[The following article appeared in the October 30 issue of La Brèche, biweekly organ of the Ligue Marxiste Révolutionnaire, a Swiss revolutionary-socialist organization. It was written in Paris by an Iranian revolutionary militant.
[While we do not fully agree with all the formulations employed in the article, we have translated it because of its value in throwing into relief the consequences of Peking's policy toward the shah's regime in Iran.]
A New Betrayal
Is China's foreign policy revolutionary? The question is raised by many revolutionary activists — especially by Marxists. Iranian Marxists are no exception.
Since the various trips of the shah's family to China, and since the Chinese press has begun to sing the praises of the shah's regime, the Iranian left has begun to ask itself this question. Iranian leftists — at least those outside Iran — are divided on the answer.
The Iranian Maoists were the first to condemn the Soviet Union for its military, economic, and political support to the shah. But their defense of China's foreign policy has been no less servile than their pro-Soviet counterparts' defense of the USSR's policies. They accuse critics of current Chinese policy toward Iran of being "narrow-minded chauvinists." For independent Iranian Marxists (who, unlike the Maoists and their revisionist predecessors, were not "born" Marxists but developed toward a Marxist position), current Chinese policy toward Iran recalls painful experiences and bitter memories of two earlier periods: First, after Lenin's death, when the dictator Reza Khan -- who eliminated the last vestiges of democracy in the country and massacred Iranian communists -- was supported by the Soviet government as "Reformer King"; and second, during and after the second world war, when the Iranian anti-imperialist movement was betrayed by Stalin and his local apparatus, the Tudeh party.
The Iranian Maoist grouplets in Europe and the United States (the Teufan group, the Tudeh Revolutionary Organization, the Communist Group, and the Cadres) slavishly defend China's present foreign policy without advancing the slightest justification. Their only argument is that China is the center of the world revolution and therefore whatever China does must be right -- and what else could we expect from hardened Stalinists who have been trained to obey and not to think!
But it must be emphasized that while the opposition outside Iran is divided, the revolutionary groups inside the country -- those who carry and sustain the full weight of the struggle -- have no doubt about the errors of Chinese policy. They have never openly published their position, but we know from a reliable source that for them "China is a historical reference and nothing more." It is not surprising that despite the worldwide protest movement against the widespread executions of revolutionary activists over the past eighteen months by the shah's military dictatorship and against the savage repression that reigns in the country, the Chinese have kept totally silent on this subject and have not even published the least bit of news of it. (This silence is in striking contrast, for example, with the enthusiastic reports on the "efforts" of the Iranian government to aid the victims of a recent earthquake in Iran -- see Pékin Information, April 24, 1972.)
Let us see how the current policy is expressed. First, it must be remembered that since 1953 the Chinese government and Communist party have not even protested against the repression that has victimized the Iranian revolutionary movement. In general they have not even mentioned it, and have certainly not given the revolutionists their support. It seems they protested only when the Soviet government sold arms to the shah; only then they "denounced" the betrayal of the Soviet revisionists.
The Shah: "Fighting Anti-imperialist"?
The friendly relations between China and the shah's regime began after the publication of an initial article in Pékin Information (February 8, 1971), which stated: "The ten principal oil-exporting countries have recently begun a struggle against imperialist oil-monopoly capital. . . . This is a just fight undertaken to safeguard national economic interests. It is tied to the great struggle of the peoples of the world against aggression and exploitation."
A second article, published in Renmin Ribao (reprinted in Pékin Information, February 22, 1971), expressing support and admiration for the so-called struggle of the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) against the oil monopolies, went so far as to assert that this "struggle" of the shah and his ilk "reflected the ardent desire of the peoples of those countries to liberate themselves from imperialist plunder and exploitation...."
Shortly after the publication of these articles (translations of them were distributed liberally in Iran to demonstrate the shah's "independence" from imperialist powers!), the shah's sister Ashraf, one of the CIA's pawns in the reactionary coup d'etat of 1953, went to Peking at Chou En-lai's invitation. Chou addressed this "longtime friend" in the following words:
"In modern history, especially since the second world war, intercourse between our two countries has become relatively limited owing to obstruction and sabotage by the imperialists...." (Pékin Information, April 26, 1971.) Ashraf returned the compliment with equal grace: "My brother and sovereign, the Shahinshah of Iran, has always believed that in this world of such boundless diversity coexistence and cooperation are entirely possible between our countries of different social and political systems, on the basis of mutual respect and reciprocal good will."
