China: the Struggle Within: Nixon's Visits to Moscow and Peking

Nixon's Visits to Moscow and Peking

October 18, 1971

Nixon will visit Moscow next spring, after his trip to the People's Republic of China. To political partisans of the Soviet leadership, like the Daily World in this country, this trip is a "breakthrough for peace" and "an important breach in the aggressive structure built up by U.S. imperialism." (The Daily World, by the way, was not so wildly enthusiastic about Nixon's trip to China.) Other left tendencies see Nixon's projected visit to China in a similar light: as a victory for China and the oppressed.

Workers World Party has always supported the socialist countries against imperialist attempts to undermine and destroy them in the irreconcilable antagonism between the two social systems, we stand unconditionally with our class, the proletariat, defending the workers' states regardless of the politics of the leadership.

The history of the world since 1917 is replete with proofs that Western imperialism's basic objective is to destroy the socialist countries. Their strategy since the formation of the Chinese People's Republic has been to try and drive a wedge between the two great socialist powers.

It is in this light that we view Nixon's forthcoming visits to both China and the Soviet Union. Nixon, taking advantage of the split between the two great socialist powers, is blackmailing both the Soviet Union and China with the prospect that the U.S. may enter into an alliance with one against the other. Even the timing of these two trips is arranged with that end in mind.

Those who claim that Nixon's trip to Peking (or Moscow) is a good thing for the workers and oppressed of the world say that imperialism is forced to sue for peace because it has been so greatly weakened by its failure to subdue the Vietnamese. It is absolutely true that imperialism's failures in Southeast Asia have brought on both a political and economic crisis for the monopolists. But is Nixon opening up a diplomatic offensive with the Soviet Union and China in order to sue for peace, which he could do at Paris, or to recoup U.S. losses and reorganize for a new and (he hopes) more successful aggression?

Let us look at the realities. The U.S. has not withdrawn from Southeast Asia. On the contrary, it still maintains over 200,000 combat troops in Vietnam, and recent Pentagon disclosures show that plans are already laid out for military campaigns in Cambodia through 1977! For Nixon to be invited to come to the capitals of either socialist ally while there are daily bombings cannot be encouraging to the Vietnamese liberation fighters.

In addition, the U.S. continues to bolster its position in the strategic Middle East, sending more Phantom jets to Israel, lending all its authority to the most tyrannical puppets like the Shah and King Hussein, and shoring up the NATO southern flank by promoting the Greek fascists while sending the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to Spain to integrate another fascist state into its European military alliance.

On the general military front, Laird in a Pentagon press briefing has voiced dire warnings about the Soviet Union's missile system capabilities, laying the groundwork for another escalation of the arms budget. The Pentagon is also demanding more billions to expand the Navy, citing the growth of the Soviet fleet as a pretext.

The point is that imperialism has not changed its basic nature, nor has it resigned itself to the existence and development of socialism in the world. U.S. diplomatic strategy, like all aspects of their foreign policy, is calculated to find a breathing spell at the bargaining table while they make preparations to renew the expansion on which the health of their system depends.

We have no argument with those who say that the socialist countries must try and normalize relations with the capitalist nations. But it is false to imply that the only way in which diplomatic state relations can be normalized is by inviting Nixon to the capitals of the socialist world to engage the most hated imperialist leader in secret discussions. The larger issue is whether Nixon's visits will serve the interests of developing socialism in China and the Soviet Union, as well as the international struggle of the working class. We think it would be better if he stayed here. And it would be 100 times better if we were able to sharpen the growing revolutionary struggle here and make it impossible for him to leave.

Main menu Book menu