I talked with Ramiz about the article (Published in Enver Hoxha. Against modern revisionism, (Collection of works) 1971-1975, Alb. ed., "8 Nentori" Publishing House Tirana 1980, p. 251) which is to be published in the newspaper Zeri i popullit tomorrow denouncing the agreements which were concluded in Moscow between American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism.

Amongst other things, the article says:

The Moscow talks are the result of a long process of Soviet-American contacts and collaboration, of major political, ideological and economic concessions of the Soviet revisionists and of extending a helping hand and support for the revisionist line of the restoration of capitalism on the part of the American imperialists. The agreement concluded in the Soviet capital are the result of setting aside many rivalries on concrete international questions and are reached for the sake of their common imperialist interests and to assist their hegemonic ends.

During Nixon's visit to Moscow it was noticed that everything had been orchestrated in advance and that only the public performance was put on there. This was further evidence that there is not only rivalry and collaboration between the two superpowers, but also unity of imperialist interests, the promotion of which calls for joint action.

Of course the agreements announced in the Soviet capital do not reflect the whole truth and the outcome of tens of hours of talks in the Kremlin was much more than was made known to the public. Soviet-American relations have now been raised to a much higher level, for the first time they have been publicly legalized and placed on a broad juridical basis. "The basic principles of the mutual relations between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" which were incorporated in a special document and presented in the form of a treaty, constitute a clearly defined political and military platform the aim of which is to place all present-day international relations under the imperialist control of the two superpowers, to place the entire world under their orders and dictate. They reflect the aim and will of the two superpowers to put their narrow imperialist interests and great-power selfishness above any international law or moral standard.

The main result of the visit of President Nixon and his talks with the chiefs of the Kremlin is that they cleared the way for new imperialist deals, more threatening and dangerous to the peace and security of the peoples.

With "The basic principles of relations..." the revisionist leaders of the Soviet Union, among other things, are making a monstrous attempt to rehabilitate American imperialism in our eyes, to present it in the most peaceful light, as a defender of the peoples and opponent of aggressions, which sacrifices itself for the freedom of others. Anyone who reads this document is bound to ask: What has become of that American imperialism which in a thousand and one party and state documents, in speeches, books and articles of the Soviet revisionists, was called "the gendarme of international reaction", "the enemy of the proletariat and national liberation wars", "the pillar of the world capitalist system", etc., etc. What has become of the American imperialism a which until one day before Nixon's visit to Moscow was an aggressor against the people of Vietnam, oppressed Africa and exploited Europe? According to the speeches that the revisionist chiefs made in praise of Nixon and the documents they signed with him, this imperialism no longer exists. Allegedly this imperialism has now been tamed and under Nixon's signature has even undertaken to apply all the principles of "peaceful coexistence" point by point, "to encourage and defend the peace, freedom and independence of the peoples."

The spreading of such opinions and illusions about imperialism is another betrayal of the cause of the proletariat and the revolution by the Soviet revisionists. In order to smooth the way for imperialism, they are trying to convince the peoples that an American imperialism which is killing and maiming in Vietnam no longer exists, that neither other imperialisms, nor German revanchism, Japanese militarism, Indonesian reaction, fascism in Spain, King Hussein, nor the racist regime in Rhodesia exist any longer. They want to make the world believe the demagogy and hypocrisy of Nixon, who pretends to be shocked when he learns the story of little Tania who died during the nazi siege of Leningrad, while he himself has just ordered the blockade of the DR of Vietnam so that all the Tanias and children of Vietnam will die. "Imperialism does not exist, therefore there must be no class struggle, there must be no attempts to make the revolution, to win freedom and independence" - this is what the Soviet revisionists, those saboteurs and zealous extinguishers of the fire of revolution and peoples' liberation struggles, want to say.

But the demagogy, cynicism and hypocrisy of the Soviet revisionists and their American friends, however abundantly and frequently employed, do not have the magic power to deceive the entire world, as those in Moscow and Washington may think.

The American imperialists and the Soviet revisionists have dressed up the document "The basic principles of relations..." as well as the other documents which were signed in Moscow in a phraseology which seems to be inspired by the well-known principles of peaceful coexistence and the United Nations Charter. But if this demagogic veneer is removed, it turns out that it is nothing but a code of savage imperialist rules, of mutual assurances and pledges to preserve their respective zones of influence and to rule the world.

They also mention there the century of the atom and "peaceful coexistence" as its imperative accompaniment. This is a well-known refrain and it is not difficult to understand in what relationship they want to place theatom with peace. Under the threat of atomic blackmail, the American imperialists and the Soviet revisionists want to impose on the world the concept of unconditional and. fatalistic submission to the two superpowers. For the sakeof preserving "peaceful coexistence" between the two, superpowers, they want the peoples to sacrifice, partly or completely, their supreme national interests, their freedom and independence, their right to judge and act according to their own will in the international life, on the altar of the atom.

