UNITE! Info #297en: |
|
|
On Tibet and the India-China border war in 1962
08.12.2007 |
|
|
Intro note:In a discussion at the Modern Marxism mailing list about the role of Mao Zedong in history, among other things some questions of the nationalities policy and the foreign policy of China in the period of 1949-1976, when that country's guiding party, the Communist Party of China (CPC), was still led by its longtime chairman Mao Zedong (1893-09.09.1976), have come up:The questions of whether the actions of the CPC and of China in that time concerning Tibet and concerning unsettled issues of the border between China and India, over which there was a brief war in 1962, corresponded to those principles of proletarian internationalism that any genuinely Marxist-Leninist party and any genuinely socialist state must uphold, or whether they did not - whether, perhaps to some part, they violated those principles and were bourgeois-type actions of oppression of foreign nations and/or of nationalist expansionism. These questions were raised by marxist front (MF) <marxistfront@yahoo.co.in>, who has expressed support for the line of Mao Zedong while also holding that the CPC as led by him made some major mistakes, for instance during the Cultural Revolution (on this last I disagree, as I've written), and who in a posting on 03.12 wrote i.a.: "Then the attack on Tibet and India (please do not get me wrong or think I have become chauvinist) to a certain aspect made China look aggressor in the eyes of other newly free colonial countries of Asia. This also severely retarded the communist movement in many areas and more so in South Asia."No, there actually were not any such "attacks" by socialist China, neither on Tibet nor on India. This I can say and can demonstrate to you and to others with some certainty already, I think - although I must also admit that there are many things concerning the history and even the geography of the region in question, much closer to you and the others in your group, which I, living in far-away and likewise capitalist Sweden, still know very little about. Certainly, the actual policies of parties which say that they are Marxist-Leninist and of states which say that they are socialist must always be scrutinized objectively. They must be compared to those facts of the situation and of history which you, to the best of your ability, can find out. As experience has clearly shown, the statements by some people saying that "we are Marxist-Leninists" and "the state led by us is socialist" and that "therefore, of course, we have never done anything wrong, are not doing anything wrong now and don't intend to do anything wrong in the future either" should not be taken just at face value but should be checked against reality. But the propositions saying that "China attacked Tibet" (in 1950-1951, which is the point in time implied in that proposition) and that "China attacked India" (in the border war in 1962) are totally false, even some relatively superficial investigations of them will show. Below I shall present an investigation of each of them which I cannot claim is anything more than a relatively superficial investigation but which of course can always be complemented later, for instance by your group, MF. Tibet, so closely intertwined with China since more than 700 years back that it was, and is, fully justified to say that it was and is a part of China (although the whole history concerning this is a complicated matter too), was certainly not "attacked", but was liberated, in 1950-51. Concerning this, I shall bring some quotes from articles which I've judged are telling basically the truth. India certainly was not "attacked", in 1962, by China either. There were some unsettled border issues between the two countries, which apparently today are still unsettled, concerning above all two regions, one in the western part of the border area and one in the eastern part. I cannot presume to tell, concerning either of those, which country is its rightful owner. But obviously, the border war in 1962 was caused by a refusal, on the part of India, to settle the outstanding issues by negotiations, and above all by a chauvinist policy of national expansionism and of aggression against China which the then government of India - although that country had itself recently been liberated from colonialist rule - engaged in, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, and was supported in this both by the US imperialists and also by the Soviet revisionists, who at that time had recently gained state power. Concerning this too, I shall bring some quotes from articles which I'm assessing as basically correct. Everything that I on my part have learned earlier concerning the nationalities policy and the foreign policy of China as led by the CPC when Mao Zedong was its chairman points to these policies having been brilliantly correct, permeated by a genuine proletarian internationalism and standing out as a most positive example for all other countries and parties. I've now recently sought some more information on those two questions which are among those that need to be scrutinized if you are to arrive at a correct judgment of China's policies in that time and which are also connected with each other, that of Tibet and that of the border war with India in 1962. And that which I've found, I hold, goes to confirm that earlier assessment of mine too. The actions by the later and present Chinese leadership, both as to nationality policy and as to foreign policy, after that