2. Behind the U.S. 'Neutrality' Posture
February 13, 1979
From all that has been said earlier on relations between the socialist states, the one new and absolutely ominous phenomenon is the possibility of a wide conflict pitting one socialist state against another socialist state. Nothing like this has ever happened to any large degree (dismissing for a moment the Sino-Soviet border conflict in 1969 at the Ussuri river). Such a conflict spells out the gravest dangers for the cause of socialism and the destiny of humanity.
To deny that the Sino-Soviet conflict is a struggle between socialist states is to close one's eyes to reality. And it is even worse to become an adherent of one or the other of the socialist countries on the spurious grounds that the other is capitalist or social-imperialist. This will only help in the adulteration of the class consciousness of the working class. To dilute the working class approach, to discard Marxist-Leninist analysis, means to substitute instead a form of bourgeois ideology.
WHICH IS ALLIED WITH IMPERIALISM IS KEY QUESTION
Whichever socialist country solicits aid from imperialism, allies itself with imperialism, either overtly or covertly, or receives aid from imperialism, directly or indirectly, to fight another socialist country, becomes an accomplice of imperialism and therefore must be denounced and condemned. The correct attitude of the international working class and the oppressed in such a conflict must be based on who is allied or seeks an alliance with, who is aided and abetted by imperialism.
In a certain way such a situation is analogous to two trade unions in the midst of a jurisdictional or other dispute. The attitude of the workers should first of all be shaped by which union is allied with or is aided and abetted by the company. For if a union, however laudable its proclaimed aims and objectives, or high-sounding its pronouncements, is allied with or in collusion with the company, it thereby ought to lose the confidence of the workers.
It is in this light that we must examine the most recent trends in the evolution of U.S. strategy and tactics in relationship to the socialist countries.
U.S. PROFESSES 'NEUTRALITY' IN SINO-SOVIET DISPUTE
At the present moment the Carter administration has opened a foreign policy campaign designed to demonstrate that it holds a neutral position in the struggle between the USSR and China and that its only concern is to maintain "peace and a stable system of independent states in Southeast Asia." "We are not taking sides," said a State Department policy statement, "in the struggle between Communist states in Asia."
Furthermore, the policy announcement went on to say that the U.S. would be "seriously concerned over a Chinese attack on Viet Nam." "We have expressed our concerns," the statement went on, "directly to the Vietnamese, Soviet, and China governments about the dangers of continued, perhaps expanded, fighting."
Continuing in the same vein, the statement went on to say, "Our confidential discussions with these governments have been fully consistent with our public statements We remain seriously concerned over the continued Vietnamese attack on Kampuchea."
The State Department pronouncement, which it described as a policy statement endorsed by the White House, is a classic example of a cover story calculated to hide the real position of American finance capital in relation to the socialist countries. Its strong self-righteous assertions follow the basic outlines of a well-planned policy laid out long ago, indeed decades ago, following the victory of the Chinese Revolution, the establishment of the Peoples Republic, and the emergence of a whole series of socialist countries into a virtual fraternal alliance of a whole grouping of socialist states. However, these latest pronouncements constitute a new phase in the overall worldwide ideological struggle between imperialism and the socialist countries.
The principal objective of U.S. policy is and has been to split the socialist alliance apart, poison relations among the several members, instigate one against another, and bring the day ever closer of military conflict among them. The State Department policy statement is by no means a new stratagem in the formulation of U.S. finance capital's basic foreign policy endeavors.
HOW U.S. 'NEUTRALITY' WORKED IN WW I AND WW II
On the contrary, it follows the long line of well-worn "neutrality" postures taken by the U.S. since the Spanish-American War and most particularly exemplified in the years before World War I and World War II. These postures almost always begin with strongly worded disavowals of any intention to get into the war or of aiding one side against another. They arc strictly calculated to appease the anti-war sentiments of the masses.
Gradually the momentum is built up by the capitalist press of the need to further arm the U.S. in case of "unforeseen eventualities" in which the U.S. has a "vital interest" (meaning a vital, predatory, imperialist interest). In the meantime, however, the war machine is more and more cranked up for action.