If such coexistence and cooperation had always been possible, it may be asked why the shah waited until 1971 to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China -- that is, when American imperialists gave a green light to all their reactionary lackeys in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Why, for example, didn't he do it in 1957? This fact clearly shows that it was under imperialist orders that the shah's government would not recognize China, just as today, under orders from his masters, he recognizes the Mao government as legitimately representing the people of that country. Thus it is clear that Chou En-lai's compliment about the shah's independence is totally fraudulent.
It should be emphasized, however, that Marxists do not object to the recognition of the People's Republic of China; far from it, Marxists think that this recognition should have been granted long ago. In fact, Marxists think that the whole chain of diplomatic recognitions of China by a series of governments, as well as Nixon's visit to Peking, is a victory for the Chinese government and a serious defeat for the American government's policy of isolating China.
But this in no way represents a victory for the revolutionary movement and the world working class. It must be stressed that the various reactionary countries did not all use the same formulas when they recognized China. A simple review of all the joint declarations signed with countries such as Kuwait, Iran, or Nigeria on the one hand, and Argentina and Ghana on the other, shows that the content of these declarations conforms to the interests of the People's Republic of China and not to the needs of the world revolutionary movement.
Thus it is the content of this recognition that was sharply criticized by the Iranian left. After a second trip to Peking by another sister of the shah, who was received by Mao Tsetung (Pékin Information, May 10, 1971), a communiqué establishing diplomatic relations between the two governments was published. It revealed China's political support to the shah's regime, known throughout the whole world for its slavishness to American imperialism and for the way it squanders Iran's human and natural resources in the interests of the imperialist monopolies. The communiqué stated:
"The government of the People's Republic of China firmly supports the imperial government of Iran in its just struggle to safeguard the national independence and sovereignty of the country and to protect its national resources" (Pékin Information, August 23, 1971). The implications are clear and need no elaboration.
"Long Live the King and Queen of Iran"?
With the establishment of diplomatic relations the competition began with the Soviet Union to see which would rent out the shah's "services." Messages of congratulations were sent to the Shah on his birthday. Another warm message was sent to the number-one enemy of the Iranian working class at the time of the infamous farce at Persepolis, which was protested by the civilized world. And recently Queen Farah and Prime Minister Howeida were invited to spend ten days in China.
During this visit the whole Chinese position came out. Thus journalists in Shanghai gave exceptional coverage to Farah's trip (Keyhan -- government journal, Air Edition, September 26, 1972). A crowd of one million people came to greet the wife of the Iranian dictator (Keyhan, Air Edition, September 19, 1972). Keyhan, citing the Reuters press service, stated that when Farah arrived, units of the liberation army shouted "Long live the king and queen of Iran" (while the Iranian people are shouting "Death to the king!"). As for Chou En-lai, he developed the following position in his welcoming speech:
"At the present time, under the leadership of His Imperial Majesty the Shahinshah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Iranian government and people are working ceaselessly to safeguard state sovereignty, to protect their national resources, to promote the flowering of national culture, and to build up the country, and have achieved successes in this regard." (Pékin Information, October 10, 1972.) What more could the shah ask?
Every Iranian knows that Chou En-lai's declarations in favor of the shah and his regime are based on the most blatant lies. Authors such as Marvin Zonis and Julian Bharier -- who are not particularly known for their opposition to the regime-point out in their books that Chou's statements could not even convince a school child. Zonis clearly states that "thanks to Israeli and American advisers, the SAVAK (Iranian political police) is becoming more and more effective" at eliminating opposition. Everyone knows that the shah was returned to the throne by the CIA and keeps himself there through the aid of his American and Israeli experts who control very significant police and armed forces. Everyone knows that the shah is the number-one enemy of the Iranian working class, and that the Iranian economy is nothing but an appendage of the economies of America, Japan, Germany, Great Britain, and France.
