OPPOSITIONISTS
IN SOLIDARITY
WITH CHILE
CZECHOSLOVAKIA When the military junta seized power in Chile on September 11, 1973, expressions of solidarity with the resistance from opposition circles in Eastern Europe were seemingly few and far between. It appeared as though the Chilean masses had few friends among opposition circles in the bureaucratized workers states. Those voices of the opposition that were heard were akin to Sakharov's mild and muddled statement of concern for "violations of legality" or Solzhenitsyn's virtual support of the military coup. If comment on the Chilean events seemed to be monopolized by either confused or right-wing elements of the opposition in Eastern Europe, it was because the left in those countries was silenced by a double muzzle: the muzzle of the "official" press and that of the bourgeois mass media in the West, which chose to pass in silence over expressions of solidarity by left-wing currents in Eastern Europe. When the Yugoslav students, for example, organized actions against the putsch (holding, among other things, a demonstration carrying the slogans "Arm the Proletariat" and "Down with the Junta -- All Power to the Soviets" through the streets of Belgrade) not a word of this appeared in the Yugoslav or the bourgeois press. To help break this wall of silence we are reproducing the two documents below. Both are from Czechoslovakia. The. first document, the "Letter of 30 ex-political prisoners, " is a remarkable example of the current political thought of the Left in Eastern Europe. The letter is an unequivocal expression of solidarity with the struggle of the Chilean masses for democracy and socialism. Written as an answer to the Association of Czechoslovak Jurists. it upbraids these "gentlemen" for the hypocritical character of their expression of concern for the fate of the victims of the junta's repression. The letter informs these "gentlemen" that it is not they who are the real friends in Czechoslovakia of the Chilean resistance but rather those who stand for socialist democracy and who have been repressed by the regime for having acted in accord with this conviction. The second document, entitled "Chile and Us, " is taken from the October 1973 issue of Narodni Noviny (The National Gazette), a clandestine journal that circulates in Czechoslovakia. The authors of this document address themselves to an important political task in Czechoslovakia: convincing the Czechoslovak population that they ought to oppose the military coup in Chile. That such convincing is necessary in a supposedly socialist country needs some explanation.
One of the consequences of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia was to sow profound political disarray among the population. Few people, even the most hardened anticommunists, would have maintained before the invasion that there were any serious antisocialist or anti-Soviet attitudes among the population. The invasion changed this. Hatred of the Husk regime, which identifies itself with "genuine socialism, "and of the Soviet Union, which installed this regime, has blurred the political judgment of many ordinary Czechs and Slovaks. The population knows only too well that the official press is packed with lies about the domestic situation. They are thus extremely skeptical about anything the regime says about the international situation. Things have gone so far that some people in Czechoslovakia rejoiced to learn that Communists friendly to the Husák regime, people like the Chilean CPers who endorsed the invasion of Czechoslovakia, had suffered a monumental defeat. The situation was not helped by the repeated comparisons made by the official Czechoslovak press between the Chilean military junta and the Prague Spring reformers, claiming that it was precisely to prevent a Chile-type coup that the Soviet troops intervened The document "Chile and Us" must be read with this in mind. The authors of this document were addressing themselves to the "ordinary" citizens, trying to restore political sanity to their judgments, pointing out that they should not be prevented by the regime's propaganda from seeing that the hopes that died in Chile were their own hopes and that their natural allies are not the junta, but the Chilean socialists -- even if these include men who endorsed the 1968 invasion. The parallels drawn between Chile and Czechoslovakia in the document are made with this heuristic purpose in mind. We have serious disagreements with many of the political formulations of this document. But we solidarize wholeheartedly with the political project that this document represents: to explain to the Czechoslovak masses that both they and the Chilean masses are fighting for socialism and that they should help and support one another. It is a sad commentary on the Czechoslovak regime that the authors of both documents risk a stiff prison sentence for this "unofficial" expression of solidarity.