In the interim period of "neutrality," which it turns out really means U.S. preparations for war, what is not so often well publicized but is of the greatest significance to imperialist finance capital is the frantic drive that commences to obtain economic, diplomatic, and political advantages deriving from the developing conflict. The sale of guns, war materiel, and ammunition of all sorts becomes a scandalously lucrative business. War orders destined for the belligerent countries, either secretly or overtly, become truly stupendous means of garnering super-profits.
In the three years before the U.S. went into the First World War, the "war to save democracy," U.S. banks and industrial corporations amassed fabulous profits by accelerating trade and commercial deals, which reduced the Allied powers to virtual clients of American imperialism. Finally the U.S. entered the war when it was clear that the moment was most advantageous to its world position and from the viewpoint of becoming the bulwark of world reaction and the gendarme of world imperialist interests.
The U.S. played essentially the same role in the days before it finally entered the Second World War. This left it in the supreme position to economically, politically, and diplomatically take over, as a legacy of the Second World War, the crumbling imperialist empires of Britain, France, Belgium, Holland, and what was left of German imperialist interests in Africa, Turkey, and elsewhere. The position of U.S. imperialism had been to squeeze out every ounce of economic advantage in the way of markets, areas of diplomatic influence, and sources of raw materials before it committed itself in the war against the fascist powers.
It should not be forgotten that the so-called U.S. neutralist role during the Spanish Civil War was also completely fraudulent. In words, the Roosevelt administration allowed itself to be played up as sympathetic to the resistance struggle against Franco fascism. In reality, it viewed the Spanish Civil War as mainly a miniature military arena, a dress rehearsal for the larger war that was already well on the horizon.
The profession of neutrality by American imperialism early in the First and Second World Wars differed, of course, from the kind of neutrality which the Carter administration, as well as the administrations of Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, and Truman before him, envision in the struggle between the socialist countries. So far as the socialist countries are concerned, the basic aim of the U.S. is to see the socialist countries destroy themselves so the American bankers and industrialists can walk in, with a minimum of military forces, pick up the pieces, and resume the role of the unchallenged world exploiter.
STATEMENT A COVER FOR U.S.-CHINA ALLIANCE
Thus the Feb. 9 U.S. policy statement on neutrality is deliberately made in strong language but is in reality a cover for the alliance between the U.S. and China and the broader one which encompasses Japan and NATO as well. The U.S. bankers and industrialists hope to first of all wrest as many economic, political, and diplomatic advantages from the PRC leadership as possible before the U.S. commits itself to sending sophisticated technology to China, particularly of a military type. In the meantime, Washington has given its blessing to West European attempts to sell military hardware to the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). These are already in progress.
Thus the British Harrier helicopter deal as well as some deals made by the French and German imperialists have been approved by the Carter administration. There are other arms sales in the works meant to bolster the PRC war potential against the USSR. There can be no mistaking the fact that the neutralist stance of the U.S. is so preponderantly weighted against the USSR that it could scarcely be hidden from any but the most naive.
At the same time that the U.S. State Department issued its hypocritical neutrality statement it vigorously asserted its "obligation" to help its ally in Southeast Asia, the reactionary Thai regime, with arms and economic assistance. It is an open secret that the PRC leaders are using Thai territory to funnel military assistance to the Pol Pot forces in the struggle against the Kampuchean National United Front for National Salvation. Arming the reactionary Thai government while its territory is being used as a funnel against the Peoples Republic of Kampuchea as well as against Viet Nam is in effect arming China against Viet Nam and Kampuchea.
Should these efforts by the U.S. fail to overwhelm the Kampuchean forces and should the efforts by NATO, Japan, and the U.S. in supplying the PRC with technology and materiel nevertheless also fail to overwhelm the Vietnamese, it is a foregone conclusion that U.S. efforts at quickening the pace in the delivery of military aid and material support to China will take on a new, more ominous dimension. This however will in no way exclude the continual play-acting of the neutrality stance.
