended that all states should in their foreign relations refrain from threatening to use or using force in matters concerning territorial integrity and political independence.

The conference acclaimed general and complete disarmament, use of atomic energy solely for peaceful purposes, banning of all nuclear tests (underground tests included), establishment of nuclear-free zones, prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and their destruction. The Programme for Peace and International Co-operation underscored the positive effects of the Moscow Test-Ban Treaty and urged all countries to sign it.

The Cairo Conference denounced the existence of foreign military bases. It pointed out that "foreign military bases are in practice a means of bringing pressure on nations and retarding their emancipation and development". The speakers voiced their support of countries insisting on the evacuation of foreign bases from their territories and appealed to all states maintaining troops and bases in other countries to ship them out immediately.

The United Nations, the Programme said, must admit all the countries of the world. Countries still under colonial rule must win independence at once and take their legitimate

place in the community of nations. It urged a revision of the U.N. structure in order to make its bodies more representative from the standpoint of geographic regions.

The Cairo Programme for Peace and International Cooperation revealed that the non-aligned countries had grasped the importance of irreconcilable struggle for peace and peaceful coexistence, against imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism.

The socialist community and the imperialist camp took different views of the outcome of the Cairo Conference. The Soviet Union and the other socialist countries welcomed it as an important international function. The U.S.S.R. voiced the hope that the Cairo decisions would promote solidarity among the peoples fighting against imperialism and colonialism, and make a valuable and useful contribution to the cause of peace.

The imperialist press took a diametrically opposite stand. The reactionary newspapers of Britain, the United States, France and Federal Germany went out of their way to describe non-alignment as ``sterile'' and ``insipid'', and contended that the non-aligned countries did not play an independent role on the world scene. The imperialist press strove to distort the purport of the discussions in Cairo. Before the Cairo Conference opened, some Western observers even predicted its failure and said no unity of opinion was feasible on the basic issues of neutralism.

The Paris Echo, for example, wrote on October 6, 1964, that non-alignment as such was non-existent. This, the paper said, was the primary lesson the heads of African and Asian states should draw from their initial contacts in Cairo if they wished to look at the root of things. Other Western periodicals, too, laid a deliberate accent on the disparities among participants in their approach to peaceful coexistence and national liberation.

The New York Herald Tribune, mouthpiece of the U.S. monopolies, entitled its editorial on the Cairo Conference of October 12, 1964, "Now the Neutralists Split". The Swiss Neue Ziircher Zeitung, followed its cue and attempted to prove on October 13 that "the hopes of the sponsors of the Cairo Conference for greater solidarity and closer collaboration among the uncommitted have been dashed". But it is not

surprising that the imperialist groups reacted so negatively to the resolutions passed at Cairo. These resolutions were a big disappointment to them.

To begin with, the imperialists had hoped for a certain ``modification'' and ``mildening'' of the anti-colonial trend in the policy of non-alignment. They banked on the heterogeneous composition of the conference, in which countries with different political and socio-economic systems had come together. But in spite of its heterogeneous make-up, the Cairo Conference was distinctly anti-imperialist.

The conference dashed the hope of the Western politicians to at least neutralise the uncommitted countries in imperialism's fight against socialism. It was to promote this hope that imperialist propaganda carried forward the ``theory'' that neutralism and non-alignment meant "equivalent opposition" to the capitalist and socialist systems. It interpreted the doctrine of non-alignment as an obligation to keep within certain limits in respect of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries. The idea of non-alignment, the basis of the new world, an idea that chiefly suited Africa and Asia, did not accord with the conception of ``neutrality'' in the broad sense of that word, wrote the Italian Popolo on October 6, 1964, and it is not to be denied that echoes of this ``theory'' did resound in some of the speeches in Cairo. But the decisions of the conference contain much more than a general denunciation of imperialism. They name and condemn the specific adherents of imperialist policy-the United States, Britain, Portugal and France. The New York Times wrote ruefully on October 13, 1964, that "it is particularly unfortunate that the United States was the target of so much of the oratory there". The New York Herald Tribune, for its part, declared on October 12 that "the result of the Second International of neutralist or non-aligned nations was bound to be negative because its purpose was negative". The Neue Ziircher Zeitung noted with alarm on October 6, 1964, that "the members of the inner leading group of non-aligned countries were not only neutralistically-minded, but also distinctly Left-minded". What the paper implied was the nature of the deep-going socio-economic measures undertaken by some of the uncommitted countries. In the opinion of the Neue Ziircher Zeitung this had a strong bearing on the work of the conference.

•119

The anti-imperialist tenor of the Cairo Conference is quite understandable and quite natural, because it is an upshot of the struggle waged by the non-aligned countries to fortify their political independence, to win economic independence, and to overcome the backwardness they inherited from the many decades of colonial rule. Many of these countries, as we know, have rejected capitalism and are engrossed in a search for ways and means of socialist development.