INPRECOR 21
LETTER OF THE 30
CZECHOSLOVAKIA On June 14 the Czechoslovak press pur lished a petition of the Association of Czechoslovak Jurists protesting the events in Chile. This document affirmed that the Association of Jurists had followed with grave concern the news about violations of legality and mounting terror against the progressive and patriotic forces in the country. The Association condemned the persecution, torture, and widespread execution of Chilean patriots. In its resolution it demanded the reestablishment of constitutional and democratic rights and observed that the representatives of the Chilean people have been completely deprived of their civic rights and judicial protection. The Association of Czechoslovak Jurists demanded the right to attend the trial of Luis Corvalán, as well as those of other patriots, in order to participate in their defense. It is our view that it is the task of all progressives in the world to do everything in their power to extend total material and moral support to the Chilean revolutionaries and democrats in their battle for a democratic society and for socialism. If it is only today that we express ourselves on this point, it is because many of us have not had the possibility of doing so before. We therefore now declare that we are in complete solidarity with the struggle of the progressive forces in Chile and that we unequivocally condemn the acts of the fascist junta. Furthermore, we believe that we are fully entitled to express this solidarity, for common ideas, objectives, and, often, common fates unite us with progressive Chileans. But, gentlemen of the Association of Czechoslovak Jurists, we deny you this right. For we know of not one single case in which your association has acted to defend the rights of man, civii liberties, or respect for legality in our own country, in Czechoslovakia. Or perhaps you think that it is correct from the standpoint of the law and its social function that during the past few years tens of thousands of our co-citizens have had to leave their jobs and have been forced to work at jobs in which they have not the slightest possibility of expressing their abilities and training? Do you think it is just that children of supposedly "bad" fathers and mothers should be denied the right to attend secondary schools and universities? Do you think it is just that many of our citizens have been slandered in the press for their recent political activity without having any possibility of defending themselves against these slander campaigns? Are you convinced, gentlemen of the Association of Czechoslovak Jurists, that freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of meeting and assembly, the right to travel, including the right to leave the country with the possibility of returning, and freedom of scientific research are guaranteed in our country?
From the standpoint of the penal code and its social function, do you think it is correct that people should be liable to the death penalty if they conduct "activity especially dangerous to the foundations of the republic... if it results in very serious consequences" -- when it is known from experience that any political activity not pleasing to the present leading group can be defined as hostile to the regime of the republic?
From the standpoint of the function of the penal code, is it correct that 47 communists and socialists should have been sentenced in 1972 to long prison terms (up to six and a half years) on the basis of a rather broadly interpreted law, among them Milan Hubl, the former director of the Communist party cadre school, university professors Jaroslav Meznik and Antonin
Rusek, regional CP secretaries Alfred Cerny, Jaroslav Sabata, and Jaroslav Litera, the historian Jan Tesar, the student leader JiFf Muller, and others? Are you convinced that these trials were conducted in conformity with the penal code, that no psychological pressure or physical torture was brought to bear on the defendants during the preliminary investigations conducted by the STB (the secret police)? Do you think that the rules calling for public tribunals were respected during these trials? Are you sure that of the hundreds of trials conducted between 1969 and 1974 lawyers from democratic organizations of jurists did not ask to be present at a few? And if they perhaps did make such requests, was it made possible for them to attend? Are you sure that the conditions of detention of the sentenced communists and socialists correspond to the laws on such matters (in spite of the changes made in the laws last year permitting a broader latitude to the jailors)? Are you sure that the political prisoners are not subjected to a much more severe regimen that the regular criminals, that they are adequately fed, that they are not suffering from vitamin deficiencies, that they receive satisfactory medical care, that their basic needs are provided for, and that nobody is trying to get them out of the way by provoking psychic troubles through subjecting them to hermetically sealed isolation? We all live in the same country and we all know the real state of affairs. While some responsibility for the current state of things may devolve on each of us, your responsibility is much greater, for you are better informed and are much closer to things. Your responsibility is much greater in that you have more possibility of changing or attenuating the existing state of affairs. Furthermore, we are convinced on the basis of many personal experiences that your organization clearly lacks representativeness in terms of the totality of jurists in Czechoslovakia. Your resolution in support of civil rights in Chile and against the fascist junta is hypocritical. Your claims can only ring false. We, political prisoners who have been imprisoned in Czechoslovakia during the first half of the 1970s, we are united by close bonds of friendship, solidarity, and agreement or kinship of ideas and action with the Chilean socialists, communists, revolutionary Marxists, Christians, and other democratic Chileans, according to our differeht convictions. But you, nothing unites you with them, and no hypocritical words can hide this fact. Your role consists solely of maintaining through propaganda the state of affairs that currently prevails in our country, a state of affairs that is characterized, among other things, by the dynamism of trade between Czechoslovakia and the fascist Chilean junta and by the refusal of Czechoslovakia to grant asylum to Chilean refugees.
