\ shows U.S.-China collusion an shington’s new arms deliveries to Thailand are } tye 2 “bringing the U.S. back into Southeast Asia,’ In countries of Indochina said last week. 4 communique published April 12 in Phnom Penh, : we foreign ministers of Kampuchea, Laos and Vietnam ie world attention to the threat to peace created by “tee U.S. military buildup of the Thai regime. H 2B letham, meanwhile, sent a strong protest note April to Beijing against increasing Chinese military incur- “ons into all seven Vietnamese provinces bordering on 4 People) wee Vietnamese newspaper Nhan Dan (The earlier had commented on the mid-February : Visit to Thailand of Yang Dezhi, China’s armed forces | Chief of staff. U.S.-China Collusion : Se Collusion of Beijing and Washington in using the | bord Military to stir up fighting on the Thai-Kampuchea der received wide attention in the news media of } . 2this week. The Reagan administration decision to . Nd missiles to Thailand ‘‘may signal the beginning of 0 = 3 agi . Pen U.S. military intervention in the Southeast Asian j ead once again,”’ said the National Herald (New De- Gand close to the government of Premier Indira tnete newspaper The Hindu (New Delhi) charged that r .S. was “‘openly. instigating’’ the fighting in the (Cyerchea-Thai region. The Central News Service tn S) of India warned that ‘‘the present situation re- \pee us of the beginning of the U.S. aggression in “tnam in the 1960s. The same pretexts are being used. Threat of U.S. internet is today an imminent threat of U.S. armed «vtVvention in Southeast Asia,’’ CNS said. . “ashington is seeking revenge. It has never accepted | "'S defeat in Indochina. Neither has it learned anything ~°M the lessons of history.”” ; the foreign ministers of Kampuchea, Laos and Viet- | “4M, at their extraordinary meeting in Phnom Penh last } eek, repeated the proposal they’made last year that pots of security” be set up on both sides of the border y ween Kampuchea and Thailand. At the meeting, “aMpuchea ‘and Vietnam announced that they had ag- ction the withdrawal of another Vietnamese military ‘ ntingent from Kampuchea in May. ATTACKS ON VIETNAM’S NORTHERN BORDER MOUNT Ars build-up in Thailand News Analysis A Tom Foley Both countries earlier pledged that all Vietnamese troops would be withdrawn from Kampuchea when Thailand’s territory was no longer being used as a base for aggression against Kampuchea. This was spelled out at the February summit meeting in Vientiane, Laos, by the leaders of the three countries of Indochina. Vietnamese military withdrawal from Kampuchea, the summit pledged, would take place after the threat from Beijing disappeared and after the forces of the ousted Pol Pot regime (backed by China, Thailand and the U.S.) had been fully deprived-of support. The Vientiane summit came out in favor of an inter- - national conference on Southeast Asia to consolidate peace in the region. The countries at the summit reaf- firmed their proposal to sign non-aggression treaties with China and the member-states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), that is, with Thai- land, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philip- pines. Constitutes no threat It was stressed at the Vientiane summit and at the foreign ministers’ meeting in Phnom Penh that the stay in Kampuchea ofa force of Vietnamese military volunteers in no way constitutes a threat to any state. The Viet- namese military presence, which might well be com- pared to the presence of Cuban troops in Angola, is fully in keeping with the principles of the UN and the Non- Aligned Movement and is based on the request of the legitimate government of Kampuchea. In the recent fighting just inside Kampuchea, U.S. and other Westem news media accounts make it clear that the Pol Pot forces were badly defeated by the Kam- pucheans and the Vietnamese volunteers. The Pol Pot forces, armed by the CIA and the Beijing regime, are based in so-called ‘‘refugee camps’’ which in some cases - actually straddle the Thai-Kampuchean border, ‘Not One Inch’ Nhan Dan, the Hanoi newspaper of the Communist é fe: vee. HANDS OFF VIETNAM! ¥ % — MIKE PHILLIPS TRIBUNE PHOTO Ottawa, Feb. 1979, Canadians rally in support of Vietnam following 600,000 strong Chinese invasion. As then, Chinese military attacks along the Vietnam-China border last week were aimed at supporting former Khmer Rouge bands which China is backing against the legitimate government of Kampuchea. Party of Vietnam, in commenting on Chinese chief of staff Yang Dezhi’s February visit to Thailand and China’s threats and incursions against Vietnam itself, stressed that “‘today, socialist Vietnam is far stronger than it was in 1979. ‘‘Beijing should realize that Vietnam will not cede one inch of its land to aggressors, Nhan Dan said, ‘‘and it should keep in mind the rebuff given in 1979 to the Chinese aggression, to the 600,000-man invasion force which was at that time commanded by Yang Dezhi.” 