By John Pittman r a plenary meeting of the United Nations 28th General Assembly on October 2, Chiao Kuan-hua, vice-minister for foreign affairs of the Peking gov- ernment headed by Mao Tse-tung, charg- ed the Soviet Union with failing to give the developing countries ‘whole- hearted internationalist assistance.’’ This accusation produced astonish- ment among delegations of the UN’s 135 member-states. Such a charge had not been heard from even the most fa- natical anti-Communist representatives of the imperialist bloc during the quar- ter century of the cold war. On the contrary, although they dis- torted the aims of Soviet aid, the im- perialist ideologues habitually had ex- aggerated the extent of Soviet aid to developing. countries—including China— in attempts to deny the indigenous source of revolutionary movements which they attributed to “foreign inter- ference” and ‘‘international Communist subversion.’’ Every fascist dictator has made this charge a prime pretext for repression and war. In the UN Second Committee on the same day as Chiao’s speech it was echoed by the represent- ative of the Chilean fascist junta. For the late Joseph McCarthy it was a stock-in-trade: And many U.S. ‘workers have heard their employers ascribe their demands for more pay and better conditions to “‘outside agitators.” But the Maoist effort to deny the ex- istence of Soviet aid to developing countries is a new variation on the old discredited charge. True, Mao Tse- tung’s representative also repeated the “outside agitation’ theme, elaborating on it in his mainly anti-Soviet speech. He accused the USSR. of territorial ex- pansionist motives, just as the impe- rialists had fabricated the myth of “Soviet aggression’ that boomeranged in the defeat of its propagators and indescribable tragedy for millions who were misled by it. The Maoist repre- sentative seemed unaware of the ab- surdity of warning the developing coun- tries of the ‘threat’ in accepting Sov- iet aid while simultaneously denying its existence. : However, denial that the USSR has been and is today assisting the devel- oping countries concerns everyone. The theme is now a fixed tenet of Maoist ideology and will be repeated in the fu- ture. If it gains credulity among the masses of the developing countries, it would be harmful to them, to the forc- es struggling for freedom and peace everywhere, including those of China and the United States. If the governments of the developing countries acted in response to this theme, relations between them and the Socialist countries would be under- mined. This could isolate the develop- ing countries from the main source of aid in resisting neo-colonialist intrigue and aggression. A weakening of their Struggle for liberation from colonialism and consolidation of national independ- ence would have adverse consequences for the struggles of the peoples against imperialism and war. For instance, it would strengthen the U.S. monopolies in relation to the struggle of U.S. work- ing people to defend and expand our democratic liberties and living stan- dards. For these reasons a review of the evidence of Soviet aid is useful at this time. Although for tactical . reasons the Maoists have stopped naming other socialist countries in the hope of split- ting them from the Soviet Union, their denial that the USSR is assisting de- veloping countries actually amounts to a denial that these other socialist coun- tries, specifically those of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA or “Comecon’’), are aiding the coun- tries of Africa, Asia and Latin Amer- ica. This is so because the political and economic viability of the CMEA countries, and the very existence of Comecon, are a consequence of Soviet WORLD MAGAZINE PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1973—PAGE 4 dat Wit! economic, political and military aid— as is, indeed, the existence and present economic and political status of the Chi- nese People’s Republic. Need anyone be reminded that there would be no socialist community today, no socialist Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Mongolia, Cuba, Viet Nam, Korea, Yu- goslavia—nor even a socialist Albania and China—had there not been a USSR that, at the sacrifice of 20 million sons and other millions of civilians as well as untold wealth, destroyed the Hitler war Machine and spearhead of world imperialism? Even Mao Tse-tung de- clared, before he abandoned Marxism- Leninism for Han nationalism, that without the October Revolution in czar- ist Russia there would not have been a victorious Chinese Revolution. The denial of the existence of Soviet aid to the developing countries is actu- ally a denial of socialist aid. But the facts show otherwise. At the present time more than 2,000 huge economic projects in developing countries are receiving financial and tech- ho ut Soviet and equipment, Egypt's Aswan Dam would not be. The GDR trains technicians from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. a . : * a iad n does ear * Ga Soviet Export Aid in deed nical assistance from the CMEA coun- tries. More