As in past prewar periods, side by side with a so-called embargo on the export of arms to the belligerents, there is also the supplying of war materiel and military and economic assistance. Such export bans have been entertained by the U.S. Congress and passed in earlier prewar days, but have always proved to be a dead letter in practice. As night follows day the developing war psychosis grips the military establishment and as the capitalist media whip up a hysterical campaign for the U.S. to enter the arena the administration finally and "reluctantly" enters the war to "defend its own vital [i.e., imperialist] interests."
REVOLUTIONARY UPRISINGS CAN UPSET U.S. WAR PLANS
At the present moment the imperialist establishment has its hands full with the Iranian Revolution and the possibility of a blow-up in the Middle East where a varied assortment of U.S. puppets are sitting on a virtual powder keg.
The mass of the people in the U.S. are still war-weary as a result of the Viet Nam debacle. A much larger section of the population than ever is conscious of the vulnerability in U.S. imperialism maintaining a far-flung world empire at a time when revolutionary conflagrations, ignited by tremendous mass protest and indignation against oppression, are ever more prevalent.
Nevertheless, moves in Congress such as that made by Senator Stennis urging the renewal of the draft, long championed by the Pentagon, are a sign of what the militarists are pushing for. The swollen military budget, which keeps ever rising, is without a doubt the single most significant indicator as to where the military establishment and the military-industrial complex are hopelessly heading.
But the mass of the people are not at all acclimated to any type of war adventure which involves actual military intervention, especially on a large scale. The most likely course to be taken by the U.S. government is for it first to slowly position U.S. forces in areas where they seem to serve a purely defensive purpose but where their presence will inevitably take on a Tonkin Gulf coloration.
It must be remembered that there never was a Congressional vote in favor of the Viet Nam or Korean wars. Executive actions by the Truman and Johnson administrations proved to be definitive war measures without Congressional sanction. They were faits accomplis and Congress rubber-stamped the actions. The intervention in the Dominican Republic wasn't even put to a Congressional vote of any sort.
Nor does the so-called War Powers Act of 1974, which is supposed to limit Presidential and executive action in the military field, really stand in the way of unilateral action by the White House and the Pentagon. The tree-cutting incident on the DPRK side of the demilitarized zone, which seems almost to be forgotten now, was a clear test of whether this limitation of Presidential authority in military affairs had any validity. But no one in Congress raised any voice when the administration threatened to use military action against the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.
There is no question, of course, that U.S. imperialism is beset with tremendous problems of both an internal and external character, especially now that the Bakhtiar regime has been overthrown and the Iranian Revolution is in full swing. This has upset and thrown into confusion the factional alignments in the imperialist establishment.
It also has to reckon with the possibility that the outbreak of Sino-Soviet military warfare will not degenerate into a war of annihilation, but on the contrary may result in a short-lived military skirmish which ends up in a basic settlement all around among the socialist states. This again and again explains the extremely cautious position the Carter administration is taking towards its new alliance with China and its dogged efforts to completely hold Taiwan as a hostage in case China "reneges."
POTENTIAL FOR BROAD ANTI-WAR SENTIMENT IN U.S.
Nor is it altogether excluded that the U.S. may find itself committed to large-scale military intervention at a time when popular anti-war sentiment in the United States can easily become rekindled. Nor is there likely to be a repetition of what happened during the Viet Nam War when the labor movement and the working class as a whole remained passive. The situation today finds an extremely discontented working class as well as middle class.
The efforts of the Pentagon's colossal war machine to divert this dissatisfaction into war channels may, contrary to their expectations, not turn out at all. Swift moves by the Pentagon war machine may bring in their train changes in the mass consciousness of the working class and the oppressed peoples as well as large sections of the middle class. For one thing, they are sure to accelerate the inflationary spiral. Military moves on a large scale, moves which cannot be hidden from the sight of the mass of the people, are likely to get their wrath as well as their attention and notice.
Even now, there is a slow awakening, a gradual realization that it is the Pentagon and the swollen defense budget which is a basic cause of the galloping inflation. Capitalist politicians who up to now have failed even to mention the war budget have begun to speak out against it, if ever so timidly. Just two years ago Congress went beyond the request of the Pentagon for defense appropriations. This is no longer the prevailing mood in the light of skyrocketing inflation.
A military adventure by the U.S. is sure to focus the anger of the masses upon the government and its war policies more so than in earlier periods, when defense orders seemed to be the answer to unemployment. This myth is being ripped to tatters.