country was taken over by the bourgeoisie in the form of a revisionist clique, in 1976-1978, of course are another matter entirely. That clique for instance in February 1979 perpetrated a war against Vietnam, with a large troop incursion into that country, purportedly in part over a border issue, which was clearly an unjust war on the part of China and one which in reality was started above all in order to "justify" suppression against the people in China itself, who then was protesting against those attacks on Mao Zedong and on the entire line of socialism which the ruling revisionists had recently engaged in quite publicly. The policy of that ruling revisionist clique in the China of today concerning the Tibetan national minority in that country I know practically nothing about, but it's likely, I think, that it's very reactionary. Also it must be recognized that one earlier state which was socialist, namely, the very first one in the world, the Soviet Union, at some points when it was still socialist (in 1939-40, for instance, and also later) did pursue certain policies and commit certain actions which had the character of a wrongful, bourgeois-nationalist expansionism, ran counter to the principle of proletarian internationalism and to that of self-determination of the nations and which could not be justified either by those arguments of "necessary self-defence by the proletarian state" which were advanced for justifying these actions. In earlier times than that, such policies and actions on the part of tsarist reactionary Russia were the ones dominating that state, "its very lifeblood", and they later got to be that once more, from approximately the early 1960s on, under the rule of the revisionist and social-imperialist new tsars (as these were very correctly analysed and exposed by the Chinese communists in particular), until eventually, they choked on Afghanistan and most of their false-flagged empire crumbled. But there were some such wrong policies and actions also by the earlier, socialist Soviet Union, something which of course contradicted that character which that state still had - should one conclude perhaps, from these actions, that that state had turned into a social-imperialist one already in the late 1930s, say?; no, this would be wrong, for a number of reasons, I hold - and which really retarded the communist movement in many areas, as you, MF, in that case incorrectly however, maintained that certain actions by China later did. These actions in fact were correct. They did serve the common interests of the vast majority of people. On these questions of (relatively) modern history which concern the earlier socialist China, you so far clearly have been deceived by a certain propaganda which above all has emanated, since more than 50 years back respectively since more than 40 years back, and still emanates from, the very main forces of imperialism in the world. It's unfortunate that you, living in India itself where both the question of Tibet and that of the border war in 1962 of course have a particular importance, have been deceived by this propaganda. But I think your being mistaken on these issues can be explained by the reactionary lying about them having been most massive and by a suppression of those facts which refute it, and certainly does not necessarily mean that you "have become chauvinist". This type of false and reactionary propaganda concerning some events in history a few decades ago, the one about the actions by China in 1950-51 respectively in 1962, no doubt is even more virulent in India than in general internationally, since these particular lies suit so very well not only the US imperialists, who today control most of the mass media internationally, but also that chauvinism with which, apparently, a considerable part of the bourgeoisie in your big country, India, still is "infected". Thus it may be more difficult for you (or for your group, perhaps in particular if all of you are rather young) to see through this propaganda than it is for people in most places elsewhere. Here in Sweden too, there are some big lies about events (either in this country itself or else rather close to it) in recent or relatively recent history which are particularly typical for the ruling bourgeoisie precisely here, including lies on a couple of matters which that bourgeoisie is absolutely fanatical about keeping secret from the people. It would carry too far to go into these questions in this Info, but some of them were touched on in my Info #258en of 02.05.2006, which contained in translation an article by Stig Ek and myself, "The reigning system's weakness". To this I can refer you people in India, for instance, and those in other countries who approximately share our common views too, for a small demonstration of how completely fraudulent, fanatically reactionary and in some cases all-pervasive, agreed on by "everybody", is the propaganda by the bourgeois politicians and mass media on certain points of history also in this small and supposedly "peaceful" capitalist (and internationally-exploiting) country here in Northern Europe from where I'm writing. This in fact is a typical feature of the entire imperialism in the world today. Here I'm presenting the results of a brief and, as I said above, relatively superficial investigation of mine of the questions of Tibet and of the border war in 1962. I'm welcoming of course all criticism of it on your part, MF, or on the part of others, and all additional information concerning these questions. I. Tibet was and is a part of China and was liberated, not "attacked", in 1950-1951Concerning this I shall bring some quotes from articles, emanating from various sources, which I've found on the Net, and make some brief comments on them.I A) From an article in the Conservative newspaper The Telegraph, UK, in August 2007This article, I've found, actually sums up, briefly, the question of Tibet rather well - though there is one vital thing concerning rather recent history which its author pretends "not to know anything" about.