Moreover, no one can be unaware of the fact that because of imperialist penetration of Iran, the national culture of the country has been totally destroyed and that imperialist social and cultural values have been firmly imposed on Iranian society. It appears that the communiqués, messages, articles, and speeches of Chou are based upon a certain political analysis. It could perhaps be summarized as follows: The shah represents the Iranian national bourgeoisie, which although tied to imperialism can be broken from it, notably because the regime has interests antagonistic to those of the imperialist powers. Thus Pékin Information published this statement by the shah: "The question of oil is one example of the injustice of the advanced countries toward the developing countries. ... Our great goal and our ideal is to exploit and sell our own oil." (Pékin Information, March 4, 1972). But shortly after the publication of this article, the Shah once again demonstrated his irrevocable ties with the imperialist monopolies when he sabotaged OPEC's negotiations with the oil companies and went so far as to renew the consortium agreement for twenty-five years, without even informing his handpicked parliament.
On the basis of this clear understanding of the nature of the shah's regime, the Economist (London, October 14, 1972, p. 72) wrote in discussing negotiations between Sheik Yamani of Saudi Arabia and the oil companies about "participation" agreements: "From the standpoint of the oil companies, the Iranians (read, "the shah" -- La Brèche) have been the best partners in the whole business."
It is not only not Marxist but also ridiculous for the Chinese propaganda machine to tie together the whole Iranian people and the proimperialist regime of the shah and to declare: "The government and people of Iran are fighting to defend their economic and national interests." (Pékin Information, March 4, 1972.) Such apologies for the shah's regime extend even to falsification. In taking up the question of the 1951 nationalizations of Iranian oil, Pékin Information forgets to mention that the nationalizations were carried out after many sacrifices on the part of the Iranian people under the leadership of the great bourgeois, anti-imperialist democrat Mossadegh and in total opposition to the royal court led by the shah, who even tried to actively sabotage the operation. The attempt to portray the shah as the champion of the struggle of the Iranian people against the international monopolies is an inexcusable historical falsification.
We can now ask ourselves what repercussions this policy will have in Iran. In the short term, while the repercussions may not be fatal, they bode ill; they divide the anti-imperialist forces in Iran; they weaken the opposition by bringing about a certain disillusionment among militants and among the masses; they bolster the shah's regime -- not only in his efforts to project the image of an independent, anti-imperialist government to the uninformed masses suffering under a repressive regime, but also economically, through trade with China, which offers vast markets for the Iranian economy.
But in the long run none of these factors will have an influence on the development of the revolutionary movement. For in the last analysis the objective factors at work in Iranian society will detonate the present contradictions. That is, no external subjective factor, no matter how strong, can prevent the development of a profound crisis in a capitalist society such as Iran's, where the capitalist system rests on a very fragile base. It is the Iranian working class, and not any outside communist power, that will decide the fate of the revolution in this country.
For True Proletarian Internationalism!
But it is necessary to stress another important result of this policy: the present experience (the third since 1921) teaches Iranian revolutionists the necessity of thinking independently, while at the same time retaining an internationalist outlook. The destruction of medieval myths inside the communist movement is after all a positive and progressive thing.
We can now answer the question posed at the outset: For Iranian revolutionary Marxists, the current foreign policy of China in relation to regimes such as those in Iran, Ceylon, the Sudan, etc., is in complete contradiction to the norms of proletarian internationalism. Her foreign policy is aimed at defending national self-interest as is the foreign policy of the Soviet Union.
In conclusion, we must consider another fundamental problem. What lessons can we draw from this experience? Given the evolution of the Soviet Union and China, which in the process of constructing socialism abandoned the world revolution to pursue their own national interests, what path will the Iranian working class follow when it takes power? Will it follow the same course? Will the construction of socialism in a country like Iran necessarily lead down the same road as that followed by the Soviet Union and China?
We think not. In our opinion, despite the very strong pressures exerted by the underdevelopment of the productive forces and the economic constraints resulting from integration in the world market, pressures which could give rise to tendencies toward "socialism in one country" after the revolution, the whole question will depend on which is put first -- politics or economics. Thus the powerful tendencies toward "socialism in one country" -- that is, the ideological justification for competition with the capitalist economy with the goal of surpassing it, including the bourgeois mentality of the consumer society (a thesis of Stalin's which has been falsely attributed to Khrushchev by the Chinese) -- can only be effectively fought on the basis of a conscious revolutionary-internationalist policy.
It is toward this goal that we must resolutely strive.