In their speeches and in the Moscow documents, the Soviet and American leaders declared that they adhere and will adhere strictly to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, that they will do their utmost to avoid causing conflicts and increasing international tension. If the policy which the two big powers pursue in practice and their daily activities were not known, perhaps someone might believe this. But when the imperialists and revisionists speak about non-interference, they do not have in mind their own chauvinist and hegemonic activity and practice at all.

For them, of course, the aggression in Vietnam is not interference, just as the occupation of Czechoslovakia is not interference. The imperialists organize scores of coups d'etat and this is allegedly permissible for them, just as it is natural for them to prop up reactionary regimes in various countries with money and weapons. The American imperialists and the Soviet revisionists, who are the biggest neo-colonialists, plunder the wealth and exploit the working people of other countries, but they do not like this to be called brutal interference in the internal affairs of others, oppression and enslavement of the peoples.

In the context of the Moscow documents "non-interference" must be understood as a mutual pledge to recognize each other's zones of influence and not to undertake any action which might cause disturbances. It must be understood, as the recognition of the right of each side to do what it likes in its own zone and with its own clients.

Nixon frequently described the present state of Soviet-American relations as "the end of the era of confrontations and the beginning of the era of Talks". Translated into ordinary language, this means that the period when the communist Soviet Union fought and opposed the United States of America as the main imperialist power in the world and when anti-communist America fought against and wanted to destroy the first big socialist state, has ended. Now that these bases and motives have been eliminated, the era of talks, i.e., of deals to divide and rule the world, has begun.

The bourgeois and revisionist propaganda is advertizing the Moscow talks as an attempt by the two superpowers "to find ways for the solution of international problems" The fact is, however, that Nixon and Brezhnev have discussed and taken decisions on all the questions which are of vital interest to the majority of peoples of all continents behind the high walls of the Kremlin, in the greatest secrecy, without first seeking and receiving the approval of the peoples. Here we have to do not with a question of procedure, but with a renewed emphasis of the old tendency to monopolize all the problems of the world and to settle them according to the interests of the Soviet-American alliance.

However much the Soviet and American leaders may try to convince world public opinion that the agreements they have concluded do not affect the interests of others, they can convince nobody. The wording of the joint communiqué has been chosen precisely with the aim of covering up these plots, deceiving the peoples and blunting their vigilance. Nixon did not go to Moscow to hear from Brezhnev that "the Soviet side is in solidarity with the just war of the Vietnamese people". He went there to strike bargains over the blood of the Vietnamese people with the Soviet leaders: he went there so that the Soviets would help him to get out of the Indochinese impasse.

Before the Moscow meeting, many of those who still hope that the big powers may settle their present squabbles in the world, thought that the United States of America and the Soviet Union would find a way to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict.

However, the reality showed that the American imperialists and the Soviet revisionists, who are directly responsible for the existing situation, do not want the conflict to come to an end and are not interested in restoring to the Arab peoples the rights of which they have been robbed. On the contrary, as it turns out from the Moscow communiqué, both sides want to exploit the tragedy of the Arabs to preserve and extend the strategic positions they have captured in that zone.

It is true that there is Soviet-American rivalry in the Middle East, but it is deliberately exaggerated by both sides in order to justify their presence in this zone and make themselves arbiters of the situation. Therefore the conflict in the Middle East is not just a conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis, but also a conflict between the Arabs and the two superpowers. If the latter are not ousted from the Middle East, the Arab question cannot be solved and the freedom and independence of the Arabs will be constantly threatened and in danger.

The maintenance of the status quo, which Nixon and Brezhnev are seeking to sanction, is another blow dealt by the two imperialist powers to the Arab peoples and their just struggle.

In the joint communiqué there are many words about Europe and its problems. After the major concessions that the Soviet Union made in favour of Bonn and which were in the agreement on Berlin and in the "treaties of the East", the United States of America gave its consent to the holding of the conference on the socalled European security so greatly desired and long awaited by the Soviet revisionists.

Through sweet-looking but really poisonous demagogic slogans, such as "security of Europe", "guarantee of borders", encouragement of economic collaboration, "extension of cultural, scientific and technological exchanges" etc., they want to create a feeling of obligation and subservience among the peoples of Europe, an eternal submission to the two "great benefactors".

Through this "security", the two superpowers want to secure their respective zones of influence, to ensure that they exert a permanent influence on the affairs of Europe and become arbiters of its problems. They want to keep Europe in economic and political subjection, so that it lives in the shadow and at the mercy of the two almighty powers.

The visit of the President of the USA to the Soviet Union was concluded with the signing of the Soviet-American treaty on the limitation of strategic weapons. Now all the floodlights of the imperialist and revisionist propaganda have been focused on this treaty. "This treaty shows what can be done in the future", says Nixon. "This is a great success on the road of restraining the armaments race," Kosygin replies.

The imperialists and revisionists have long been deliberately mystifying nuclear weapons in the same way that they have inflated the myth of disarmament. Now they want to convince the world that the Moscow agreement on strategic weapons is a great success without precedent in the field of disarmament, a liberation from the heavy burden of fear of atomic war, a restraint on the armaments race, a tendency for the relaxation of tension, etc., etc.