The loss of payment for $8 to $10 billion worth of military orders as a result of the Iranian Revolution illustrates that the mere piling up of many billions of dollars worth of weapons orders, presumably to defend U.S. interests, does not safeguard or secure jobs in defense plants but makes them more precarious.
In the countries which have these weapons shoved down their throats, the problems multiply over the decades, especially when their social and political significance has been hidden. What was originally seen by the imperialists as a lucrative market can explode in their faces, as witness the stunning blow to imperialism so vividly demonstrated by the Iranian Revolution. The latter is only the precursor of other, more far-reaching developments.
For all these reasons the U.S. posturing of neutrality in the developing conflict in Southeast Asia is not likely to serve as much of a cover for its predatory designs. But it does emphasize the dangers involved for the capitalist establishment in moving too hurriedly at a time when the fires of revolutionary ferment are engaging the imperialist colossus on many other fronts.
STRUGGLE OVER U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
Nevertheless, from a broad historical perspective it is the dynamics of monopoly capitalism with its congenital propensity in the direction of military adventures which is decisive. This is what constitutes the overriding factor in the makeup of U.S. foreign policy. It is no wonder that since the day the Carter administration formally took office and completed filling its Cabinet posts and staff, it has been wracked by a constant, relentless, and overriding conflict precisely on the direction of U.S. foreign policy.
In the public eye and in a formal sense it takes on the shape of a struggle between "hard-liners," the outlandishly and outrageously pro-war faction as symbolized by National Security Advisor Brzezinski, and those who take the stand and posture of the more moderate wing in the administration, as exemplified by Secretary of State Vance and his coterie of supporters.
The fact that both these wings can continue in the administration over such a long period attests to the fright of the administration in decisively breaking with one or the other.
It is not that there is really a substantial difference between the two. In reality it is the traditional division of labor between soft cop and hard cop, both having the same objective. However, in the present circumstances a definitive tilt to one direction or another would almost surely upset the equilibrium of forces within the ruling establishment.
An open disavowal of the Vance forces would cause a tremendous weakening of popular support for the Carter administration and tend to expose it to peril in the event a war crisis develops in the period immediately preceding the presidential elections.
On the other hand, a disavowal of the Brzezinski wing, such as his own personal elimination from office, would even pose the possibility, while admittedly very remote, of a military coup, although the so-called debate now going on between the ultra-right and the administration is still formulated in terms of polite controversy. However, this possibility must not be dismissed given the Kennedy experience after Viet Nam and the Bay of Pigs.
It is not the elimination of Brzezinski as an individual which would be very significant, since he himself, like Kissinger before him, has no independent base of his own in the ruling class. Kissinger as well as Brzezinski are personages who have been retained, that is hired, by powerful sections of the ruling class, Kissinger by the Rockefellers, Brzezinski by a coalition of the military-industrial complex and others. Neither Brzezinski nor Kissinger can independently on their own wield a great deal of authority in political affairs.
Underlying everything else is the continued and never-ending crisis of the economic system itself, which seems to know no end to continual and evermore serious disturbances.
It is a matter of public record that while in the early 1920s it used to be the more radical economists of the bourgeoisie who direly predicted capitalist crises, and the conservative bourgeoisie seemed to ooze nothing but ever-lasting capitalist prosperity, things have turned upside-down today! Now it's the conservative bourgeois economists who almost daily predict an oncoming recession, as they call it.
They almost wish for it and pray that it will come sooner in the hope that it will be a short one. The longer the period of relatively stable industrial production continues, the more fearful they are that the ultimate bust which is sure to come will be far more disastrous, if not catastrophic.
Thus the politics of the bourgeoisie in the main are concerned with harnessing the productive capacity of the country to maintain a stable equilibrium of the social system, an equilibrium which means, so far as the relationship between the working class and the bourgeoisie, between the exploited and exploiter, an intensification of exploitation and ever-greater pressure for the extraction of surplus value from the hides of the workers and the oppressed.
The consequent buildup of a formidable ocean of discontent and dissatisfaction is bound to reach the surface of open political struggle.