[QUOTE:] MYTHS ABOUT TIBET? Written by A. Tom Grunfeld, Empire State College Editors: Tom Barry (IRC) and Martha Honey (IPS) Key Points Tibet and China have been intertwined since the 7th century in one form or another. Tibet’s status has been intertwined with China since the 7th century through marriages, wars, and treaties. Mongol conquests in the 13th century made Tibet part of a Mongol-ruled Chinese state, and four centuries later the ethnic Manchu Q’ing dynasty further incorporated Tibet into China. In 1912 the 13th Dalai Lama unilaterally declared independence but two years later indicated his willingness to sign a treaty granting Chinese “suzerainty” over both “Inner Tibet” and “Outer Tibet,” establishing direct rule over the former and leaving the latter autonomous. When the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) [better abbreviated "CPC", since the party's name was, and still is, the Communist Party of China - RM] reestablished strong central government in 1949, Tibet was regarded as politically “integral” with China but in fact so autonomous that Beijing insisted on an incorporation “treaty” to preempt any claims of independence. Yet the CCP refrained from stamping out feudalism and theocratic rule. Twice in the 1950s, Mao Zedong assured the Dalai Lama that China would make no further inroads against de facto Tibetan autonomy. This policy, however, applied only to Outer Tibet, which was later renamed the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). Other ethnic Tibetan areas, known as Amdo and Kham (Inner Tibet), underwent political transformation. U.S. policy has done little to help resolve the Tibet issue. [Precisely on the contrary, the US imperialists and their CIA, back in that time when China was still socialist, did quite a lot to "help resolve" it, which precisely is a vital fact concerning that issue too. See under I C) below. - RM] Washington’s policy ignores Tibet’s complex history, is driven by domestic politics, and is inherently contradictory. While officially recognizing Tibet as part of China, the U.S. Congress and White House unofficially encourage the campaign for independence. [END OF QUOTE] Concerning official recognition of the fact that Tibet is a part of China, all or practically all states in the world have taken up this position, and this in the most important cases since a long time back. On this, see also some other quotes. Back in that time, before 1949, when China was ruled by the nationalist-reactionary forces of Jiang Jieshi (Chang Kai-shek) and others, both the US and the other main imperialist states agreed with those forces that Tibet was a part of China. The Indian government led by Nehru recognized this too, in 1954. As I noted above and as everybody knows too, the whole history of Tibet and of China is a long and complicated one. It wouldn't be of any use, I think, if I tried to cover approximately all of it now. Another article which in my opinion basically correctly sums up some parts of it I shall quote from too: I B) From an article by the phony"Marxist" organization "MIM", the USA (date probably recent)[QUOTE:]"What about Tibet?" MIM believes there was no reason for Tibetan independence under the rule of Mao Zedong from 1949 to 1976. Today we would favor an independent socialist Tibet, but that is not on the agenda, and we believe most of the "Free Tibet" movement leaders we hear from would rule Tibet even worse than the regime in Beijing does. The general points to remember about Tibet, China and Maoism are: [The term "Maoism", never used by the Chinese communists as led by Mao Zedong, for certain reasons of history in the last two-three decades has gotten to be used by some people in a sense apparently intended by them to be a positive one. While not actually a wrong one in that sense, it in a certain way is misleading and therefore is somewhat unsuitable. If it's Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought that it's intended to mean, it's better to use that term of the earlier revolutionary CPC's, or else to write and say "Marxism-Leninism" or simply "Marxism", I hold. On this question of terminology, see also Info #088en, "A silly 'debate' on 'Maoism'", part 1/2 etc, from 1999. - RM] (1) for 700 years prior to the Chinese Revolution, no country had recognized Tibet as an independent country: this was not a new thing of Maoism to call Tibet a part of China; ... One last point about the history before the victory of Mao's revolution: in 1943, the Rand McNally atlas showed Tibet as part of China. In 1943, the British Embassy sought only "local autonomy" for Tibet within China. At that time, the United $tates was supporting the corrupt mass-murderer General Chiang Kai-shek to rule China. Chiang Kai-shek wrote in China's Destiny that Tibet was part of China. Amerikkkans only turned around after the communists won. In general, the Western support of Tibetan independence is ignorant and opportunist. It is ridiculous to say China "invaded" Tibet in 1950 or 1959 when a