In reality all this loud publicity is a cruel hoax, intended to placate public opinion and deceive the peoples, to give the impression that the superpowers are disarming and to divert the peoples' attention from the aggressive policy of force of the superpowers, so that the world will not see what sinister plans they are hatching up against the freedom and independence of the peoples.

It must be said at the outset that the treaty of Moscow marks neither a restriction of the armaments race nor a limitation or ban on atomic weapons or other kinds of weapons. All the two superpowers have done is to agree that neither will go ahead of or lag behind the other in the armaments race. Now they have established order so as to make better use of their forces and means in this efficiency. The fact is that both countries are free to make improvements and qualitative changes in their strategic weapons systems, a thing which can increase their power much more than a simple numerical increase in these weapons.

The convention on offensive weapons contains no restrictions in regard to the two countries' squadrons of strategic bombers, their so-called orbital nuclear bombs or their number of nuclear warheads. The failure to set a limit to the number of nuclear warheads leaves the problem of multiple-warhead missiles untouched and, as a consequence, each country is free to increase their number in each missile. Likewise, there are no limitations on medium range missiles.

The Moscow agreement on strategic weapons defines the military balance between the two superpowers, but, at the same time, it shows that they have defined the distance that the two of them jointly will keep ahead of the other countries. The importance of this treaty lies in this and its dangerous consequences can and will arise from this. The maintenance of this distance from the other countries also obliges the two powers to decide on a common political and economic line towards third parties, a common code of behaviour and a clear set of rules on prohibitions and restrictions.

The joint struggle to safeguard their monopoly of modern weapons, which was further incited with the Moscow agreement, also makes inevitable the struggle to maintain their joint control over the internal and external activities of other countries. It makes essential the combination of the American and Soviet military power and the beginning of efforts for the establishment of armed control by the two biggest powers over the entire world, the establishment of a joint international regime for the preservation of their political, economic and military balance, and their joint management of world issues.

Among the many agreements which the American and Soviet leaders signed during the visit of the President of the USA to the Soviet Union was one called the agreement "On co-operation in the study and exploitation of outer space for peaceful purposes". It passed without much ado, but observers did not fail to notice that it had to do with the occupation of the earth rather than the heavens. Like the agreement on mutual exchanges in the field of science, technology, education and culture, this agreement, too, is an expression of a common line which has been worked out for the establishment of a technological monopoly, not only in the field of weapons, but also in the main spheres of modern science and technology, for the establishment of a Soviet-American technological colonialism in the world.

The final aim of all these agreements, both open and secret, is the division of spheres of influence, the monopolization of the markets of big and small countries. Their purpose is to increase the wealth and profits of the superpowers and to plunder and exploit the peoples.

This joint Soviet-American strategy will hit the poor and unarmed peoples and countries, those that in the past have been the prey of neo-colonialists, first of all. But the developed countries, the allies of the United States of America and the Soviet Union, will not escape this danger, either. The reduction of the armed forces of the European countries, which the Americans and Soviets want to include in the "European security" and which is intended to deprive the European countries of the ability and power to defend themselves, also, must be seen from this aspect. The two superpowers think that, in this way, they will have weaker partners on whom they can impose their laws more easily.

The Soviet-American alliance, reinforced with the new treaties, will dictate its condition to these countries, because the economic potential of the two superpowers, backed up by their military potential, is bound to make itself felt on the others. This is where the main danger of these agreements lies. This prospect also explains the present euphoria in Moscow and Washington over the agreements they have reached.

At the Soviet-American meeting in Moscow the foundations were laid for close economic co-operation and trade exchanges amounting to 5 billion dollars a year. It has been envisaged that American capital will pour into the Soviet Union and huge amounts of Soviet law materials will cross the ocean.

But this is not the fundamental thing. Nixon and Brezhnev set up a joint Soviet-American economic commission. It will not engage in the conclusion of an ordinary economic treaty or a simple trade agreement. This top level commission was set up to discuss in what zones American and in what zones Soviet capital will intervene, how they will cope with the objections and competition of their allies who will feel themselves threatened. This, we think, is the most complicated and dangerous problem for American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, because on top of the inevitable contradictions that will emerge between them as the two plunderers they are in implementing their global strategy, their open and secret agreements, they will also encounter the opposition of all peoples and indeed of their allies, too.

The two superpowers which want to play god almighty and are in agreement over everything are not much concerned about the interests of others. But will the different states and the world allow them to gamble with their destiny? We foresee that they will not. The euphoria of Moscow and Washington will not last long. The contradictions will grow sharper. The peoples cannot accept the Soviet-American political dictate and economic exploration. They will revolt against the two superpowers, as well as against those ruling cliques which do not react in defence of national interests but sell the wealth, the honour and freedom of their countries. But it is not only the peoples who will revolt; the governments of many countries, Britain, France, the Scandinavian countries, the countries of Latin America or the Far East, cannot be indifferent. In one way or another, they have expressed their doubts and are wary of the two-fold Soviet-American domination.

