SUPPORTS KHRUSHCHEY AGAINST TAO
Hasseanein Heykal, a close confident of Egypt's President Nasser, ublished an article March 30 in the daily paper Al Abram of which he om es on the problem of relations between Tab national ion and ommunisnz. .
This article is worth noting. First of all, Heykal expresses his “suppert for the position defended by the Soviets in the ideclogigal conflict, putting them in opposition to the Chinese position, in which they advocate co-operation with all national revolutions thet adopt a polisy of nonalignment." In other words, the radical spokesman of the national bourgeoisie of course sympathizes with those leaders of the bureaucracy who advocate all-out suppert for the colonial bourgeoisie, and he is rather frigid towards the leaders of the Chinese CP whe play with the idea of “uninterrupted revolution" in the colonies.
Secondly, he points out that the recent events in Iraq cannot be correctly held to be a victory for the West in the cold war. "The . leaders of the Iraqi Communist party have not been executed because they belonged to that party, but because they had committed murders.” | This is an attempt to justify the fierce persecution suffered by the Iraqi CP leaders as being nothing more than understandable revenge exacted by the Iragi nationalists for the support the CP gave Kassen in butchering the nationalist Nasserist forces during the Mossul and Kirkuk uprisings. At the same time Nasser serves notice to American imperialism that he is not ready to abandon his position of "nonalignment" in the cold war, a position that greatly strengthens his bar- gaining power. The Soviet bureaucracy, it has been showr, will continue to send military and economic aid to the Arab nationalists even when they butcher the local CP leaders and militants.
Thirdly, Heykal points out: the contrast between the full support to Nasser and Nasserism adopted by the Arab Comnunists during the Sues orisis in 1956 and the violent opposition of the Syrian Communists, including their leader Khaled Dagdache, to Syro~iigyptian unity in ‘1958. Heykal tries to show in this way that Communists only support
national uprisings temporarily and for tactical reasons. In fact, once agein a basic lesson is driven home the hard. way: neither the opportunism of 1956 nor the sectarian break with the mass. movement in 1958 enabled Arab Communism to win leadership of the Arab national~ democratic mass movement. Yet in several Arab countries conditions were excellent. to build a powerful movejent on the basis of working-~ Glass independence and a program of permanent revolution. ;
Finally, Heykal is compelled to conclude that “we are not hostile towards Marxism as an ideology. . Nobody can deny that Merxism has. left traces in our country, notwithstanding the activity of the lecal Communist. organisations." Here Heykal makes an important admission. Notwithstanding the political mistakes and crimes committed by the Stalinist leadership, Marxism continues to exercise a very stron appeal to radicel students, intellectuals and advanced workers tighting for the socialist unification of the Arab people. ‘
YEVIUSHENKO UNDER PEAVY FIRE
PARIS, April 22 = For several weeks now, Yevgenii Yevtushenke has been