By Victor Perlo

es

‘arnegie
nese crude oil output jumped from 6.4
in 1963 to 20 million in 1970
and nearly 70 million in 1974. He pre-
dicts that in about 15 years China will
reach Saudi Arabia’s 1974 output level of

aged U.S. speculation that Chinese output
reached 65 million tons in 1974. But the
Maoists have a history of fantastic exagge-
ration of production statistics during the
Great Leap Forward period, and the

*Like the venerable Foreign Affairs quarter-
ly, Foreign Policy, founded in 1970, presents

the views of the ruling oligarchy through
Ivy League academic specialists connected
with the State Department and National Se-

Curnegic Endowment for International Peace,
it is closer to the “liberal” but virulent anti-
Seviet groups suchas the Washington Post
and New York Times, than Foreign Affairs,
which is sponsored by the Rockefeller-head-
ed Council on Foreign Relations.

MAO
AND
U.S.
‘AID’:
AN
OILY
TALE

Wid MA THe refl

"THERES A FORD IN MY FUTURE.”

political use they are making of oil now
is consistent with similar exaggeration.

We do know that China produces a
significant quantity of oil, and exports
several million tons per year. Its claim-
ed exports in 1974 were 5% of Soviet ex-
ports, and 1% of Saudi Arabia exports. So
its major impact on world markets is
still in the future.

During the 1950s, the fledgling Chinese
oil industry ‘‘benefited from the techni-
cal cooperation of the Soviet Union,”
without which the later ‘‘development of
major oil fields . .
possible,’ write Choon-ho Park and Je-
rome Alan Cohen. Then the Maoists broke
off relations with the USSR, and after a
gap of ‘‘self-reliance,’’ turned to the capi-
talist states which have supplied equip-
ment and technical assistance on a mas-
sive and mounting scale.

Such purchases, according to Foreign
Policy writers, have already gone well
beyond a billion dollars. At first Japan
was the main seller. However, most
petroleum equipment sold by capitalist
states involves U.S. licenses and compo-
nents,.and would not be sold to a social-
ist country without U.S. government -ap-
proval. More recently, the U.S. has step-
ped into the picture with the direct sale
of equipment far more advanced than
any permitted for sale to the USSR.

Harrison writes that off-shore oil de-
velopment is crucial for further major
expansion of Chinese output. It is not now

equipped for this, but:
“By next summer, however, Peking

will have the first of two Singapore-
made, U.S.-equipped $33 million ‘jack-
ups’ capable of drilling in 275 feet of
water.”’

Hundreds of millions of dollars worth

of similar and more advanced equipment
is being ordered from Western Europe
and Japan.

For the all-important seismic explora-
tion, the U.S. is providing equipment and

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—NOVEMBER 28, 1975—Page 8

. would, not have been ©

know-how including a Raytheon computer

and assistance from the Geospace Corpo-

ration of Houston:

“Twenty Chinese have been to Geo-
space headquarters for training, and
70,000 pounds of seismic processing equip-
ment was recently airlifted to Peking in
the first commercial jet cargo flight be-
tween the United States and China.”

Now China is seeking to purchase the
huge Cyber 172 computer, which has
military applications. U.S. authorities
have not yet cleared it, but “‘In general,
the United States’ is ‘‘not standing in
the way of the Chinese acquisition of oil-
related technology’’ and has ‘‘actively en-
couraged’’ some sales.

Last month a high-ranking Chinese
trade mission met with President Ford
and Congressional leaders, then was
scheduled to go to Houston, ‘‘with its
manufacturers of oil-drilling equipment.”
The Chinese delegation aimed to get
Congressional approval of an exemption
to the Jackson Amendment restrictions.

W...«' wrong with encouraging trade
between China and the United States?

’ Of course, we favor ending discrimina-

tion in trade against all socialist coun-
tries. But why is the U.S. reducing bar-
riers to trade with China which it retains
against other socialist countries? What
are the motives of Mao Tse-tung and
Henry Kissinger in pressing for express-
speed development of Chinese oil?

The politics of Far Eastern offshore
oil are complicated. The Maoists hope to
become one of the top oil producers with
oil below waters contested by Taiwan,
South Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. Puppet
governments of U.S. imperialism in Tai-

- wan and South Korea, and formerly in

Saigon, granted concessions to U.S. oil

‘companies. But in deference to Maoist

objections, Washington exerted strong

_ pressure to prevent U.S. corporatit

“to help American oil companies get

from going ahead with the Taiwanese |
‘South Korean concessions. Gulf O
particular, paid a bribe of $4.2 mill
to Seoul dictator Park, and there
., tens of millions of other expenses. a

In a follow-up to the Harrison articl
Leslie .H. Gelb writes in The New Y
Times that the U.S. Government has tr

of contracts without financial penalty
situations where Peking might be
pleased, such as in Gulf’s arrangeme
with South Korea’’ (Sept. 5). How m
U.S. “foreign aid’ money was used
buy off the Mellon oil crowd to confo
to the overall pro-Maoist policy of
imperialism? And when before has Wa
ington backed any foreign government,
less a “Communist” one, against a maj?
U.S. oil company?

I. 1974 the Maoists seized the Para'
Island,. equidistant between China
South Vietnam, without objection: fr
Washington, despite the latter’s prete'
of ‘‘defending’” South Vietnam. Ch
immediately started drilling for oil
Evidently, anticipating an early peop
victory, the Maoists aimed to presen
Vietnamese people with a fait accom!
instead of working out: a friendly P
gram for joint exploitation of the
wealth of the South China Sea and
of Tonkin. Harrison writes that Chi
using oil exports to the Democratic F
ple’s Republic of Korea and the De
cratic Republic of Vietnam “as a mé
of softening offshore boundary disp
(i.e. in an attempt to pressure its “
bors to yield the offshore oil to the Mae
ists).

For many years U.S. imperialism”
attempted to block cooperation betwee
Japan and thé USSR in development
Siberian resources for the benefit of b
countries. Japan has been most a
to obtain assured sources of oil and
from nearby sources, of which Siberia
the most promising. But no major
-has been concluded, except a conti
one for East Siberian gas, still awal
U.S. participation. As U.S. pressure
ed inadequate, Mao Tse-tung stepped 1
the breach.

Park & Cohen write: “‘China’s obj
tive has been to forestall all signific
forms of Japanese cooperation with
Soviet Union, including participation
the joint projects to develop Tyumen
and Sakhalin seabed oil. ‘ Because
Japan’s concern about China’ s objecl
no arrangements have been concluded.”

Meanwhile, the Japanese ruling
buys Chinese oil, despite its higher
than oil delivered from the Middle
The Maoists tempt Japan to continue ald
the line of not buying Siberian oil, a?
which Japan ‘‘cannot be happy,” by of!
ing the ‘‘carrot’’ of extravagant prom
of future deliveries of Chinese oil. 4

Where do the U.S. oil companies
into this scheme? One cannot belli!
that any major U.S. foreign policy is
ducted in opposition to that most pov
ful segment of monopoly capital, and
out their consultation. The oil-so
chairman of Chase, David Rockefel
was one of the first to advocate de
ment of closer ties with Maoist
The oil equipment companies alre@
collaborating with the Chinese oil
try have intimate ties with the maj‘
companies.

The stakes of the ‘‘Seven Thieve
big oil in the pro-Maoist policy in
later access to control over distribul
and processing of Chinese oil
Maoist cooperation in maintaining”
control over .the oil of Indonesia,
above all, Maoist aid in an overall
tegy directed against the Soviet U