5 * * * Tom Foley is an international affairs writer for the U.S. Daily World. es Intemational Focus ee Tom Morris Collection of thieves and bagmen Reagan political appointees have been nothing short of Mcredible — from the. anti- - vironmental clowns he put charge of the Environmental Otection Agency to the anti- labor hacks heading up the partment of Labor. From top to bottom Reagan _ as replaced former admin- \Strators and advisers with a California-Texas mafia of agmen, right-wing cronies and the cream of Conservative America. His budget chief William Stockton, architect of Reagan- Omics, was a third-rate Reagan _ Speechwriter before he took on the country’s economy. Others, like Ambassador to Canada Robinson, have noth- | ‘'g more. behind them than ing paid off for raising mil- lions for Reagan’s triumphant Tace to the White House. Now the president has foisted his appointees on the World with the naming of Ken- Neth Adelman last week as di- tector of the U.S. Arms Con- _ Yoland Disarmament Agency. The 36 year-old Adelman, _ Critics argue, has “neither the €xperience nor enthusiasm” Needed for the job. In fact, Adelman is opposed to arms control. With the delicacy of the cur- rent Geneva talks on arms con- trol, with the Cruise and Persh- ing-2 waiting to be shipped to Western Europe should the Geneva talks collapse, the appointment of Adelman is nothing short of irresponsible. It's a clear signal to the USSR and to Europe that the Reagan administration is bank- ing on the talks failing. It bears out charges that the U-S. will ensure failure at Geneva to do what it intended all along — upsetting the missile balance in Europe under the guise of So- viet ‘‘non-cooperation’’. ‘Soviet threat’ makes them rich Reagan appointees have a dismal record. The Environ- mental Protection Agency be- came the laughing stock of the nation, mired in _ political favoritism and conflict-of- interest charges. EPA chief Anne Burford re- signed last month when it. be- came clear she was nothing more than a front for the giants of industry. She was replaced by deputy-chief John Her- nandez who lasted only two weeks before getting caught altering reports which his department had produced crit- ical of a major polluter. He also resigned. Now the justice Department is investigating two others — Navy Secretary John Lehman and Assistant Defence Secre- tary Richard Perle — both have been moonlighting. Lehman and Perle, key pol- icy advisers to Reagan, have been shown to have personal financial interests in defence- related firms and have done quite nicely, thank you. 4 Lehman owned Abington Corp., which receives defence contracts from the govern- ment. Perle is a consultant at $50,000 per year, for an Israeli company; he also worked for Abington Corp. The tangled web of how and when -these two top presi- dential advisers used their pos- itions for personal gain cannot hide a simple fact — they help shape U.S. military policy to _ line their pockets. Small wonder they support the ‘‘Soviet threat’. myth which just happens to make them rich. Here's how Perle’s job is de- scribed by the New York Times: ‘His influence in the Reagan administration far ex- ceeds that normally held by an assistant secretary of defence. During the transition, he was able to place associates in im- portant national security posi- tions, and in the Defence Department he has played a major role in creating policies on arms control and trade with the Soviet Union.” Former U.S. president Eisenhower knew what he was talking about when he coined the phrase ‘*military-industrial ‘complex’. Birds of a feather? The great ‘*Who-repre- sents-Solidarity-in-Canada?”’ debate rages. And into the fray rides Peter Worthington wntt- ing April 19 in the anti-union, non-union Toronto Sun. The CLC last month switched horses naming two of its own as the new “Solidarity reps’ here. This offends Worthington who writes a hand-wringing plea backing former rep Zygmunt Przetakiewicz and someone named Alicja’ Matuszewska who have now set up shop in- dependently. The CLC. you may recall. fired Przetakiewicz last month. Matuszewska, unhappy with her treatment took her case to the most anti-union sheet in the country. She clearly won over Worthington, which should give some idea how deep trade unionism runs in her veins. He even prints the ‘legitimate’ telephone number. if anyone cares. With two alleged Solidanty offices around, maybe one could spend a minute and organize the Toronto Sun. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—APRIL 29, 1983—Page 15