This leads us up to the question of whether or not the neutralist countries are in "equivalent opposition" or "equal remoteness" with regard to the two opposite socio-economic systems-imperialism and socialism. As the facts show, the answer to this question is negative. The general public in Asia, Africa and Latin America knows perfectly well that it is the policy of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, which resolutely oppose colonialism and work for world peace, that responds to the interests of the non-aligned countries. It is the existence of the world socialist system that has made the victory of the national liberation movement in the colonies secure. It is obvious, therefore, that in these circumstances there can be no question of "equivalent opposition". The attempts of the imperialists to impose anticommunist slogans on the neutralist countries collapsed and found no reflection at all in the resolutions of the Cairo Conference. The countries represented in Cairo were obviously aware of the reactionary substance of anti-communism.

The imperialist attempts to divert the non-aligned countries from the struggle for peace and peaceful coexistence proved a dismal failure as well, although a few delegates in Cairo did express opinions which tended to underrate the issue, qualifying it as the affair of just the two strongest nuclear powers-the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. Needless to say, these two powers do exercise a tremendous influence on the process of international development, and peace does to a large extent depend on the nature of their mutual relations. But this does not mean that the efforts of other countries, the uncommitted countries included, have no bearing on world peace. Some delegates at Cairo tried to oppose the struggle for peace to the struggle for national liberation. In practice, this would minimise the impact of actions designed to avert a new world war. On the other hand, some speeches underrated the struggle for national liberation. But the Cairo

Declaration shows that the leaders of most of the non-aligned countries are conscious of the fact that the struggle for peace and the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems is closely related to the struggle for national liberation. The lessons of the past two decades show beyond a shadow of doubt that more than 50 Asian and African countries achieved independence in an environment of peaceful coexistence, in the absence of a world war. Does not this show conclusively enough that peaceful coexistence does not imply reconciliation with imperialism and colonialism?

The results of the Cairo Conference have demonstrated once again that the policy of non-alignment has nothing in common with passive neutrality and that it is an important and continuously growing factor operating in behalf of peace and peaceful coexistence, against imperialism and colonialism.

IMPERIALISTS IN RETREAT

The fight of the non-aligned countries against imperialism is stimulating neutralist tendencies in countries involved in aggressive blocs.

``Neutralism," writes James P. Warburg, a U.S. banker and publicist, "is a rapidly growing sentiment within many of the countries whose governments have entered into one or more of the many military alliances sponsored by the United States."* He goes on to say that "people tend to resent the possibility of being forced into action, particularly military action, by the decision of another country." He arrives at the conclusion that "neutralist sentiment" cannot be "stemmed by military force". The authors of an American investigation, Ideology and Foreign Affairs, designed for a restricted readership of diplomats and businessmen, warn that neutralism is a factor to be reckoned with. They admit that nonalignment is highly popular among the peoples of the young national states and note with alarm that neutralism is `` contagious'' and that Latin American statesmen are casting glances more and more at the Asian and African countries that follow a neutralist policy.

Neutralism is also making headway in countries with reactionary military regimes entangled in imperialist alliances, and the tendency to withdraw from aggressive blocs is developing into an outright revolutionary struggle.

What is behind the fact that the number of followers of non-alignment is growing in those countries year after year? First of all, they wish their country to develop independently

and chafe under the diktat of the monopolies. The contradictions between these countries and imperialism are very acute. The businessmen in the liberated countries are eager to cooperate with the socialist countries. This and the encouraging experience of the Asian and African neutralist countries in consolidating their national independence is adding to the popularity of the non-alignment idea. Besides, and this is important, the positions of socialism have grown stronger, while those of imperialism have weakened.

People are awakening to the fact that withdrawal from aggressive military alliances would yield them far greater benefits than participation in them, and that an independent national foreign policy and friendly relations with all countries is much more advantageous than myopic subjection to the imperialist countries.

A keen struggle is underway in such countries as Turkey and Pakistan, associated with aggressive blocs, over questions of foreign policy. A variety of classes and parties call for modifications in their external line. Workers, peasants, craftsmen, the progressive intelligentsia and a considerable section of the national bourgeoisie, briefly all the patriotic and national forces, clamour for a change. A section of the f eudals, the compradores and the reactionary-minded militarists are the only ones to oppose them.

Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and some other countries have learned from bitter experience that entanglement in aggressive military blocs yields no benefits to them. The influential French Le Monde wrote that the pactomania of the 1950s, when the cold war was at its height, has lost many of its attractions and advantages. The crisis of the bloc ``policy'' is very acute in Turkey. That country has run into formidable economic difficulties, and a strong tendency has appeared there in favour of neutralist policy, which many regard as the only way to salvation. Turks informed about the state of affairs abroad realise with pain that the non-aligned Asian and African countries are making much more rapid economic progress than Turkey, writes Foreign Report, a bulletin issued by the British journal Economist. Many Turks realise the advantages the neutralist countries have gained in this respect, the bulletin points out in its issue of October 8, 1964, and look wistfully upon such small countries as Afghanistan and Cambodia.