These governments are beginning to worry about the fact that their big friends not only consider each other as the only partners worthy of discussing major world problems, but also reach secret agreements over questions which have to do directly with their countries. They are especially worried over the fact that the SALT talks and agreements from which all of them have been excluded are being transformed into a joint American-Soviet strategic line, into a major global agreement to which all the allies have to submit obediently and humbly.

Now the policy and activity of the two superpowers affects the interests not just of one country or a few separate countries. It affects entire zones and continents, therefore entire peoples are united by revolt and opposition to it in a common anti-imperialist and anti-social-imperialist front.

The peoples of the world are now facing a new, allsided attack by the American and Soviet imperialists. This attack can be repelled by exposing and opposing the reactionary content of the Soviet-American alliance and its plans for oppression and plunder with all our might. It is particularly necessary to reject the pacifist illusions, the imperialist-revisionist lies and deception with which they are flooding the world.

The peoples of the world must oppose the counterrevolutionary unity of the two superpowers with their revolutionary unity, with their resolute blow for blow struggle, in order to foil the new superpower plots against the freedom and independence of the peoples and to undermine and destroy the entire Soviet-American global strategy.



Mankind must condemn the American imperialists as war criminals for the genocide in Vietnam.

The American imperialists are continuing their barbarous war against the heroic Vietnamese people with the utmost fury. The American barbarians have divided the roles with the puppets of Saigon. For years on end the latter have been using the sons of the people of South Vietnam as cannon fodder for the American slaughter. They are being chopped to pieces in the battles on the ground. Nixon's theory of the "Vietnamization" of the war has long been in operation although the puppets of Saigon have not won a single victory. The American fascists, on their part, are fighting with their air force. The aim of the Americans is to kill as many Vietnamese as possible and to completely burn and destroy North and South Vietnam. Hitlers' aims and methods of operation were no different. Fascists and racists are nothing but imperialist barbarians. And so are the American imperialists.

The entire American air force is bombing North and South Vietnam day and night with all its might. For years on end the most up-to-date bombers have been making two to three hundred sorties a day, dropping their bombs no everything, on civilian target, on cities, on factories and hospitals, on dams and forests, on schools and populated suburbs. The number of bombs dropped on Vietnam up till now greatly exceeds the total number of the bombs dropped during the Second World War by all the belligerent powers. The biggest aggressive power of the world has hurled itself against a small state and people! But this small people is resisting, fighting heroically and has placed this imperialist aggressor state in a difficult position, in a position of defeat.

This terrible tragedy is being perpetrated while the world looks on. American imperialism is hatching up intrigues everywhere, indulging in demagogy and blackmail, making threats, buying from and selling to all, buying the consciences of all who are for sale in the markets of betrayal. There are many many such people who shed crocodile tears over the crimes being perpetrated in Vietnam. They weep by day while at night they talk and canoodle with the American fascists. And all these betrayers of the peoples say that they do these things in order to save the world from war. They claim that they are saving mankind from death at a time when war is raging and people are being blown to bits by bombs. These traitors and executioners of peoples are filling the atmosphere with their phoney slogans about peace, accompanied with bombs, dollars and rubles. They are competing with one another to make proposals for open and secret meetings and talks. proposals for conferences and treaties on "European security", "Asian security", "African security", "security" everywhere! But there is and there will be no security anywhere. The mania for big movements led by various leaders of states of all colours and shapes has spread all over the world. All these movements are set up with the aim of giving the impression that something is being done, that some move, do not revolt, because everything will be put right! Have faith in this or that leader, have faith in that conference which is being prepared, in that top-level meeting!. But the mountain labours and brings forth a mouse'. The chains for the peoples are being forged and the screws are being tightened.

The Soviet fascists are in agreement with the American fascists. There is only one difference between them, the American fascists are bolder, while the Soviet ones are more cunning, because they want to disguise themselves. They have the same aim although they operate with different means. The American fascists bomb Vietnam, the Soviet fascists try to make it capitulate. The former are open enemies, the latter disguised enemies... History shows what kind of friends the Soviet revisionists are. Where are the Soviet bombers for Vietnam? Where are the Soviet modern fighter-bombers for Vietnam? Where are the modern Soviet missiles for Vietnam? No, there are no such things for Vietnam! Apparently the skies of Vietnam are to be mined by the Americans! The Soviet skies must be protected, the Soviet soil, wealth and people must be protected! But why must they be protected?! For the final war, for the "preservation of peace".

"We have great responsibilities to mankind", said the traitor Podgorny in Hanoi when he went there recently to play Nixon's game. "We have responsibilities to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war. The Americans are very well prepared militarily and the United States of America has contradictions with its allies. If we exacerbate matters with the United States of America, then it and its allies will close their ranks against us," etc., said Podgorny.

The traitors have neither dignity nor scruple. In other words, the Soviet revisionists told the Vietnamese: "Surrender, we cannot help you, the Americans are strong.

