\n?

. \ists, whereas for these same
inandists separatist Ojukwu, a
me Of the monopolies, remained a
| pion” and a “hero,” who sent
messages to Mao expressing
Felt gratitude.”
j \he same time, U.S. imperialism,
t@ to undermine Nigeria and
s, a blow at the national-liberation
‘ent in Africa, championed the
\t “self-determination” of ‘“Bia-
§ with Peking taking the same
m Today we see U.S. imperialism
\& itself off as a defender of “na-
sovereignty,” in an effort to
> a successful national-liberation
\Ie in East Bengal, whereas the

4, jeaders are on the spot in back- °

© Pharisaical policy of Washing-
hich is Pakistan’s partner in the
lO and SEATO blocs.

Chinese government, bidding
see role of a defender of the op-
Nd peoples and of a founder of
’s democracy,

the Nepalese

i

% a

Litant Bengalis celebrated the an
\h Mujibir Rahman last month.

\ per, N’o’vin Habar, writes, is in
a close ally of the United States
&). offensive against the people of
g\,2 Desh.
\lyzing the situation’ which had
S»ped, Progressive, an American
|l magazine, said in its issue of
PS ugust that, instead of rallying
the banner of the Maoists, the
es of Asia, Africa, and Latin
ica turned away from China, as
Mult of the cultural revolution
"\) And, in general, the interna-
| affairs of that country were in
\ state. Mao’s “bright ideas,”
“\agazine added, once again proved
4: an unsuitable philosophy for
‘Aig China. ;
MAier these conditions, the desire
e to a deal with U.S. imperial-
ybegan prevailing more than ever
in the policy of Mao’s follow-
tlong with the stake to support
ist regimes, and double dealing in
m to the struggling nations,
ultimately ‘meant the betrayal
ir interests. :

@ ar signs from Peking showed the
} ruling circles that they could en-
in some more gambles in Indo-
oi, without fearing to have com-
jions in relations with China. And
Neant the go-ahead for extending
pgression in South Vietnam, Cam-
and Laos. The Western press
discussing now and again var-
of “exchange” of Taiwan for In-
a, i.e., a deal under which the
would find a form of recognition
te sovereignty of the PRC over
n, with Peking helping to “paci-
ietnam.

Aiming to be a champion of the
dom of nations,’ Peking never-

tS” ACTIONS

Se
Upenegngeseeveeee0eenaedUU0UNEUEUEUENONGEGEUELULEUOUEDEAOCGEOUOUOCEDEUAUEOOUOOUOGEOEUEEUEUOEEUUACOEGEDE

-advocates

eee

nouncement. of the release of their leader

=oOUUSUEGEEURIEOIUEUEOUE

in

theless preserves its colonial enclaves
on Chinese territory—Hong Kong and
Macao—regarding them as important
outposts for the development of trade,
economic and political ties with the
West, especially with the USA, Bri-
tain and Portugal. No wonder the Por-
tuguese colonialists together with the
USA, Israel: and other most flagrant
of colonialism and _ neo-
colonialism, showed solidarity with
Peking during the discussion of the
conflict in the Indian subcontinent.

The peoples of the Third World are
increasingly coming to realize the great
gap between the “most revolutionary”
words of the Peking leaders and their
reactionary actions. The course of
events also shows the real worth of
the ‘‘peace-making efforts” of the Ma-
oists in the United Nations.

All the manoeuvres of the Peking
representatives in the UN, during the
debates on the conflict in the Indian
sub-continent, pursued ‘one and the

WOVE

Lt,

NS

“THIS 18 OUTRAGOUS I4 HOW CA

Indian and Bangla Desh students at the University of California at Los Angeles

sing the Bangla Desh national anthem as they display its flag during a celebration

at the end of the India-Pakistan war.

same goal—to fan up passions and to
aggravate the conflict. By showing
solidarity with the USA, the Peking
leaders actually encouraged the U.S.
imperialists to an armed intervention
in the Indian sub-continent under the
pretext of discharging their “allied
commitments” under CENTO and

-SEATO. And China’s stand certainly

was one of the factors which made
the ships of the U.S. Seventh Fleet go
to the Indian Ocean.

U.S= Show of Force

The U.S. show of force in the Indian
Ocean was something more than an at-
tempt to pressure India and other
countries, which support the just na-
tional-liberation struggle of the people
of East Bengal. It was one more at-
tempt to “impress” the Arab countries,
and to provide support for Israel.
Hardly anyone will be naive enough to
think that U.S. imperialism, supporting
the Isracli aggression against the Arab
countries, is not the self-same imper-
ialism that wanted to strangle the

i Wy, e ee

bey er, MMtlltt. tts.

N WE RUN THE GOVERNMENT

IF PEOPLE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING 2.”

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1972—PAGE 7

people of East Bengal. The coincidence
of the stands of the Chinese leaders
and of Washington in the struggle
against Bangla Desh, is an actual coin-
cidence of positions in the struggle
against the peoples of Arab countries,
against the peoples of Indochina,
Africa, and Latin America.

During the debates on the Middle
East problem, Peking representatives
in the UN did their damndest to act as
“friends” of the Arab peoples, and they
even went as far as accusing—contrary
to generally known facts—the Soviet
Union of having a hand in (what da
you think?) “Zionist aggression.”

However, it is impossible to conceal
that the Maoists, while clamoring about
supporting the Palestinian and other
Arab peoples, are actually engaged in
back-stage intrigues; they are estab-
lishing contacts with Israel, Zionist
agents, to achieve, according to Al-
Shaab, a Beirut newspaper, ‘“‘rapproche-
ment between the PRC and Israel.” The
Beirut newspaper An-Nida pointed out,
as far back as August this year, that
the Peking leaders supported the anti-
communist forces in the Middle East,
and that this was one more evidence
of the actual essence of their ‘special
course,” aimed at splitting and under-
mining the world national liberation
movement, and that this exposed the
meaning of their “rapprochement” with
the USA.

Whereas during the debates on the
conflict in the Indian sub-continent the
Chinese representatives demanded an
immediate “ceasefire,” which without
the recognition of the lawful rights of
the people of East Bengal could mean
only a continuation and aggravation
of the conflict, in the discussion of
Middle East affairs, they urged the
Arab countries to start war, and there-
by also worked for further complica-
tion of the conflict.

In both cases, the Maoists played
into the hands of imperialism, which is
interested in whipping up conflicts be-
tween young independent states, in
having “Asians wage war on Asians,”
“Africans on Africans,” and this be-
cause such wars undermine the forces
of national liberation and provide ad-
ditional opportunities for the neo-
colonialists.

The events of the past few weeks
once more showed the whole world the
real aspect of the Peking leaders —
traitors to the national-liberation move-
ment, men who objectively help im-
perialism in the struggle against the
peoples that fight for liberty, progress,
and peace on Earth. In the struggle of
the forces of imperialism and reaction,
the Mao group has sided with imper-
ialism, and those who still fail to see
this will sooner or later come to realize
the fact.

(Pravda, Dec. 22, 1971)