* J. P. Warburg, The West in Crisis, New York, 1959, p. 93.

Periodicals in countries associated with Western military blocs have been calling vociferously in their recent issues for a revision of Western foreign policy. Turkey's Prime Minister Ismet Inonii himself was compelled to admit in April 1964 that he was disappointed over Turkey's alliance with the imperialist powers. "I believed in American leadership/' Inonii told a Time correspondent, "and now I am paying for it." Turkey, he went on to say, would, however, find her right place in the new world built on new terms. Inonu's confession was received with approval by the general public, the press, and prominent Mejlis leaders, who all urge a thorough revision of the foreign policy Turkey has pursued since her entry into NATO.

It is highly indicative that Turkey followed the Cairo Conference of Non-Aligned Countries with absorbed attention, and sent her Ambassadors in the Lebanon and Algeria to the conference as unofficial observers. The visit of the former Turkish Foreign Minister, F. C. Erkin, to the Soviet Union in late October 1964 was described by the world press as another token of impending changes in Turkey's foreign policy. To be sure, this visit was indeed an expression of Turkey's craving, prompted by her national interests, to break out of the vicious circle which has for many years prevented her from assuming a place worthy of her in world affairs. "The visit of the Turkish Foreign Minister attracts all the more attention, because it is taking place at a time when Turkey is setting her sights on neutralism," wrote Le Monde on October 22, 1964. "Responsible politicians unhesitatingly predict an 'agonising reappraisal' in Ankara's foreign

policy___For some years now Turkey has been experiencing

the enticements of neutralism." Le Monde went on to say that the present-day Turkish nationalism is "marked by a return to its sources, namely, the Kemalist policy of neutrality''.

Neutralism is winning a following not only among the economically less developed countries. It is winning millions of minds among people of different walks of life in so highly developed an Asian country as Japan.

The trend towards neutralism is very strong in Japan. Democratic Senator Mike Mansfield pointed this out in a report, entitled "Japan and United States Policy", published by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He underscored

the fact that gravitation towards neutralism is very marked in the quickly growing urban areas and among the Japanese youth.

Japanese businessmen are eager to see their country out of aggressive blocs. Their wish springs from a "foreign trade foundation". "The widespread Japanese longing for neutralism," observed the British Eastern World, "is a delicate yet potent political fact of life which influences Japan's internal policies and, more vitally, the whole pattern of her foreign policy.... However, a legitimate and genuine aspect of Japan's post-war image is, in fact, her positively fanatical and nearly universal desire to contract out of the cold war.''

Saburo Eda, a member of the Socialist Party and Deputy to the Japanese Diet, who attended the Cairo Conference as an observer, said his Party would do its utmost for Japan to adopt non-alignment. He said the Japanese Socialist Party strongly opposed the Japanese-American Mutual Defence Treaty and was working in every possible way for its repeal. He voiced the hope that at the third conference of non-aligned countries Japan would be an equal member after having flung off the trammels of the Mutual Defence Treaty.

In December 1964, the Twenty-Fourth Congress of the Socialist Party of Japan, which is the biggest opposition party in the country, laid the accent in its programme of action for 1965 on three objectives: struggle for peace and neutrality, struggle for a peaceful constitution and struggle for better living conditions. To secure peace and neutrality, the programme says, it is essential that U.S. atomic submarines are barred from Japanese shores, that nuclear arms are barred from the country and that the system evolved under the American-Japanese "security pact" be ended. The programme laid an emphasis on the principle of peaceful coexistence.

Neutralist ideas have spread far outside Asia and Africa in the last few years. Their impact is felt also in Latin America. Prof. D. F. Fleming of the United States points out that a public opinion poll taken in six leading Latin American states in March 1959 on the question of "taking sides in an EastWest conflict" showed that in Caracas 68 per cent were for staying out, in Mexico City 66 per cent, in Buenos Aires 62 per cent, in Montevideo 51 per cent, in Bogota 40 per cent and in Lima 34 per cent. Fleming concludes that " neutralism is growing" and observes that the results of the public

opinion poll were "a very rude awakening" for the United States.* In September 1962 Business Week pointed out with alarm that most of the Latin American countries were gravitating towards neutralism.**

Revolutionary Cuba is exercising a distinct influence on all aspects of life in the Western Hemisphere. The Cuban revolution has stimulated strong sentiments in the Latin American countries for a foreign policy independent of Washington's leading strings.

A longing for independent policies is evident in Mexico, Chile and Bolivia. On quite a number of issues related to the peace struggle, particularly the issue of a nuclear weapons test ban, some of the Latin American countries side with the peace-loving states.

In April 1963 the Presidents of Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Bolivia and Ecuador jointly proposed a regional agreement proclaiming Latin America a nuclear-free zone.

Non-participation in aggressive military blocs and active struggle for peace and peaceful coexistence are today basic objectives in all the countries that are striving to shake off imperialist dependence and assume an independent stand in international affairs.