You will have only yourselves to blame if you continue the war! There is no end to perfidy.

Despite this great betrayal, through the press, the radio, through their "loudspeakers" the Soviets are setting up a deafening clamour that they are helping Vietnam in its war. They, too, are war criminals. They are not making the slightest effort to break the blockade of the Vietnamese ports. All they know to do is to accuse China. However, it serves China right, because it put a weapon in the enemy's hands. The presence of Nixon in Peking in the situation that existed in relations between China and the United States of America was condemnable. To welcome the war criminal, Nixon, at a time when he was killing and maiming the Vietnamese, burning and devastating Vietnam, this, especially, is an act which is and will be severely condemned throughout the history of mankind. Of course China may say that it "received Nixon because of major world interests, in order to deepen the contradictions between the two superpowers. to avert an attack by the Soviet Union on China, to conduct trade with the United States of America", etc., etc. The Soviets, too, say all these things in other forms. But Vietnam is the conscience of the world which is fighting for freedom and independence against imperialism, against fascism and barbarity. Are you for this struggle and with this struggle or are you not? This is the big issue, an issue that cannot be dodged.



In these first two weeks of January, amongst others. a delegation of the Italian government, headed by the. foreign minister, Medici, and a Congolese delegation (from Zaire), headed by the president of that African republic, General Mobutu, have gone to China on official visits.

The two delegations were received by Zhou Enlai, who, of course, talked with them about political and other questions, made statements and affirmed some of his political and ideological views which, I think, are especially important on account of their specific, character. This is what impels me to write these notes.

Zhou Enlai had a meeting with the Italian Medici, at which the two exchanged views. However, nothing was, reported in the Chinese press apart from the announcement of a "cordial", meeting, whereas the Italian press, radio and television reported the trip and the Zhou Enlai - Medici talks extensively and especially highlighted this statement of Zhou Enlai's:

"China approves the European Common Market, approves and considers correct the creation of a 'United Europe', which the states of Western Europe have begun to build".

At the official banquet which Zhou Enlai gave for Mobutu, amongst other things, he stated without reserve: "Despite the form of the regime which is different from that of Zaire, China, of course, like Zaire is part of the third world...". This is an official statement which has appeared in the Chinese press.

In regard to Zhou Enlai's statements to Medici, it could be supposed that the Italian press is interested in concocting things, by distorting these statements. Such a thing might well occur, but since there has been no official denial from China, these statements must be true. We recall that the Chinese ambassadors in the countries of Europe have expressed such views about the Common Market and United Europe, to our comrade ambassadors. Hence, in this case we have to do with a political directive issued from the centre, from Peking, with a line and a directive issued by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the Chinese government. Thus, this line is being applied without hesitation. Not only are we not in agreement with this line and these orientations in any way, but on the contrary we are opposed to them, because they are wrong in principle and practice, 'because they are not on the Marxist-Leninist line but in opposition to it. These are revisionist-opportunist views and do not assist the revolution, the awakening of the peoples and their revolutionary struggle against imperialism, capitalism, and the reactionary bourgeoisie.

Let us be more explicit. How do the Chinese comrades, especially Zhou Enlai, the protagonist of this line, justify these key political attitudes stemming from this line? Only with the "exploitation of contradictions which - exist between American imperialism and Soviet socialimperialism"? "We must struggle to deepen these contradictions," says Zhou Enlai. So far so good. But in whose favour do we deepen them, and are these the only contradictions, known or unknown, which we must discover and struggle to deepen in the interest of the economic and political freedom, the sovereignty and self-determination of the peoples, in the interest of the revolution?

What is the cause of these contradictions which exist and are becoming more and more severe each day? What is the source of them, and are they simple or complex? Are they merely contradictions between the two superpowers, or do they extend further, more deeply? Should we Marxist-Leninists confine ourselves merely to being interested in deepening the contradictions which exist between imperialist America and the revisionist Soviet Union, and forget the contradictions which exist and must be deepened between the United States of America and its allies., between the revisionist Soviet Union and its allies", between these two superpowers and the states of the third world", which are included in their respective. spheres of influence? Should we forget the major class issue, the struggle of the proletariat, that is, the solution of the great contradiction between the proletariat and the capitalist bourgeoisie, between capital and the proletariat, between the proletariat and the people, on the one hand, and the capitalist oligarchy and its state power, on the other hand? Should we forget that the state power of the bourgeoisie must he destroyed through struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat established in its place, that the bourgeois capitalist order must he replaced by the socialist order?

If we neglect or forget these things, or use formulae as a smokescreen and in reality act differently, then we do not see, do not judge, and do not carry out things like Marxists.

Let us take the issues one by one. It is true that contradictions exist between the United States of America and the Soviet Union and that we must deepen them. What is the source and basis of these contradictions? They have their source in the very character and the permanent aims of capitalism, in the merciless exploitation of the proletariat and the enslavement of the peoples. Imperialism, the final phase of capitalism, is in the process of decay. It is fighting with guns, causing bloodshed, as well as with policy and ideology to keep the peoples enslaved, to suppress the revolutions and to attack the rivals which confront it in the international arena. Its decisive enemies, who in the end will wipe it out, are the peoples, the world proletariat, and the revolution.