than 800 are receiving Soviet aid, including 128 in African countries. Half of the 2,000 projects are already in operation; 52 of the Soviet-aided African projects are in operation. According to the United Nations Con- ference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), trade between the socialist countries and developing countries tre- bled in the decade of 1961-1970 and has become ‘‘the most dynamic part of world economic relations.” Credits of more than $9.6 billion for financing these projects have been ex- tended to the developing countries by the Comecon countries. More than half of this_ amount has come from.the Soviet Union. Last June CMEA instructed the Interna- tional Investment Bank to open a special fund for credit to developing countries. The fund with a start of $1.2 billion will open January 1, 1974. Interest rates are 2.5 to 3%. Loans may be repaid in the products of the borrow- ing country. Most important, all projects built with CMEA aid belong to the people of the countries in which they are built. No CMEA country owns a single-share or takes a cent of profit from these projects. None of these terms of credit is matched ~ by any imperialist power. A number of completed and operating projects built with CMEA assistance in the developing countries account for a sizeable part of their national income. These. include the Aswan complex in Egypt, the Euphrates complex in Syria, ‘the Bhilhai Steel Works and two oil re- fineries in India, the Neghu power station in Afghanistan, the Baghdad-Basra rail- way in Iraq. In various stages near com- pletion are an aluminum processing plant and transport facility in Guinea, a ce- ment plant in Mali, an oil refinery in Ethiopia, food processing plants in So- maliland, a cotton mill in Uganda. So- viet aid to Cuba and to the Allende gov- ernment of Chile took the form of credits, direct shipments of food, equipment for construction of houses, factories and ports. In addition to direct assistance in the form of credits, technological and ma- terial aid to the developing countries, the CMEA countries trained many thou- sands of workers, professionals and sci- entists of these countries. In the Soviet Union alone during 1970-71, students from Asia numbered 56,662; from Africa, 6,337; and from Latin America, 1,469 — a total of 13,468 students receiving free education © and living expenses, including clothing and transportation to their homes after graduation. ; Se As for military aid of the Comecon countries to the developing countries, — leaders of the Democratic People’s Re- public of Korea, the Democratic Repub- lic of Viet Nam, the Republic of Cuba and ~ the Mongolian People’s Republic have time and again expressed the gratitude of their peoples for the aid that helped” them to defeat aggression and preserve ~ their independence. Nor has CMEA and Soviet aid been limited to fraternal so- cialist states. Liberation forces in Africa and Asia today are able to continue their struggles thanks to this aid. Nor should the assistance of CMEA ~ countries and the Soviet Union in the © spheres of politics and diplomacy be minimized. The Soviet stand in the United Nations from the date of its inception to the present is one of support for the peoples of the developing countries. This support is recorded in UN records and — documents, a highlight of which is the UN Declaration on the Granting of Inde- pendence to Colonial Countries and Peo- ples, adopted by the 15th General As- sembly in 1960, which spurred the win- ning of independence of a majoritv of the African states now members of the UN. These and numerous other fzets of fering evidence of the assistance the Soviet Union and other CMBA states have been and still are giving to develop- ing countries are conspicuous and may easily be checked in materials available to the peoples of most countries. In the face of this the question arises, why did the Maoist representative in his UN speech deliberately falsify this record? _ The explanation may lie in the words of Mao’s representative. In his attack on the Soviet Union, Chiao Kuan-hua claimed the Soviet government has abandoned Marxism-Leninism and socialism and that it should be judged not by its words or what it thinks of itself but by its deeds. Applying this test to the Maoists, the characterization is exact. The attempt to split the socialist com- munity and to isolate the developing coun-. tries and deprive them of socialist aid is an act contrary to Marxist-Leninist prin- ciples and a betrayal of socialism. And if the test of deeds be applied, why did the Maoists and their Albanian allies refuse to join other socialist countries in protest- ing the frameup of Angela Davis? And why did the Maoists and Albanians re- fuse on October 3 to join all other repre- sentatives of socialist countries in the United Nations urging the world organi- zation to intercede and save the life of — Chile’s Communist Party general secre- tary Luis Corvalan? em Fe FEB SAEZ OORT A ES ZA GE F RAPA FASA A Ff 6G FSS EAL Eo” tik ety mye, ene ee ey ee ee oe ay a aa re ene