In late November 1964 Latin American countries convened in Mexico to discuss the nuclear-free zone idea for their continent. Seventeen countries attended the conference, which was called on Mexico's initiative. The conference passed a resolution setting up a preparatory committee with the object of framing the draft of a multilateral treaty proclaiming Latin America a nuclear-free zone. The committee, which is to work in Mexico, has been empowered, among other things, to provide for measures that would prevent Latin American territory from being used for military purposes.

Many of the non-aligned countries follow developments in Mexico's foreign policy with deep interest. The Mexican Government has made definite progress in the last few years. It has come out strongly for the principle of respect for the sovereignty of peoples and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, and has defied U.S. pressure by refus-

ing to break off diplomatic relations with Cuba. Its co-- operation with the U.N. Disarmament Committee has been of the liveliest. Mexico was among the first batch of countries to sign the Moscow Partial Test-Ban Treaty. The foreign policy of the former Mexican President Lopez Mateos, which centred on peace, independence and firmness in face of attempted diktat, has been one of the main reasons for Mexico's increasing international prestige. The Latin American public hopes that under the new President, Gustavo Diaz Ordaz, Mexico will follow the same peace-abiding course in her foreign policy.

Neutralist policy has reduced the scope of the aggressive blocs, curtailed the influence of the imperialist powers and deprived them of vast sources of manpower and materiel. This has tended to impair imperialism's strength in both the politico-military and economic senses. So the governing groups in the imperialist countries have made it one of their most important objectives to combat neutralism. The Indian newspaper Daily News pointed out that a new stage had arrived for the United States, in which it had to wage the cold war on two fronts-against communism and against renascent Afro-Asia. Imperialist propaganda has, indeed, mounted a far-flung campaign against the policy of non-alignment.

Some of the basic aspects in the foreign policy of the independent Asian and African countries have come in for a vindictive lashing from U.S. and West European propagandists. Non-participation in imperialist military blocs and refusal of war bases in their territory, anti-colonialism and co-- operation with the socialist countries-those are points that have lashed the bourgeois politicians to fury. They have been dangling before the general public in the liberated countries the "dangerous consequences" of their neutralist policy, notably at the time of the Korean war, the Suez crisis, and the developments in the Middle East in 1956-58.

At first, the imperialists spearheaded their attacks on the neutralist course of the South and South-East Asian countries. After this. Western propaganda concentrated its wrath against the neutralism of the Arab and African countries. It pronounced their statesmen as politically ``immature'' and their neutralism as ``immoral''. It strove to pervert the antiimperialist, anti-colonialist and anti-military nature of neutralism and its intrinsic motives.

* D. F. Fleming, The Cold Wai and Its Origins, Vol. 2, London, 1961, p. 966. ** Business Week, September 22, 1962, p. 161.

Bourgeois researchers are eager to prove that the neutralist complexion of most of the sovereign Asian and African countries springs from fortuitous factors, rather than profound objective sources. They explain the reluctance of many of the Afro-Asian countries to follow the imperialist lead as essentially the personal inclination of their leaders, and believe that a government reshuffle, the dismissal of certain Asian and African statesmen, would instantly reverse the foreign policy of the respective countries, and that these would at once break with neutralism.

Imperialist ideologists go to the length of alleging that neutralist policy is a "tool of Soviet diplomacy" and one of the ways whereby "Afro-Asian countries are made to grind the Kremlin axe". Malcolm Kennedy, a British diplomat, accused the newly-independent Asian countries of pursuing a ``pro-communist'' foreign policy and "playing into Moscow's hand".* Kennedy and other bourgeois researchers infer this charge from the friendly relations these countries maintain with the Soviet Union and from their refusal to be entangled in military blocs. Kennedy described India as a "champion of communism", although it is a patent fact that the policy of the Indian Government is in no way related to communist ideas and bases itself on the interests of the Indian national bourgeoisie. The anti-colonialism that marks India's foreign policy, like that of other Asian and African neutralist countries, is described by Kennedy as, of all things, a communist tendency.

This distorted interpretation of the substance of neutralism was devised, on the one hand, to intimidate the public in the Afro-Asian countries and, on the other, to infer the ``right'' of the imperialist powers to combat neutralist foreign policy under the signboard of anti-communism, inasmuch as the independent course of the uncommitted Afro-Asian countries goes against the interests of the Western ruling groups. On the pretext of combating communism, the imperialists want to push the Afro-Asian countries off the neutralist path.

Intent on discrediting neutralism, the learned menials of imperialism are spreading the legend that neutralism does not reckon with the ``long-term'' and ``ultimate'' interests and

* Malcolm Kennedy, A Short History of Communism in Asia, London, 1957.

needs of the Afro-Asian countries. They aver that neutralist statesmen do not have a clear enough knowledge of international affairs and are unable to carry through an independent line. Professor Russell Hunt Fifield of Michigan University, ostensibly an expert in South-East Asian affairs, claims that it would be the peak of political sagacity for the Asian countries to enter into a close politico-military alliance with the United States and join the aggressive SEATO bloc. It is not surprising, therefore, that in his book. Diplomacy oi Southeast Asia: 1945-1958, Fifield extols the Philippines and Thailand, whose rulers have hitched their countries to the imperialist war chariot.