History proves that the rivalry between the capitalist groupings of one country and the capitalist groupings of another country, or between the capitalist groups of a number of countries and the capitalist groups of some other countries, to rule the world, to create and extend their colonial empires, to divide up the spheres of influence and markets, has created conflicts and hurled the world into bloody wars, which have been great crises for mankind. Their aim has been the exploitation and oppression of peoples, of nations, of the weaker states by the more powerful. The demagogy of warmongers and enslavers has deceived individuals and peoples, exploiting their sound aspirations, but despite this, nothing could extinguish their sentiments for freedom, independence, liberation and the revolution. The strength of these sentiments and aspirations has steadily increased. The oppressed and exploited working masses have become the decisive motive force towards progress, the sternest opposition force to enslaving capitalism, against imperialism. Neither the transformation of the Soviet Union into a capitalist country, nor the transformation of a series of states of people's democracy into bourgeois capitalist states, has altered this trend of development in any way. The revolution is marching ahead, socialism is ceaselessly proving its vitality, while American imperialism, the head of a series of capitalist states, and Soviet social-imperialism, the leadership of a series of revisionist states, are in a deep political, ideological, financial and economic, cultural and military crisis.

It is the revolution, which is seething everywhere, as well as the peoples' liberation struggles, in all the forms and at all the stages of their development throughout the world, the strikes, protests, etc., which bring these great death-dealing crises to this decayed, declining world. This is the basis of our struggle against imperialism and social-imperialism, these are the decisive weapons which we must use in order to overcome these enemies. The strategy and tactics of our struggle must be built up in a correct way around this great aim and, in order to deepen the contradictions between the enemies, we must base ourselves on these principles and not on phantasies, adventures or opportunist stands.

As everyone knows, American imperialism emerged from the Second World War strong and with an aggressive economic and military potential. It took upon itself the role of international gendarme and worked to revive all the capitalist reactionary forces in Europe, Latin America and elsewhere. American imperialism was confronted with the great camp of socialism and all the peoples of the world that aspired to and fought for liberation.

Within a few years the United States of America revived Bonn Germany, Italy, the French and British capitalist economies, etc., but for every change that was made in those countries, it took good care to protect its own "ration", that is, to ensure that it got the lion's, share. The United States of America "relieved" these countries of their colonies, which it made its own with new methods. In allegedly reviving these states, the American imperialists strengthened their hegemony in the world and harnessed their "allies" to their chariot with all kinds of military and economic treaties. All these things served to strengthen American hegemony, first of all, to strengthen the reactionary bourgeoisie in each country, to suppress any people's movement and aspirations in these countries and in the world, and to create an iron bloc against the socialist Soviet Union and communism. The cold war, the local aggressive wars, and the threat of the United States of America to use the atomic bomb never frightened the socialist countries or the peoples of the world.

The great betrayal by the Soviet revisionists weakened the socialist camp, but it was unable to halt the advance of the world revolution or to eliminate socialism as a socio-economic order and as Marxist-Leninist ideology; and likewise it was unable to quell the desires and aspirations of the peoples to fight for socialism. Marxism-Leninism is immortal and always triumphant.

But what happened? With the betrayal by the Soviet revisionists, could it be said that all the contradictions of our time in all their complexity were eliminated? Not at all. They were increased both for the United States of America and the Soviet Union, and for their allies, regardless of the treaties, agreements, diplomatic accords, etc., etc. The contradictions the American imperialists and the Soviet revisionists have with each other can never he diminished or die out, on the contrary, they are increasing and extending. Their source and basis always lie in what I expounded above. At present, despite the contradictions they have, the two superpowers are in alliance to fight the true socialist countries, to fight the Marxist-Leninist communist parties, to fight the people's aspirations for freedom, self-determination and sovereignty, to combat and suppress peoples' just wars. In all these directions they are in agreement. Thus, they are in agreement to fight socialism and communism.

The United States of America is fighting to maintain its hegemony in the world; the Soviet Union is fighting to establish its hegemony. Hence, there is rivalry over the division of spheres of influence and the superpowers try to undermine each other's alliances. This is part of the game for spheres of influence and, of course, it has created and will create new contradictions, serious frictions, and possibly even armed frictions, Up till now the atomic bomb has served as a means of intimidation to prevent the outbreak of conflicts between the two superpowers.

American imperialism and its European allies want and are struggling to bring about the total weakening of the Soviet imperialist power, so that it no longer poses a threat, not just ideologically, but, if possible, is made dependent on them economically, and its aggressive military strength, of which the United States of America is afraid, is weakened and the other allies are in agreement on this. Therefore, their aim is to liquidate the dependence of the Warsaw Treaty countries on the Soviet Union. In this direction, they have scored many successes and will certainly score others, because the satellites of the Soviet Union in Europe, from Rumania to Poland, have turned their eyes to the United States of America, the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Britain. Backroom deals of secret diplomacy are on the agenda. The imperialists are terribly afraid of the peoples.