few years earlier, the United $tates was itself supporting Tibet as being part of China. [END OF QUOTE] The next quote is from a recent article by Michael Parenti, which I've found to be of interest concerning three things: The appalling conditions of life for most Tibetans under the earlier rule of the feudalists there, the (rather obvious) reason why those feudalists, who had got on quite well with earlier governments in China, were opposed to Tibet's liberation by the forces of the socialist one in 1950-1951, and the very active involvement by the CIA in the reactionary revolt by some of the feudalists in Tibet in 1959, in particular, and in quite massive subversive activities in that autonomous region of socialist China also before and after that event. I C) From an article by Michael Parenti, the USA (updated and expanded in January 2007)[QUOTE:]Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth ... But what of Tibetan Buddhism? Is it not an exception to this sort of strife? And what of the society it helped to create? Many Buddhists maintain that, before the Chinese crackdown in 1959, old Tibet was a spiritually oriented kingdom free from the egotistical lifestyles, empty materialism, and corrupting vices that beset modern industrialized society. Western news media, travel books, novels, and Hollywood films have portrayed the Tibetan theocracy as a veritable Shangri-La. The Dalai Lama himself stated that “the pervasive influence of Buddhism” in Tibet, “amid the wide open spaces of an unspoiled environment resulted in a society dedicated to peace and harmony. We enjoyed freedom and contentment.” A reading of Tibet’s history suggests a somewhat different picture. “Religious conflict was commonplace in old Tibet,” writes one western Buddhist practitioner. “History belies the Shangri-La image of Tibetan lamas and their followers living together in mutual tolerance and nonviolent goodwill. Indeed, the situation was quite different. Old Tibet was much more like Europe during the religious wars of the Counterreformation.” In the thirteenth century, Emperor Kublai Khan created the first Grand Lama, who was to preside over all the other lamas as might a pope over his bishops. Several centuries later, the Emperor of China sent an army into Tibet to support the Grand Lama, an ambitious 25-year-old man, who then gave himself the title of Dalai (Ocean) Lama, ruler of all Tibet. Here is a historical irony: the first Dalai Lama was installed by a Chinese army. ... Religions have had a close relationship not only with violence but with economic exploitation. Indeed, it is often the economic exploitation that necessitates the violence. Such was the case with the Tibetan theocracy. Until 1959, when the Dalai Lama last presided over Tibet, most of the arable land was still organized into manorial estates worked by serfs. These estates were owned by two social groups: the rich secular landlords and the rich theocratic lamas. Even a writer sympathetic to the old order allows that “a great deal of real estate belonged to the monasteries, and most of them amassed great riches.” Much of the wealth was accumulated “through active participation in trade, commerce, and money lending.” ... Young Tibetan boys were regularly taken from their peasant families and brought into the monasteries to be trained as monks. Once there, they were bonded for life. Tashì-Tsering, a monk, reports that it was common for peasant children to be sexually mistreated in the monasteries. He himself was a victim of repeated rape, beginning at age nine. The monastic estates also conscripted children for lifelong servitude as domestics, dance performers, and soldiers. In old Tibet there were small numbers of farmers who subsisted as a kind of free peasantry, and perhaps an additional 10,000 people who composed the “middle-class” families of merchants, shopkeepers, and small traders. Thousands of others were beggars. There also were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned nothing. Their offspring were born into slavery. The majority of the rural population were serfs. Treated little better than slaves, the serfs went without schooling or medical care, They were under a lifetime bond to work the lord's land--or the monastery’s land--without pay, to repair the lord's houses, transport his crops, and collect his firewood. They were also expected to provide carrying animals and transportation on demand. Their masters told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. And they might easily be separated from their families should their owners lease them out to work in a distant location. ... The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation--including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation--were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. ... [For more details about these atrocities, see the article. - RM] ... What happened to Tibet after the Chinese Communists moved into the country in 1951? The treaty of that year provided for ostensible self-governance under the Dalai Lama’s rule but gave China military control and exclusive right to conduct foreign relations. The Chinese were also granted a direct role in internal administration “to promote social reforms.” Among the earliest changes they wrought was to reduce usurious interest rates, and build a few hospitals and roads. At first, they moved slowly, relying mostly on persuasion in an attempt to effect reconstruction. No aristocratic or monastic property was confiscated, and feudal lords continued to