We are convinced that the just struggle of our comrades, friends, and brothers in Chile against fascism and terror, their struggle for democracy, liberty, and socialism, will triumph. We would be happy if they could learn that they have many authentic allies in Czechoslovakia. Prague, June 18-July 8, 1974
1. Miroslav Moc, editor in chief of Rudé Pravo (the CP news- Copies sent to:
paper), which on June 14 published the resolution of the Association of Czechoslovak Jurists. We ask Mr. Moc that our letter likewise be published in Rudé Pravo.
2. Gustáv Husák, for his information.
3. J. Němec, the minister of justice, for his information.
4. The Union of Chilean Students in Czechoslovakia, for their information. Signed: 30 Czechoslovaks, political prisoners between 1969 and 1974.
'CHILE ANDUS
NARODNI NOVINY (The National Gazette) Published by the Czech nation itself, duplicated by the readers themselves. Distributed among reliable and trustworthy friends only. Any mistake can result in prosecution. The journal is published regularly and is not for sale. Since 11 September a fascist terror has raged in Chile. All the traditional trappings are there too: executions, arrests, killings "while attempting to escape, " destruction of basic civic freedoms, return of land to landowners and of nationalized enterprises to capitalist owners. This kind of violence is denounced the world over. Even in Czechoslovak newspapers and also explained why his protest had been published abroad). Those who are delighted that someone somewhere managed to kick the communists around are short-sighted. For one thing it is not only the communists who are being kicked around in Chile at present, and for another, no true democrat can be really delighted when freedom is strangled somewhere. Undoubtedly, there were more democratic rights and freedoms in Chile under President Allende than under the military junta simply because Allende Had ruled in a democratic fashion. Because he had responded to his opposition without violence and according to the law, Allende had greatly helped the military insurgents to carry out their plans. Mistakes, perhaps even serious ones, were undoubtedly made. The Unidad Popular government certainly failed to deal with some of the fundamental needs of the people during the three years of its existence. However, nothing can change the fact that as a government it was more representative of the people than is the junta. The basic supply problems (which arose when the transport workers declared their destructive strike) could have been solved with aid from the socialist countries -- had they been willing to grant it. A loan of twenty Antonovs, transport aircraft, could have been arranged in a few hours even if they would have had to follow a complicated route. (After all, the USSR managed this very well when transporting military equipment to Egypt.) The aircraft, together with a supply of lorries, could have greatly helped to solve a problem which ultimately led to national indifference to the fate of Allende's regime. The socialist countries did not grant this kind of aid, though they were probably willing to help in certain other spheres (the running of state security, etc.). No matter how paradoxical it sounds, the USSR was in fact satisfied, despite its formal protests over the fate of Chile (so was the USA of course). The meticulous preservation of demacratic processes in the construction of a socialist society were a thorn in the flesh of the Soviet Union. They were frightened that yet another socialism, a Chilean one -- with a human face -- would be added to the four already existing (Soviet, Chinese, Yugoslav, and Cuban -- not to speak of what the Italian or Spanish communists imagine socialism to be). Soon the Moscow center would no longer be a center but just one of the provinces as, after all, Lenin predicted. Brezhnev could never support such a course. It would have been difficult for the countries of the Warsaw Pact to invade Chile, but others took care of that. President Allende, the Chilean analogy of Dubcek, is dead, and the Soviets can sigh with relief. But what follows his death is -- except for the killings (but that is something that Soviet armies contributed to in our country as well) -- so similar to the fate of Czechoslovakia that the parallel is obvious. The methods of the insurgents are the same, no matter whether they came from a Russian Steppe or South America. Not long ago (October 23, 1973) Rudé Pravo was upset when a West German CDU deputy spoke of the putsch as a hindrance -- as if one could mention in Czechoslovakia the word invasion or occupation; these can be mentioned only as an "entry" or better still "brotherly international aid. " By the way, Chile is yet another proof that the USSR does not grant aid where it Let us see what else upsets the normalized Czechoslovak press:
1. Local committees were broken up (as were workers' committees in our country);
2. The junta banned lessons in Marxism at universities (in our country all departments of Marxism-Leninism were liquidated after August);
3. Freedom of assembly, association, written and oral expression no longer exists (just try a meeting of the Club of Committed Non-Communists, or call a demonstration in any of the smaller squares in Prague or try to write what you think into a newspaper. Such a notion is ludicrous in present-day Czechoslovakia, and in the Soviet Union they lock people up in a lunatic asylums for similar demands);