Despite their economic revival, the capitalist countries of Europe are in a great crisis, and the peoples who live in them are oppressed by the local oligarchies. Everywhere there are strikes, demonstrations, armed clashes, up to the level of war, as in Northern Ireland, What does this show? The decay of capitalism and the rise of revolutionary forces. But apart from the oppression and exploitation by the local oligarchies, these countries are also under the savage heel of American imperialism. In this situation even these states want to escape the domination of Americans. But how? De Gaulle's breaking away from NATO, the creation of the independent atomic striking force by France, the creation of the European Common Market and the idea launched, and the continuous struggle which is going on, for the creation of the "United States of Europe" do not have escape from the American dictate as their only aim. This is one aspect. The other aspect shows that the bourgeoisie thinks that the uniting of big monopolies of these countries will create a compact economic, political and military power, which will he more capable of suppressing the popular revolts and revolutions, which, already, have caused insurmountable problems and which later, because of chronic crises, will lie even wore ominous for it. But all these reactionary plans will solve nothing for it. The oligarchies of these states want to preserve NATO, that is, to maintain the military aid of the United States of America, since thus they are guaranteed against the danger which comes from the Soviet Union. Here there are a series of contradictions: the United States of America will maintain NATO, but does not want the European Common Market to become a barrier to itself, or even worse, the "United States of Europe" to become a great power. Among the states which will unite in this organization, which will dominate? France, West Germany, or Britain? Thus more rivalries, new "alliances" continual quarrels are being aroused, which we Marxist-Leninists must analyse correctly, must foresee correctly and must maintain correct stands towards them.

Now let us come to Zhou Enlai's statements, to clarify which I have been obliged to write these notes, perhaps rather lengthy, but still incomplete.

The Italian press and radio are writing and speaking enthusiastically about the attitude of the Chinese, who, through the mouth of Zhou Enlai, are calling on Europe "to find its unity in all directions." According to what Zhou Enlai said (again on the basis of the Italian press), "the process of European integration constitutes an essential element in achieving a real easing of tension." According to the same source, Zhou Enlai stressed that "this process must not be restricted to the economic sector, but should affect the fields of policy and defence." It couldn't be clearer. Since there has been no denial, Zhou Enlai has said these things.

These views of Zhou Enlai's are anti-Leninist and reactionary, contrary to Lenin's well-known theses on the question of the "United States of Europe." Thus, these views of Zhou Enlai's are in line with those of European reaction.

Zhou Enlai is in favour of European integration in the interest of cosmopolitan big capital, that is, for its political, economic and military domination over the peoples of Europe, in favour of the iron law of capital ruling the peoples of Europe. With his theses, Zhou Enlai (who poses as the theoretician of the exploitation of contradictions) completely ignores the major insurmountable contradictions between the proletariat and the peoples of Europe, on the one hand, and the reactionary bourgeois regimes of their countries and the capitalist oligarchies, on the other, and likewise he also overlooks the contradictions between these oligarchies themselves. Hence, Zhou Enlai is calling for the class struggle to he extinguished, calling for European integration, calling for the contradictions of European capitalism not to be deepened in favour of the proletariat. Hence, the reactionary press is quite right to exalt Zhou Enlai and has every reason to do so.

The Italian proletariat is on strike almost every day.

The Italian bourgeoisie wants to escape this pressure. Italy is a base of the United States of America, but to no effect. Italian reaction is using the club of the police, but cannot stop the strike wave. The bourgeoisie is fighting for European integration, for the creation of the "United States of Europe", and it is self-evident what the bourgeoisie expects from this and what evils await the workers and peoples of Europe. And here the bourgeoisie is being assisted by Zhou Enlai, who recommends to the peoples and the proletariat of Europe that they should follow its leaders meekly, instead of saying to them: "Workers of all countries and oppressed peoples, unite!".

However, what impels Zhou Enlai to come out so openly against Marxism-Leninism? He proceeds from another idea and thinks: "We must encourage this European reactionary bloc, because it confronts the American bloc, but especially the Soviet bloc. In this way, we deepen the contradictions between the imperialist blocs in favour of socialism." But the question arises: In favour of what socialism are these contradictions allegedly deepened when calls are made to the workers and peoples not to move, to integrate themselves like a flock of sheep in the pen of the capitalist shepherd? In this case socialism is reduced to China alone, which is inspired by such ideas of Zhou Enlai.

Zhou Enlai should be consistent in his ideas. Since he calls on the European states to integrate themselves under their capitalist oligarchies, then he ought to accept both the Warsaw Treaty and the occupation of Czechoslovakia.

Zhou Enlai declares that he is against Soviet hegemony over these states, indeed in this instance, he is in favour of "disintegration". Here he shows lack of consistency, or he is consistent in it that the satellites of the Soviet Union in Europe should break away and integrate themselves with the other "United" Europe, for the creation of which not only the monopoly bourgeoisie of Europe, but also Zhou Enlai, are appealing.