As the neutralist countries gained firmer ground in the late fifties and early sixties, voices resounded vehemently in the imperialist countries for a more sober view on non-- alignment and a revision of the anti-neutralist policy, urging greater pliancy and mobility.

The imperialists had failed to disrupt the policy of neutralism and to discredit it in the eyes of the Afro-Asian peoples as a "form of Soviet influence". John Kerry King, an American researcher, noted in his book. Southeast Asia in Perspective, that the Asian peoples had satisfied themselves in the righteousness of their governments' neutralism and were deeply conscious of the fact that the United States sought to disrupt their neutralist policy in order to exploit them in its struggle against communism.*

In the contemporary world, with socialism growing into the chief factor of world development, the anti-neutralist policy of the imperialists has no ground to stand on. What it lacks most is a sober cognisance of the world situation. It underrates the strength of the world socialist community and the support it enjoys from the Afro-Asian countries. But most of all, it fails to reckon with the deep-going socioeconomic foundation of neutralism.

When the imperialist politicians were framing their antineutralist strategy, they did not suspect that friendly political and economic relations, coupled with close collaboration, would evolve between the young national Asian and African states, on the one hand, and the socialist countries, on the

• John Kerry King, Southeast Asia in Perspective, New York, 1956, p. 263.

9-561

other. They hoped that the liberated countries would have no other choice but to retreat and abandon their independent policies. As we know, this did not happen.

It is now dawning on the rulers of the imperialist powers that their undisguised sermon of anti-neutralism is liable to boomerang. This has been admitted by such bourgeois ideologists as the late Adlai Stevenson, the prominent U.S. journalist Sulzberger, and the U.S. banker and publicist, James Warburg. Their point of view was echoed in Ideology and Foreign Affairs, an official U.S. investigation which admitted that the neutralist nations "have succeeded in maximising the source of influence available to them in world politics''.

The prominent U.S. diplomat Chester Bowles, too, advocates a modification of U.S. policy vis-a-vis Afro-Asian neutralism. The caustic criticism levelled at neutralism in the United States in the latter period of the Eisenhower Administration gave Le Monde cause to declare that the evolution of U.S. policy in relation to the non-aligned countries "began back at the close of the dictatorial reign in the State Department of John Foster Dulles.... Washington considers the desire to drag, say, India into an anti-Soviet bloc absolutely senseless''.

Denunciations of State Department policies with regard to the Afro-Asian countries became especially biting during the 1960 presidential elections. At that time, John Kennedy made a succession of utterances about the need for reassessing U.S. policy in the neutralist states.

After Kennedy was elected U.S. President, official U.S. policy no longer confined itself to moulding military blocs and alliances with reactionary and military dictatorial regimes, and concentrated on expanding economic, political and ideological ties with the neutralist countries. "I do not believe," State Secretary Dean Rusk said in early 1961, "that we should insist that anyone who is not with us is against us."*

The French journal Enterprise, the mouthpiece of big industry, wrote in October 1962 about Kennedy's New Look, recommended by his "brain trust" headed by one of Rusk's co-adjutants. A report submitted by the brain trust

stressed that it was no longer sufficient to adapt oneself passively to neutralism and that it was essential to look for mutual understanding. The prominent U.S. expert on Africa, Arnold Rivkin, observed at the time that "the United States has no intention of urging newly-independent African states into military alliances or blocs".*

Direct attacks on the policy of non-alignment receded to the background, while flanking manoeuvres were mounted against it. It was the far-reaching plan of the imperialists to subvert neutralism from within and convert it from an independent policy into a screen for an alliance between the young sovereign states and the imperialist camp.

The U.S. imperialists had good cause to change their attitude in the early sixties. To begin with, the Soviet Union had developed inter-continental ballistic rockets, a factor that took the teeth out of the aggressive imperialist blocs and reduced the efficacy of the imperialist war bases. This had the effect of bolstering the security of the non-aligned Asian and African countries. The invigoration of the group of independent African countries on the world scene and the mounting neutralist tendencies in the less developed countries entangled in aggressive blocs was another important factor.

The more far-sighted imperialist theoreticians became acutely aware of the fact that a one-sided approach to neutralism, prompted by exclusively strategic considerations, reduced the political chances of the Western countries in Asia and Africa. They perceived the danger this held for the imperialist states and clamoured for a New Look on neutralism.

``The change in the world balance of power," wrote Walter Lippmann, the prominent U.S. columnist, "demanded a change in our policy. It demanded that we scrap the policy of American satellite states and promote instead a policy of neutralism for the weak and vulnerable peripheral states. That is the best, indeed that is the only, hope of their not being engulfed by communism. In some measure, the Kennedy Administration has recognised this truth-for example in accepting the idea of neutral Laos."** J. Cerf and W. Pozen, the authors of Strategy tor the 60s, drew the conclusion that U.S. military policy towards the neutralist countries should

Lite. International. February 13, 1961.

