243

p The problem of relations with developing countries occupies a very important place in the political strategy and practice of imperialism. Although today relations between imperialist countries, on the one hand, and Asian and 244 African countries, on the other, radically differ from those which prevailed in the past between imperialist powers and their colonies, protectorates and other dependent territories, Lenin’s propositions on the essence of imperialist policy still hold good. Lenin said that “the essential nature of international relations under capitalism" is “the open robbery of the weaker...”.  [244•*  The system of colonial oppression attained worldwide dimensions during the domination of imperialism.

p The system of colonial domination was due to the economic nature of the monopoly stage in capitalist development and was intensified, as Lenin noted, by the processes in politics and ideology:

p “The non-economic superstructure which grows up on the basis of finance capital, its politics and its ideology, stimulates the striving for colonial conquest.”  [244•** 

p The period of domination by the imperialists in Asia, Africa and Latin America brought countless vicious crimes against the peoples of those countries. The shameful exploitation, conservation of social backwardness, the distorted, one-sided economic development, the pitiless repression of any resistance and yearning for freedom, the degradation and even extinction of whole nationalities, have been the major manifestations and consequences of the domination of capitalist monopolies who would stop at nothing in their scramble for maximum profits and who operated in the interests of the monopolies of imperialist governments.

p As a result, the whole of Africa and a considerable part of Asia were divided among a few imperialist powers. Vast colonial empires arose, whose territories and populations many times exceeded those of the metropolitan powers. Asian and African countries which formally possessed the external trappings of state sovereignty, were, in fact, completely dependent on the imperialists. Furthermore, as Lenin showed, in the epoch of imperialism direct territorial expansion began to play a relatively less important role by comparison with more indirect forms of economic and political domination. Lenin noted that “finance capital and its foreign policy, 245 which is the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of transitional forms of state dependence”.  [245•* 

p Naturally, the extension of colonial oppression in every form aggravated strife and struggle among the imperialist predators and led to a burgeoning national liberation movement.

p A new stimulus and genuine support to the national liberation movement in the battle against imperialism came with the appearance, existence and policy of the first socialist state in the world. This was bound to have an effect on relations between the colonialists and the colonies, between the imperialist powers and their dependencies. From now on, the imperialists were obliged to reckon with this fact and the possibilities of mutual support between the socialist state and the oppressed peoples, and therefore to make certain concessions to the national liberation movement.

p The successful struggle of the Soviet people against imperialism had a great impact on relations between the oppressed peoples and the imperialist states. Lenin frequently referred to the revolutionising importance of this fact. “I think,” he noted in 1919, “that what the Red Army has accomplished, its struggle, and the history of its victory, will be of colossal, epochal significance for all the peoples of the East. It will show them that, weak as they may be, and invincible as may seem the power of the European oppressors, who in the struggle employ all the marvels of technology and of the military art—nevertheless, a revolutionary war waged by oppressed peoples, if it really succeeds in arousing the millions of working and exploited people, harbours such potentialities, such miracles, that the emancipation of the peoples of the East is now quite practicable.”  [245•** 

p The subsequent course of events increasingly bore out this forecast. The most telling changes in this sphere took place after the Second World War which heralded both the relative and absolute weakening of imperialist forces overall, and the weakening of individual colonial powers (Britain, 246 Belgium, France, Italy, Japan and the Netherlands). As a consequence of the upsurge in the national liberation movement and the general shift in the world balance of power, the system of colonial slavery crumbled and, on the ruins of colonial empires, dozens of new sovereign countries arose.

p Although many new national states continue to remain within the system of the world capitalist economy, they are no longer simple objects of imperialist policy. Imperialism today has lost to a substantial degree numerous key positions which had enabled it to control the course of international events. It no longer can dispose of such reserves as former colonial Asia and Africa, and to a large degree is losing its hold on Latin America. Of course, the imperialists still retain important levers of influence in these areas, especially in the economic sphere, but they are no longer capable of retaining the developing countries completely in the mainstream of their foreign policy.

p After the war, direct military actions by the colonialists against Asian and African peoples often met with defeat and, ultimately, proved ineffective. One of the most salient events in this respect was the inglorious defeat of the threepower aggression against Egypt in 1956.

p The imperialists, however, continue to commit political and military crimes against the peoples of these countries. Symptomatic in this context is the fact that the main role in the struggle against the national liberation movement is that played by the United States. Speaking of America as the strongest and richest capitalist country, Lenin stressed that “America stands in inevitable contradiction with the colonies”.  [246•* 

p The modern-day colonialists are responsible for organising counter-revolutionary coups in several countries of Asia and Africa, supporting reactionary military-dictatorial regimes in Latin America and much else. This aspect of imperialist policy was most apparent in American aggression against the Vietnamese people and other peoples of Indochina. American imperialism, relying on its few puppets, 247 endeavoured to crush the aspiration of peoples for freedom, independence and unity by cruel and bloody means, to retain in South Vietnam and in Cambodia and Laos a base for its influence in Southeast Asia. But events are showing the ultimate ineffectiveness of these “traditional” methods of old-time colonialism.

p While the United States stubbornly used military means to crush the national liberation movement in Vietnam (even though it was forced to enter into peace negotiations with the genuine representatives of the Vietnamese people and, in the final analysis, to sign the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam), in other areas imperialist US circles and those in some other capitalist countries are trying to retain the newly liberated states within the capitalist orbit and to subordinate their policies to the capitalist interests by more flexible and “liberal” political, economic and ideological means: the proffering of all kinds of “aid” and “protection”. The imperialists have begun to transfer from the very crude and coercive methods of oppression and of support for reactionary feudal and monarchist forces to more veiled (and in the new circumstances, more effective), primarily economic, methods of securing their positions and interests.