reign over their hereditarily bound peasants. “Contrary to popular belief in the West,” claims one observer, the Chinese “took care to show respect for Tibetan culture and religion.” Over the centuries the Tibetan lords and lamas had seen Chinese come and go, and had enjoyed good relations with Generalissimo Chiang Kaishek and his reactionary Kuomintang rule in China. The approval of the Kuomintang government was needed to validate the choice of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama. When the current 14th Dalai Lama was first installed in Lhasa, it was with an armed escort of Chinese troops and an attending Chinese minister, in accordance with centuries-old tradition. What upset the Tibetan lords and lamas in the early 1950s was that these latest Chinese were Communists. It would be only a matter of time, they feared, before the Communists started imposing their collectivist egalitarian schemes upon Tibet. The issue was joined in 1956-57, when armed Tibetan bands ambushed convoys of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army. The uprising received extensive assistance from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), including military training, support camps in Nepal, and numerous airlifts. Meanwhile in the United States, the American Society for a Free Asia, a CIA-financed front, energetically publicized the cause of Tibetan resistance, with the Dalai Lama’s eldest brother, Thubtan Norbu, playing an active role in that organization. The Dalai Lama's second-eldest brother, Gyalo Thondup, established an intelligence operation with the CIA as early as 1951. He later upgraded it into a CIA-trained guerrilla unit whose recruits parachuted back into Tibet. Many Tibetan commandos and agents whom the CIA dropped into the country were chiefs of aristocratic clans or the sons of chiefs. Ninety percent of them were never heard from again, according to a report from the CIA itself, meaning they were most likely captured and killed. “Many lamas and lay members of the elite and much of the Tibetan army joined the uprising, but in the main the populace did not, assuring its failure,” writes Hugh Deane. In their book on Tibet, Ginsburg and Mathos reach a similar conclusion: “As far as can be ascertained, the great bulk of the common people of Lhasa and of the adjoining countryside failed to join in the fighting against the Chinese both when it first began and as it progressed.” Eventually the resistance crumbled. [END OF QUOTE] This last, about the CIA's long-time activities in Tibet and its deep involvement in the reactionary revolt in 1959, actually is confirmed even by an article in Wikipedia, otherwise an instrument of big swindles by the imperialist reactionaries, including on several important questions of the natural sciences, and thus a source about which you need to be very cautious. In its article headlined "Tibet Autonomous Region" however, Wikipedia says something which no doubt is correct, [QUOTE:] Government forces [of China] clashed with CIA-supported ethnic dissidents in 1959 during the celebration of the Tibetan New Year, after which the 14th Dalai Lama, with CIA help, went into political exile in India. After 1959, the CIA trained Tibetan guerrillas and provided funds for the fight against China. However, the effort stopped when Richard Nixon decided to seek rapprochement with China in the early 1970s. Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison, in The CIA's Secret War in Tibet [Note 3: Morrison, James, The CIA's Secret War in Tibet, 1998], reveal how the CIA encouraged Tibet's revolt against China - and eventually came to control its fledgling resistance movement. The New York Times reported on October 2, 1998 that the Dalai Lama's administration acknowledged that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960s from the CIA, but denied reports that the Tibetan leader benefited personally from an annual subsidy of $180,000. The money allocated for the resistance movement was spent on training volunteers and paying for guerrilla operations against the Chinese, the Tibetan government-in-exile said. [END OF QUOTE] I D) From some articles about Britain's attempt to gain control of Tibet in 1904 and about the Simla conference in 1913-1914Wikipedia in an article "Francis Younghusband" says i.a.:"In 1903-1904, under orders from the Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, he, jointly with John Claude White, the Political Officer for Sikkim, led a military mission to Tibet as a result of disputes over the Sikkim-Tibet border; the mission controversially became a de facto invasion and British forces occupied Lhasa. During this brutal campaign on the way to Lhasa, Younghusband slaughtered 1,300 Tibetans in Gyangzê." Wikipedia's article "Tibet" reads in part, [QUOTE:] Tibet is today part of the People's Republic of China (PRC) (with a small part, depending on definitions, controlled by India). As an exclusive mandate, Tibet is also officially claimed by the Republic of China (Taiwan). ... In the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906 which confirmed the Anglo-Tibetan Treaty of 1904, Britain agreed "not to annex Tibetan territory or to interfere in the administration of Tibet" while China engaged "not to permit any other foreign state to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet". In the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, drafted by the British, Britain also recognized the "suzerainty of China over Thibet" [Suzerainty "is a situation in which a region