* Arnold Rivkin, Africa and the West, New York, 1962, p. 63. ** New York Herald Tribune, May 4, 1961.

9*

131

not at the present time strive to drag them into war blocs aimed against the socialist countries.*

Recognition of neutralism was for the influential U.S. circles at once a means of undermining the positions of the old colonial powers in their former colonies and semi-colonies. "American acquiescence in Arab neutralism," noted the English researcher, John Marlowe, "seems merely to have been a tactical move to replace British by American influence in the Middle East."**

This is evidence of the fact that imperialist tactics, above all those of the United States, with regard to Afro-Asian neutralism have changed considerably in the last few years. The imperialists have not abandoned their struggle against the independent line of the liberated countries, but to camouflage this struggle they are exploiting convenient opportunities to declare their ``readiness'' to regonise it.

This course of "maximum manoeuvrability", which has come to replace Dulles's "maximum rigidity", to use Chester Bowles's terms, is being carried through by men, such as Bowles and others, who had in the past opposed the antineutralist policy of the Eisenhower Administration.

Policy-making groups in the United States and other imperialist countries are compelled to reckon with the viability and magnetic force of attraction of neutralism, and are labouring might and main to purge the neutralist foreign policy of many Asian and African countries of its antiimperialist content, to paralyse it, or to direct it against the socialist countries. It is the chief purpose of the monopoly groups to maintain imperialist influences in the Asian and African countries at any price, not short of outwardly recognising their neutrality. Now and then Washington is inclined to grant economic, and even military, assistance to the neutralist countries without bludgeoning them into military blocs or requiring sites in their territories for U.S. war bases. Washington prefers this to the neutralist states turning to any of the socialist countries for military assistance.

Imperialist propaganda claims hypocritically that Western military power is a safeguard of neutralism, a ``defender'' of

the Afro-Asian countries from communism. This was pointed out, among others, by so vehement a proponent of antineutralism as former U.S. Vice-President Richard Nixon. The same idea has also been propounded by the Spanish bourgeois philosopher Salvador de Madariaga, who contended that the Afro-Asian countries owe the very opportunity of conducting a neutralist policy to the United States.*

The changed tactics of the imperialists, their outward recognition of neutrality, is bound up closely with their designs of using neutralism to maintain their political influence and to expand their economic foothold in Asia and Africa and, besides, to undermine the co-operation of Afro-Asian countries with the socialist community. The imperialists hope that anti-communism will help fence off the newly-liberated countries from the socialist world, something that would wreak havoc to their independent policy.

The ``change'' in attitude toward Afro-Asian neutralism is, in effect, a striving by the imperialists to bend the policy of the liberated countries to their will and make the most of it for their struggle against the world socialist system. The imperialist ideologists are banking, too, on what they think is an inevitable ``regeneration'' of neutralism, which they hope to repattern into a screen for a politico-military alliance of the liberated countries with the Western states. U.S. Professor John Spanier contends, for example, that once the neutralist countries grow strong economically and politically, their foreign policy is sure to ``regenerate'' and they will probably be compelled to depart from neutral positions in international affairs and convert to pro-Western positions.**

So much for the far-reaching designs and hopes of the imperialists.

The imperialists are doing everything they can to support the reactionary groups in the liberated countries, those that go through the motions of neutralism while really striving to obstruct all truly anti-imperialist struggle. Unable to block the further development of the national liberation movement and curtail the role of the neutralist countries in world affairs.

* Cerf and Pozen, Strategy tot the 60s, New York, 1961, p. 9. ** John Marlowe, Arab Nationalism and British Imperialism, London, 1961, p. 122.

* Neue Zurcher Zeitung, December 6, 1962.

** John Spanier, American Foreign Policy Since World War II, New York, 1962.

the imperialists are trying to manoeuvre, to find new, covert forms and methods of combating neutralism.

Krishna Menon, the prominent Indian political and public leader, said in an eloquent address at the Delhi Conference that no people in the world wished war and that for this reason peace and the problems whose solution bring it closer should figure as the main items on the agenda. The most important problems, he said, concern the banning of nuclear weapons tests, and general and complete disarmament. A test ban, he said, falls woefully short of disarmament, and disarmament is still short of peace, but they are steps towards lasting peace, and we must carry them through. War, he concluded, must be ruled out as a means of settling controversial international issues.