Imperialism sets itself the task of shaping the social and economic development of the young states through active involvement in their economies, widespread participation in the training and education of a body of national intellectuals and technical and administrative personnel, and a stepping up of pro-capitalist propaganda. It has begun to view the bourgeois circles rather than the feudal-compradore elements as its social support in the young countries, calculating that the narrow class interests of the local bourgeoisie will prevail over the nationwide interests and that the bourgeoisie will become a reliable ally of the West. While initially imperialist politicians tried at any cost to include the newly liberated countries in the system of military and political blocs and while they condemned, in the style of John Foster Dulles, neutralism as an "amoral and short-sighted policy”, they have been obliged with time to make certain amendments to their policy.

248

p The present-day policy of the imperialist powers in relation to the developing countries is determined not so much by their drive for profits as by their concern about the fate of the capitalist system as a whole and, above all, about their position in the confrontation with socialism. Concern for the future of the capitalist system was the motivation of the Asian Doctrine and the Guam Doctrine designed to “ substantiate” the imperialist policy of the United States in Asia.

p The anti-socialist bias of US policy in relation to the developing countries, irrespective of the evolution of its forms in the direction of aid, is readily recognised both in official documents and in various studies. In the book Strategy for the 60’s, compiled on the basis of reports prepared in 1959 for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the authors underline the need for the United States to prevent by any means new countries from taking on a socialist orientation, otherwise “the world will be much more dangerous place for the United States”.  [248•*  The United States wants to follow this course in the 70s as well.

p The International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties in 1969 gave a thorough analysis of the contemporary imperialist policy in relation to the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America: “In its struggle against the national liberation movement, imperialism stubbornly defends the remnants of the colonial system, on the one hand, and, on the other, uses methods of neo-colonialism in an effort to prevent the economic and social advance of developing states, of countries which have won national sovereignty. To this end it supports reactionary circles, retards the abolition of the most backward social structures and tries to obstruct progress along the road to socialism or along the road of progressive non-capitalist development, which can open the way to socialism. The imperialists impose on these countries economic agreements and military-political pacts which infringe on their sovereignty; they exploit them through the export of capital, unequal terms of trade; the manipulation of prices, exchange rates, loans and various forms of so– 249 called aid; and pressure by international financial organisations.”  [249•* 

p In the new historical situation, when the existence and the policy of the world socialist system have deprived the imperialist powers of a monopoly of relations with the economically backward regions of the world, imperialism is sometimes forced to help in some measure the economic development of Asian, African and Latin American countries. The attention, interests and activity of the imperialists in this sphere are above all associated with the battle between the two systems; they want to avoid a further weakening in capitalist world positions and to prevent the development of newly liberated countries along a non-capitalist path leading eventually to socialism.

p A feature of the new tactics of colonialists in Asia and Africa is that it has often begun to take on “a collective” character. Despite their inner contradictions, the imperialist powers strive to act together so as to carry through their common imperialist tasks in relation to the newly liberated countries, in so far as the colonialists are today insufficiently strong to implement these tasks singly.

p For the developing countries the question of relations with the capitalist countries is complex and contradictory. The policy of the ruling circles in several Asian, African and Latin American countries is leading to a closer alignment with the imperialist powers. This is due, on the one hand, to social differentiation within individual newly liberated countries and between them, and a certain strengthening in the positions of the national bourgeoisie in several countries, as mentioned above. On the other hand, the tendency of some developing countries to come closer to the countries of advanced capitalism follows also from objective economic considerations. The developing countries very much need to resolve their urgent problems concerning capital investment, industrial plant and markets for their products (which, as a rule, are agricultural monocultures), and sometimes the need for food for their rapidly growing population. All this 250 causes a strong; dependence on foreign economic ties and at the same time makes it possible for the capitalist countries to keep and even intensify their economic positions in some newly free countries.

p However, neither the present neo-colonialist policy of the imperialist powers, nor the corresponding tendencies in the developing countries can eliminate the deep contradictions between imperialism and the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, nor are they able to guarantee their harmonious collaboration and political unity. The Wall Street Journal wrote in May 1967 that “Lesser nations are hard to rally around the US position. There is the Afro-Asian bloc, to start with, whose members quarrel among themselves yet are still willing to join in any fist-shaking against a big ’ imperialist’ ”.  [250•* 

This fact has a deep meaning: it bears witness to the acuteness of contradictions between the developing countries and imperialism. These contradictions grow sharper as the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America become more and more convinced that they cannot successfully resolve the complex tasks of economic and social progress by capitalist methods. “Imperialism is being subjected to ever greater pressure by the forces which have grown out of the national liberation struggle,” the 24th Congress of the CPSU stated. “The main thing is that the struggle for national liberation in many countries has in practice begun to develop into a struggle against exploitative relations, both feudal and capitalist.”  [250•**