p An analysis of Maoist policy shows that it has nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism. It is determined by GreatPower ambitions and bears the imprint of the traditional outlook of old China’s rulers on the world and on the place occupied by the Middle Kingdom in the world.

p If we compare the foreign policy of imperial China with the foreign policy pursued by Mao Tse-tung and his minions, we shall find that the Mao group is continuing to gravitate towards the traditional line of the Chinese emperors, borrowing and developing the concept of hegemonism. Today, as in the days of the emperors, notions about a "special mission" of the Han nation and Peking underlie the hegemonistic ambitions. In former times wars of aggression, Great-Han chauvinism and Sinocentrism were the attributes of a foreign policy doctrine exalting the Middle Kingdom.

p The ideology of militarism preached widely in China today has its roots in the ancient Chinese philosophical school of fachia. Like the philosophy of Shang Yang, who lived in the 4th century B.C., Mao Tse-tung preaches that war is inevitable and tries to prove this with the aid of traditional methods of Chinese sophistry: "We are for the abolition of wars, we do not need war, but war can be abolished only through war. If you want to get rid of rifles, you must use a rifle.” Approximately similar arguments were offered by Shang Yang. He wrote: "If by war it is possible to destroy war, then even war is permissible; if by massacre it is possible to destroy massacre, then even massacre is permissible; if punishment may be destroyed by punishment then even stern punishment is permissible.”

p At different times of the historical past the traditional concepts of the Chinese emperor’s supreme power over neighbouring peoples were expounded by various means. In some cases the Chinese rulers subjugated neighbouring countries and even annihilated entire nations. In other cases they had to rest content with purely external manifestations of vassalage. As a result of wars lasting many years, the Chinese emperors developed a peculiar method of conquering neighbouring countries. Under the Han dynasty this was known as tsan shih, which meant gnawing at neighbouring countries in 244 the same way as the silkworm gnaws at a mulberry leaf. Also traditional was the method of setting nations against each other. Chinese diplomacy, particularly during the Middle Ages, very skilfully and not unsuccessfully employed the method of "suppressing barbarians with the aid of barbarians”.

p Mao Tse-tung and his accomplices are taking practical steps to implement their predatory ambitions and establish Chinese supremacy in Southeast Asia. To this end they calculate on employing the tactics of "neither war nor peace”, intended ultimately to shatter these countries and place them under Chinese leadership. A border conflict, which grows acute from time to time, has been dragging on with India for ten years. Peking sends Delhi ultimatums and tries to interfere in India’s internal affairs. Maoist agents are spinning webs of intrigue and conspiracies in Bhutan and Sikkim. Neither has the small Himalayan state of Nepal escaped flagrant interference from China. The Chinese embassy attempted to spread the “thought” of Mao Tse-tung and distributed badges bearing his portrait. When this was condemned by Nepalese public opinion, the Chinese embassy abused and threatened the government of Nepal.

p The Chinese notes to the government of Burma, which pursues a neutralist policy, are reminiscent of the language used by the Manchu hordes that overran Burma in 1765. Moreover, Peking instigates armed attacks against the Revolutionary Council of Burma and urges the northern tribes of Burma to start a separatist movement. The hungweipings have also intimidated Laos, claiming that Laos "is preparing to attack China" and threatening to “punish” it. In Southeast Asia public opinion has assessed these declarations as a primitive pretext for blackmailing Laos.

p Imperialism and its agents are making use of _the Mao group’s policy and actions, which contravene the principle of equality among nations and communist morals, to intimidate the peoples with the threat of Chinese aggression and form various blocs under the aegis of the United States.

p The American press writes of the Peking leadership’s policies with unconcealed delight, underscoring two circumstances which are favouring the designs of the United States. The first is China’s weakening as a result of the convulsions of the "cultural revolution”. In the opinion of Professor 245 Fairbank, US State Department adviser on Chinese affairs, political unrest in a country like China provides first-class possibilities for the USA’s "positive diplomacy”, in other words, for the realisation of US aggressive plans in Asia. The second is that Washington is using the activities of the Maoist agents in Southeast Asian countries and the Far East in an attempt to persuade the peoples of these areas that the United States “umbrella” is their only salvation from the "threats of Chinese communism”. These countries are thus offered the spurious alternative: either Maoist domination with the horrors of the "cultural revolution" or the formation of military blocs controlled by the United States.

p By supplying Washington and its allies with arguments justifying Peking’s aggressive Great-Power policy, the Maoists are stabbing the Vietnamese people in the back and objectively facilitating the escalation of US aggression in Southeast Asia and the Far East. The USA and its allies in Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and the Philippines are making haste to take advantage of the situation in order to set up a new military system for the suppression of liberation movements and draw non-aligned countries into militarypolitical blocs.

p Nationalism and internationalism are antipodal. Internationalism is the ideology of the working class, while nationalism is the ideology of the bourgeoisie. Those who seek to set the embattled peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America against the socialist countries and the international workingclass movement are betraying the ideals of internationalism and injuring both the national liberation revolutions and international socialism. They are bringing grist to the mill of neocolonialism, whose dream is to divide the peoples fighting imperialism, isolate the national liberation movement from the socialist countries and separate it from the working-class movement in the developed capitalist states.

p Through their divisive activities the Maoists have won the favour of the imperialists. In an article entitled "The Road Back to Mainland China”, carried by the magazine New Republic on August 17, 1963, Professor Cyrus H. Peacke of the United States noted that the Chinese leaders "have turned, despite their militant ideology, to the ‘imperialists”’. On the basis of this argument he suggested that the USA reconsider the doctrine that the road to the USA’s return to continental 246 China lies through war, declaring that this road lies through the utmost Western support for Chinese nationalism and anti-Sovietism. In other words, Peacke suggests turning China into an anti-Soviet force and thereby undermining the anti-imperialist front as a whole. At the close of April 1968, Bill D. Moyers, Special Assistant to former US President Lyndon B. Johnson, suggested abandoning “rhetoric” in the discussion of the China issue and adopting a "correct military attitude" to Peking which would give recognition to the possibility of reaching agreement with the Peking leaders. At about the same time US Vice-President Hubert H. Humphrey urged the building of "peaceful bridges" between the USA and China.

p The greater the cohesion of the revolutionary forces of Asia, Africa and Latin America acting in a united front with the socialist countries and the international working-class movement, and forming a world-wide revolutionary torrent, the greater will be the successes of the national liberation struggle against the remnants of colonialism and for the political and economic independence of the developing countries.

Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn, No. 7, 1968, pp. 12-22