or people is a tributary to a more powerful entity which allows the tributary some limited domestic autonomy to control its foreign affairs". - RM] Britain later violated all these treaties when it fomented the Sino-Indian border dispute by defining the McMahon Line in London without China's agreement and with the Simla conference, thus interfering in the affairs of the region. The Simla Convention in 1914 In 1914, representatives of China, Tibet and Britain negotiated a treaty in India: the Simla Convention. During the convention, the British tried to divide Tibet into Inner and Outer Tibet. When negotiations broke down over the specific boundary between Inner and Outer, the British demanded instead to advance their line of control, enabling them to annex 90,000 square kilometers of traditional Tibetan territory in southern Tibet, which corresponds to most of the modern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, while recognizing Chinese suzerainty over Tibet and affirming the latter's status as part of Chinese territory, with a promise from the Government of China that Tibet will not be converted into a Chinese province. Tibetan representatives secretly signed under British pressure; however, the representative of China's central government declared that the secretive annexation of territory was not acceptable. The boundary established in the convention, the McMahon Line, was considered by the British and later the independent Indian government to be the boundary; however, the Chinese view since then has been that since China, which was sovereign over Tibet, did not sign the treaty, the treaty was meaningless, and the annexation and control of southern Tibet Arunachal Pradesh by India is illegal. This paved the way to the Sino-Indian War of 1962 and the boundary dispute between China and India today. [END OF QUOTE] A US-based history page has the main text of the Simla convention, [QUOTE:] Convention between Great Britain, China and Tibet, initialled at Simla, 27 April 1914 The Governments of Great Britain and China recognizing that Tibet is under the suzerainty of China, and recognizing also the autonomy of Outer Tibet, engage to respect the territorial integrity of the country, and to abstain from all interference in the administration of Outer Tibet (including the selection and installation of the Dalai Lama), which shall remain in the hands of the Tibetan Government at Lhasa. The Government of China engages not to convert Tibet into a Chinese province. The Government of Great Britain engages not to annex Tibet or any portion of it. [END OF QUOTE] A website of today's revisionist government of China, headlined "China, Tibet and Chinese nation", says on this, [QUOTE:] British Foreign Secretary Lord Lansdowne, in a formal instruction he sent out in 1904, called Tibet "a province of the Chinese Empire." In his speech at the Lok Sabba in 1954, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said, "Over the past several hundred years, as far as I know, at no time has any foreign country denied China's sovereignty over Tibet." In 1913, the British government forced the Beijing government to participate in a tripartite conference of China, Britain and Tibet, namely the Simla Conference held at the behest of the British government. On July 3, 1914, the Chinese government representative Chen Yifan upon instruction refused to sign the Simla Convention. In his statement, Chen said, "Government of China refuses to recognize any agreement which His Majesty's Government and Tibet might conclude independently either now or in the future." The Chinese government also sent a note to the British government, reiterating its position. [END OF QUOTE] Of particular interest concerning the question of Tibet is also of course what Mao Zedong and the CPC led by him said and wrote about it, at various points in time. From such statements I'm bringing two excerpts, one from 1952 and the other from 1959. Although the first of these is relatively long and I already have brought it in an earlier Info, #017en, I'm repeating it here since it in my opinion is very instructive concerning that nationalities policy which Mao Zedong and the other actual communists in China followed and which, I hold, was very wise and correct. Michael Parenti in a quote above confirms too that it was carried out in practice concerning Tibet. The second of the excerpts is from a conversation between Mao Zedong and a diplomat of the Soviet Union, then still allied to China, in 1959, as reported by that diplomat. That conversation also touched on the question of those unsettled questions of the border between China and India which, due to a reactionary policy by the government of India then, supported also by the US imperialists and by the Soviet revisionists who had recently gained state power, led to the brief war between the two countries in October-November 1962. I E) From a CPC directive on 06.04.1952 concerning TibetI'm repeating here the same excerpt from that directive which I already brought in Info #017en, "Mao Zedong in '52 on Tibet", in 1996, as quoted from "Selected Works of Mao Tsetung, Volume V", China, 1977. The entire directive can be found at the Marxists Internet Archive (MIA), which has a good collection of documents but whose editors, apparently in the main adherents of arch-reactionary, backstabbing Trotskyism, must also be severely criticized for those lies, of a particularly vile character too, which they have included at that website, in several comments of their own, about Mao Zedong and about the Cultural Revolution in China.