4. In Chile, just as under Hitler, the junta burns books which are inconvenient or written by authors who they do not appreciate (in our country they are not burned publicly but if you know someone who works in a public library just ask him to show you the list of books which have been thrown away, taken out of circulation, or destroyed. The number of titles goes into thousands);
5. In Chile infringements of privacy are commonplace (yet how many Czech homes were broken into by the STB (secret police) agents without a court order, how many of our flats are fitted with bugging devices such as the one which Professor Kaline mentions in his appeal against his two-year sentence);
6. "Thousands of Chileans, from ordinary people to well known personalities such as Dr. Asenjo, the 1973 Nobel Prize winner, were expelled from their place of work, their only 'crime' being that they supported progressive ideas. " (In this respect, the junta has been acting clumsily. Where else but in Czechoslovakia were hundreds of thousands -- from artists of international repute to journalists, students, and ordinary workers -- expelled from their positions for the same thing?);
7. The "new rulers introduced complete control over television and radio" (and what is it like in our country? Just compare what. the television and radio were like in 1968 and 1969 with what they are like now;
8. The junta ordered "national work shifts" (an analogy so perfect that even the title corresponds);
9. It banned the left-wing press. (A long list of journals were banned under Husák. Let us remember three which stood out: Zitrek, Reporter, and even the communist Politika);
10. It interferes with trade-union rights (perhaps it would be worth while to ask Karel Hoffman, this "noted representative of the working class" who never worked in a factory, to name somewhere the rights of our trade unionists. A few secOh yes, we must agree with our press that what is happening in Chile is indeed fascism. However fascism is still fascism, wherever it takes place and whatever jargon disguises it.
23
INTERVIEW
Fascism is simply fascism, no matter under which label it operates, whether it rages in Chile or Czechoslovakia. That is why we are at one with the Chilean people and that is why we should protest, not only against the threat to life of Louis Corvalán (who by the way praised the occupation of our coun try in 1968), but against the threats to the lives of hundreds more people. We should also protest against the dismissal of MALAYA
On August 24 the "National Front, " the coalition of ruling parties, won a crushing majority of the votes cast in the elections in Malaysia. Malaysia is the only
Southeast Asian country that has preserved a tradition of bourgeois parliamentarism. It was also the first contry of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to recognize the Peoples Republic of China. Nevertheless, behind this facade there lurks a repressive police state integrated into the regional system of imperialist domination and founded on the basis of the crushing of the communist guerrillas and the partisan movement in the countryside during the 1950s.
The recent developments in joutheast Asia, marked by the awakening of the urban struggle, the crisis of the military regimes, the diplomatic realignments, the new place of Japanese imperialism in the region, and the impact of the Indochinese revolution underline the importance of this region in the future of the Asian revolu-
Question. What is the general situation in the country today, in terms of the government party, the opposition, and so on?
Answer. It is now the beginning of August. New elections are supposed to take place soon. The alliance that is presently in power is called Precatan in Malayan. Its three component parties are the UMNO (United Malaysian National Organization), the MIC (Malaysian Indian Congress), and the MCA (Malaysian
Chinese Association). But the Precatan has decided to form a new enlarged bloc, the "National Front, " which includes nearly all the parties that were in opposition during the last elections, held in 1969. (The new bloc includes ten parties, among them those that compose the Precatan -- INPRECOR.)
In the National Front we find, for example, the Gerakan, which controls the island of Pinang in the North, the PPP
(Peoples Progressive party, based in Perak, the powerful PAS
(Pan Islamic party), strong along the east coast, and the main parties of Sabak and Sarawak (the two "Malaysian" provinces of the island of Borneo-- INPREC OR).
The only parties remaining outside this "National Front" are the Pekamas party (Social Justice party), the DAP (Democratic
Action party), the KITA (Kaum Insaf Tanah Air), and the Par-
24 people from work, against censorship, against infringements of privacy, against the ban on association, against the removal of books, against the interference with trade-union rights -- all that must appear in our protests. We should underline that we are against it no matter where in the world it is happening. We should also be against it in reality and we should fight it. WIIH A MILITANT tion. In this context, it is especially important to affirm our solidarity with the struggle being waged by the militants of these countries, a struggle that is not very well known in the rest of the world. To try to begin to compensate tor the lack of information about these struggles, we are publishing an interview conducted at the beginning of August by K. Muraki, a member of the secretariat of the 74 Asian Youth Conference (see INPRECOR No.8 for a report on the conference) with a leader of the Malayan student movement. The student militant, a member of a Malayan