The distinctive feature of the Delhi Conference was that all the urgent problems of international life-relaxation of world tension, peaceful coexistence, general and complete disarmament-were closely associated with the need of stepping up the struggle for the immediate extirpation of all forms of colonialism. This intimate relation between the struggle for peace and the struggle against colonialism, for the consolidation of national independence, was also reflected in the speech of U. Simango, a spokesman of fighting Mozambique. "The fact that we are waging a war against the colonialists," he said, "does not mean that we do not want peace. But it is only natural that we cannot have peace so long as we are enslaved. There cannot be any peaceful coexistence between the oppressed and the oppressors. We consider our armed struggle against the Portuguese colonialists a contribution to peace and international co-operation." This treatment of the problems of peace and those of the anti-colonial struggle is understandable and quite legitimate. The developments of the last few years show beyond a shadow of doubt that the threat to peace and peaceful coexistence stems not only from the continuing arms race and the attempts at proliferating and stockpiling nuclear weapons, the existence of aggressive Western blocs and the mounting aggressive ambitions of West German imperialism, but also from the imperialist actions of some of the Western powers, primarily the United States, designed to suppress the righteous national liberation struggle of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples. This is why the resolutions passed by the Delhi Conference reflect the deep-going relation between the struggle for peace and the struggle against

The power and viability of the peace policy carried forward by the liberated countries stem from the fact that millions of people who have flung off colonialism are working actively for peace and peaceful coexistence. "The peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, many millions strong," says the Statement of the November 1960 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, "who have won their freedom and political independence, and peoples fighting for national emancipation, are becoming increasingly active champions of peace and natural allies of the peace policy of the socialist countries.

``The neutral states, which disagree with the aggressive policy of the imperialists, work for peace and peaceful coexistence."*

In mid-November 1964 a Conference for Peace and International Co-operation took place in Delhi, attended by delegations from Algeria, Ghana, Mozambique, Cyprus, Argentina, Chile, Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia, France, Britain and the United States. A delegation of the Soviet Peace Committee also participated. Nearly 40 countries were represented. In addition, the conference was attended by representatives of 12 international organisations, including such massive ones as the World Federation of Trade Unions, the World Federation of Democratic Youth, the International Democratic Federation of Women, the World Council of Peace and the Organisation of Afro-Asian Solidarity. The conference dealt with a large number of problems troubling mankind today. Many of the Delhi resolutions merge with the Programme of Peace and International Co-operation adopted at the Cairo Conference of Non-Aligned Countries in October 1964. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Delhi Conference commended the results of the Cairo forum and the July 1964 gathering of the heads of African states and governments.

The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1963,

p. 85.

colonialism, which is one of the prime sources of current international tension.

The general declaration unanimously adopted at the conference noted that in spite of the easing of international tension there were a number of regions in the world where the threat of an armed conflict was still a stark reality. The declaration recalled the attempts made by the colonial powers to retain their position in some of the regions of the globe. It called attention to the race terror in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia and to the deplorable situation in the Portuguese colonies.

It took note of the dangerous proliferation and increased production of nuclear weapons, and voiced alarm over this fact, coming forward with an important proposal: that all the governments whose countries are out of the nuclear arms race, and those governments that wish to join them, should appeal for and demand the total banning of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass annihilation, the immediate termination of production and of all types of tests of these weapons, and the destruction of the existing stockpiles.

The conference passed a special resolution on disarmament, in which it approved the Moscow Partial Test-Ban Treaty and denounced the American plans of arming Federal Germany with nuclear weapons under the umbrella of the NATO "multilateral nuclear force" scheme. The conference pointed to the reckless operations of the U.S. Navy, particularly the Polaris-armed U.S. submarines, in the Pacific and Indian oceans. The same resolution protested against aggressive U.S. acts in Tonkin Bay, directed against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

Many speakers exposed and condemned the foul crimes of the imperialists in South Vietnam, the Congo, the South African Republic, Mozambique, Angola and other regions. The conference did not leave without notice any of the problems related to the national liberation struggle of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples. All in all, 15 specific resolutions were passed on concrete issues of the national liberation, anti-imperialist and anti-colonial struggle (on South-East Asia, the Middle East, Cyprus, South Africa, ``French'' Somalia, the Spanish colonies. Southern Rhodesia, Basutoland, Bechuanaland, Swaziland, etc.). The special resolution on South Vietnam underscored that the situation

prevailing there presents a grave danger to world peace. The conference expressed its full support of the heroic struggle of the people of Vietnam against the interventionists for their country's unity, and firmly condemned the aggressive war waged by the U.S. imperialists there. It demanded the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. armed forces from Vietnam.

The Delhi Conference mounted a strong attack on U.S. and Belgian neo-colonialist policies in the Congo, and gave its unqualified support tojhe line worked out on the Congolese question by the Cairo Conference of Non-Aligned Countries. The delegates gave assurances of their solidarity with the just national liberation struggle of the Congo's patriotic forces.

A special resolution supported the liberation struggle of the peoples of Angola, Mozambique and the other Portuguese colonies.

The conference also declared its sympathies for the people of Cuba, who are standing guard over their gains in face of a sustained threat from the U.S. imperialists.

The Delhi Conference made a close study of the problems of peaceful coexistence and defined a few general obligatory principles, such as, say, settlement of all inter-state disputes exclusively by peaceful means, and non-utilisation of force in international relations, including rejection of any and all military, political and economic pressures.