[QUOTE:] ON THE POLICIES FOR OUR WORK IN TIBET - DIRECTIVE OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA, April 6, 1952 ... They [the Chinese government's army units in Sinkiang - that province's name today, since 1979, is transcribed as Xinjiang - RM] have now gained a firm foothold and won the warm support of the minority nationalities. They are carrying out the reduction of rent and interest and will proceed to agrarian reform this winter, and by then we can be sure of even greater support from the masses. Sinkiang is well connected with the heartland of the country by motor roads, and this is of great help in improving the material welfare of the minority nationalities. As for Tibet, neither rent reduction nor agrarian reform can start for at least two or three years. While several hundred thousand Han people live in Sinkiang, there are hardly any in Tibet, where our army finds itself in a totally different minority nationality area. We depend solely on two basic policies to win over the masses and put ourselves in an invulnerable position. The first is strict budgeting coupled with production for the army's own needs, and thus the exertion of influence on the masses; this is the key link. We must do our best and take proper steps to win over the Dalai and the majority of his top echelon and to isolate the handful of bad elements in order to achieve a gradual, bloodless transformation of the Tibetan economic and political system over a number of years; on the other hand, we must be prepared for the eventuality of the bad elements leading the Tibetan troops in rebellion and attacking us, so that in this contingency our army could still carry on and hold out in Tibet. It all depends on strict budgeting and production for the army's own needs. Only with this fundamental policy as cornerstone can we achieve our aim. The second policy, which can and must be put into effect, is to establish trade relations with India and with the heartland of our country and to attain a general balance in supplies to and from Tibet so that the standard of living of the Tibetan people will in no way fall because of our army's presence but will improve through our efforts. If we cannot solve the two problems of production and trade, we shall lose the material base for our presence, the bad elements will cash in and will not let a single day pass without inciting the backward elements among the people and the Tibetan troops to oppose us, and our policy of uniting with the many and isolating the few will become ineffective and fail. It is our opinion that the Tibetan troops should not be reorganized at present, nor should formal military sub-areas or a military and administrative commission be established. For the time being, leave everything as it is, let this situation drag on, and do not take up these questions until our army is able to meet its own needs through production and wins the support of the masses a year or two from now. In the meantime there are two possibilities. One is that our united front policy towards the upper stratum, a policy of uniting with the many and isolating the few, will take effect and that the Tibetan people will gradually draw closer to us, so the bad elements and the Tibetan troops will not dare to rebel. The other possibility is that the bad elements, thinking we are weak and can be bullied, may lead the Tibetan troops in rebellion and that our army will counterattack in self-defence and deal them telling blows. Either will be favourable to us. As the top echelon in Tibet sees it, there is no sufficient reason now for implementing the Agreement [Note: This refers to the Agreement Between the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures on the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, May 23, 1951.] in its entirety or for reorganizing the Tibetan troops. But things will be different in a few years. Apparently not only the two Silons [Note:..] but also the Dalai and most of his clique were reluctant to accept the Agreement and are unwilling to carry it out. As yet we don't have a material base for fully implementing the Agreement, nor do we have a base for this purpose in terms of support among the masses or in the upper stratum. To force its implementation will do more harm than good. Since they are unwilling to put the Agreement into effect, well then, we can leave it for the time being and wait. The longer the delay, the stronger will be our position and the weaker theirs. Delay will not do us much harm; on the contrary, it may be to our advantage. Let them go on with their insensate atrocities against the people, while we on our part concentrate on good deeds - production, trade, road-building, medical services and united front work (unity with the majority and patient education) so as to win over the masses and bide our time before taking up the question of the full implementation of the Agreement. If they are not in favour of the setting up of primary schools, that can stop too. The recent demonstration in Lhasa should be viewed not merely as the work of the two Silons and other bad elements but as a signal to us from the majority of the Dalai clique. Their petition is very tactful because it indicates not a wish for a break with us but only a wish for concessions from us. One of the terms gives the hint that the practice of the Ching Dynasty should be restored, in other words, that no Liberation Army units should be stationed in Tibet, but this is not what they are really after. They know full well that this is impossible; their attempt is to trade this term for other terms. At present, in appearance we should take the offensive and should censure the demonstration and the petition for being unjustifiable (for undermining the Agreement), but in reality we should be prepared to make concessions and to go over to the offensive in the future (i.e. put the Agreement into force) when conditions are ripe. [END OF QUOTE] I F) From "A Conversation with Mao, 1959" (a secret report by a Soviet diplomat)A website which I've recently come across, "Documents Relating to American Foreign Policy - The Cold War", among other things has this report. I haven't seen it anywhere else. Since it was an internal Soviet Union report, originally marked "Top Secret", it seems likely to me that the diplomat in question did not in any essential way distort that which Mao Zedong had actually said. Here are some excerpts from it.[QUOTE:] A Conversation with Mao, 1959 ... From the journal of ANTONOV, S.F. Top Secret, Copy 3 “21 October 1959” Summary of a conversation with the Chairman of the CC CPC [Central Committee Communist Party of China] Mao-Tse Tung on 14 October 1959 In accordance with instructions I visited Mao Tse-Tung and
gave him confidential information about Comrade N.S. Khrushchev’s visit
to the USA. ... ... Having further on his own initiative broached the question of the border conflict between India and the Chinese People’s Republic, Mao Tse-Tung underlined: “We never, under any circumstances, will move beyond the Himalayas. That is completely ruled out. This is an argument over inconsequential pieces of territory.” Nehru is now trying to use the armed incident which took place on the border, Mao Tse-Tung said further. He is pursuing a three-part goal: First, he is trying to deliver a blow to the Communist Party of India; second, to ease for India the conditions for the receipt of economic aid from the Western powers, in particular from the USA; and third, to obstruct the spread of influence of the CPR and the socialist camp on the Indian people. Further, Mao Tse-Tung touched on the situation in Tibet, pointing out that at the present time Tibet had set out toward democratic reformation, and precisely that more than anything frightens Nehru. It is necessary to note, continued Mao Tse-Tung, that the popular masses of Tibet had met these reforms with great enthusiasm. During the Tibetan events [the CIA-supported reactionary revolt earlier in 1959; see above - RM] approximately 12 thousand people had left for India, of whom reactionary elements, large landowners-serfholders, reactionary lamas, stewards of landed estates and so on made up around 6-7 thousand. Around 5 thousand people ran off to India under compulsion, deception, or threat. These refugees at the present time are manifesting a desire to return to China. Of all the serfholders-landowners of Tibet, around 80 percent took part in the revolt, and many of them ran off to India. However, some of the landowners remained in Tibet. Regarding those landowners who remained, remarked Mao Tse-Tung, certain measures had been taken aimed at giving them, after reforms, the possibility of maintaining their long-term existence. Characterizing the situation in Tibet, Mao Tse-Tung tried hard to emphasize that it is to a great degree unique. “The Dalai Lama is a god, not a man,” said Mao Tse-Tung — “in any case he is seen that way by the majority of the Tibetan population.” Mao Tse-Tung said further that it is even better that the Dalai Lama left for India, insofar as if he had remained in Tibet the masses of Tibetan peasants could not raise themselves to the realization of democratic reform. If, continued Mao Tse-Tung, we had arrested the Dalai Lama, that would have called the population of Tibet forth into rebellion. This is difficult even for Chinese from other parts of our country to understand, added Mao Tse-Tung; only in Tibet do we have a situation like this. Not in inner Mongolia, nor in Sinkiang, nor in other regions of the CPR where national minorities live, do similar situations exist. Nonetheless, hate and ill-feeling toward serfowners had been building up for a long time among the Tibetan peasantry, and now, when the majority of landowners had left, and land is being given to the peasants, they raised themselves up and heatedly approve of the democratic reforms which are now under way. Mao Tse-Tung said that really, the situation in Tibet, evidently, is complicated, there are present various social and economic structures. Mao Tse-Tung said that overall in China up until the present time there are even colonies of foreign states, like Macao. A small country, like Portugal, 400 years ago grabbed from China this chunk of land. How should we proceed in this case? The CC CPC considered this question, and worked out a course, which for now consists of not touching Macao. “And so, when they say that the Chinese are war-like,” noted
Mao Tse-Tung, “one cannot accept this as true, but sometimes in a
certain case it is expedient to show an opponent one’s own firmness.
..." [END OF QUOTE] It was precisely the lastmentioned in this quote that China
did too - I think the facts clearly show - when that country was
confronted with certain provocations by the Nehru government in India
in 1962.
II. The border war in 1962 was caused by expansionist and
aggressive actions on the part of the Nehru government in India,
against which China justly counterattacked in self-defence
|
||
| |
|
|
Back to main
page
|