The conference resolution stressed that the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems implied among other things "the immediate and unconditional right of all peoples to independence, the right of all peoples and countries to freely choose their political, economic and cultural system without outside interference, and international co-operation for economic and social development to secure the flowering of the nations''.

The resolution on international co-operation dealt at length with the problem of liberating the newly-free countries from the economic control of foreign monopolies, providing favourable conditions for developing their own national industries, expanding trade based on national currencies, etc. The Delhi Conference suggested proclaiming 1965 a year of international co-operation.

This conference, in which delegates of the non-aligned countries played a prominent part, made a substantial con-

tribution to the struggle for peace and peaceful coexistence and the final liquidation of colonialism.

It will be fitting to note at this point that in the last few years none of the newly-independent countries has entered any aggressive military blocs-neither Nigeria nor Uganda, Tanganyika, Algeria and Kenya. Neutralism has not exhausted its possibilities by any means. Large areas of the globe, with large populations, are still to gain their freedom from the imperialist yoke. Entry of these new countries into the neutralist group of states will add to its international weight and prestige.

The imperialists had powerful instruments to combat the national liberation movement and the neutralist policies of the Afro-Asian countries. They had aggressive blocs and war bases, a machinery of subversion, economic ``aid'', political blackmail and pressure, armed intervention and anti-- government plots on their list of resources, and nobody will deny that they used them extensively. Their emissaries and agents in the Afro-Asian countries have tried, and are still trying, to decapitate the national liberation movement, and to remove statesmen in the young sovereign states who maintain an independent neutralist policy from the political scene.

The Programme of the C.P.S.U. says about the foreign policy of the neutralist countries that "the national states become ever more active as an independent force on the world scene; objectively, this force is in the main a progressive, revolutionary and anti-imperialist force. The countries and peoples that are now free from colonial oppression are to play a prominent part in the prevention of a new world war-the focal problem of today".*

It is those newly-free Asian and African countries which are striving to break out of the capitalist economic pattern and to embark on non-capitalist development that pursue the firmest and most consistent foreign policy and that carry through the neutralist principles more articulately. The influence of socialist ideas in these countries is evident not only in the pertinent socio-economic measures, but also in their foreign policy. This is why it is safe to say that non-capitalist development in the young sovereign states will animate neutralist policy, add to its anti-imperialist content and impart

to it further points of similarity with the foreign policy of the socialist countries.

By supporting the policy of non-alignment, assisting the economic development of the neutralist countries and acting resolutely against imperialist intrigues in South-East Asia, the Middle East and Africa, the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries are helping to consolidate the position of the young sovereign states on the world scene, and to promote the cause of peace and international security. Without the political support and the economic assistance of the socialist countries, the non-aligned countries would not have been able to repel the imperialist attacks on their foreign policy half as effectively.

The ruling groups in the imperialist countries,can no longer afford to ignore the neutralist course of the young sovereign states. This does not go to say that the more reckless imperialist elements have abandoned the hopes they pin on the ``positions-from-strength'' policy in relation to Afro-Asian neutralism, although the futility of this policy is obvious to one and all.

The overwhelming majority of the newly-free Asian and African countries belong to the same front of peace and defence of international security as the socialist countries. The greater the cohesion of all anti-war and anti-imperialist forces, the more successfully will the struggle for peace and progress develop. The imperialists are eager to discredit the policy of non-alignment. They declare that the neutralist stand on some of the key international issues coincides much too often with the positions of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries. But there is nothing surprising about that. The Soviet Union and the other countries of the socialist community are natural and dependable allies of the nonaligned states in the struggle for peace and peaceful coexistence, against colonialism and imperialism. The support the non-aligned countries get from the Soviet Union and the other socialist states corresponds fully to their national interests.

The lessons of the past decade show conclusively that cooperation with the world socialist system has been a crucial condition for the successes scored by the neutralist countries on the international arena. Whenever such co-operation is violated, neutralism and all the conceptions of non-alignment begin to totter, domestic reactionaries become more active

* The Road to Communism, Moscow, 1961, p. 496.

and the pressure of the imperialist powers increases. Wherever, on the other hand, the non-aligned countries lean for support on the socialist community, the non-alignment policy becomes more lively, more effective and forceful, political independence grows stronger and economic independence becomes a practicable goal.

In defiance of all threats, the vast majority of the AfroAsian countries follow a steadily independent foreign policy. The neutralist countries stand their ground firmly against all attempts to subvert and pervert the policy of non-alignment. Recent statements by the leaders of the Afro-Asian countries are good evidence of this, for they declare their firm resolve to maintain the peace-loving neutralist course, that important factor of peace and international security.

REQUEST TO READERS

Progress Publishers would be glad to have your opinion oi this book, its translation and design, and any suggestions you may have tor future publications.

Please send your comments to 21, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, U.S.S.R.