Zhou Enlai is not working to raise the peoples in revolution, to weaken the different links of the capitalist chain, is not helping to burst the weakest links of this cruel chain for the peoples, but, without expressing this openly, is preaching the creation of different blocs to bring about a balance of forces in favour of China, but not in the Marxist-Leninist, revolutionary way. We must all fight in favour of China, but this we must do only for a socialist China and in the Marxist-Leninist way.

Zhou Enlai and the Chinese leadership say that they are fighting on the two flanks: against American imperialism and against Soviet social-imperialism. However, the struggle on their part against the United States of America has been toned down. And when? Precisely when it is waging its barbarous war against Vietnam and continuing its aggressive struggle elsewhere. At such a time Zhou Enlai pretends that "the revolution is knocking at the door of the United States of America". At these moments of crisis for American imperialism, to give it a hand, as China has done and is doing, not only is wrong, but means to help it. Can it be said that Zhou's theses that "these things are done to deepen the contradictions between the two superpowers in favour of socialism", are confirmed in this way? Does Vietnam or the Middle East gain anything from them? Were the links of the American imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists weakened because China accepted Nixon's visit? None of these things came to pass. Apparently, the Chinese policy is for the creation of closed blocs, which, of course, will be in rivalry with one another and will be eroded by great contradictions.

A few months ago Chih Pengfei, the foreign minister of China, made more or less this statement: "China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and the other countries of Indochina are one big family...", etc. Here, naturally, the words "blocs", "camp", "socialist countries" did not appear, but there is a flavour of a "yellow family", an "Asiatic grouping", which is not Marxist-Leninist. Hence, today they are calling for "United Europe", for "one big family", and the "third world", and tomorrow they may he calling for integration of the countries of Latin America or the "black peoples of Africa". This is the tendency which is apparent in the Chinese policy, and this is not Marxist-Leninist, not revolutionary. It means to divert the peoples' attention from the genuine revolutionary struggle...



I talked with the Foreign Minister about the events which are taking place in our old Europe and about the many intrigues and deals which are being hatched up by the American imperialists, the Soviet social-imperialists and the other capitalist states of this continent.

Two events dominate the political scene at present in this part of the world, events accompanied by a deaf deafening racket of American jazz and the alluring sounds of the Russian balalaika. These two kinds of music are being played in Helsinki and in Vienna. In the former capital city they are prattling about "European security", while in the latter there is palaver about the "balanced reduction of armed forces" in Central Europe. The performances are being staged in those two cities, but the numbers are prepared and the star performers and the extras are coached and rehearsed in their roles in Washington and Moscow. As is known, we did not and could not take part in this dirty farce, not because we are afraid of fighting, but because we prefer to fight with drawn swords outside vicious circles. We state and will always state our opinion openly, fearlessly and without running any risk of getting "our clothes" tom in the brambles or stained in the mud of Vienna and Helsinki. All those who took part in these conferences eagerly desired us to go there so that they could compromise us in their rounds of talks. But these desires were not fulfilled. At these meetings they discuss the hegemonic interests of the two big powers and those of the capitalist cliques and not the interests of the peoples of Europe and the world. That is why we do not take part in these meetings but expose and fight them more effectively from outside. When the meetings are truly of the peoples, against their rulers, then Albania will always take part in them.

At these meetings the Rumanians pretend they are fighting on both fronts. What a disgusting farce!...

I instructed the minister that he and his staff must closely follow the proceedings of the conferences, draw conclusions and write articles. They must keep in mind the following questions:

Faced with the great crisis which has beset the capitalist world and America itself, American imperialism wants to free itself of its great military expenditure, but at the same time does not want to withdraw its armed forces from Europe. The United States of America wants to keep NATO on its feet, not only to oppose the Warsaw Treaty, but also to keep its own allies under pressure. It is trying to make these allied states pay more, both for the maintenance of the armies the United States has there, and to finance the dollar in other ways, i.e., wants them to export less and import more and thus eliminate the huge deficit in the American balance.

NATO asked Russia for a meeting at which they could talk about the "balanced reduction of armed forces in Europe". The Warsaw Treaty countries gave them a positive reply that "this reduction must affect only the foreign forces which are deployed in Europe". This was done to open the way for the meeting on "European security". Nixon and Brezhnev took the decisive step in this deal in Moscow, so that both meetings would be held at the same time.

The endless talks over procedure began in Helsinki at a time which was not favourable to the Soviets because not only Rumania was backing away from them, but Poland, too, had begun to move. Then meeting after meeting, pressure after pressure, the Rumanians tried to nuzzle up to France, but it had its own plans and advised them not to get too "skittish" with the Soviets. The crestfallen Rumanians became somewhat more amenable. The Soviets wanted to end this conference, which they themselves had sought, as quickly as possible, with a general declaration to keep up appearances. They foresee many difficulties.

The Americans and the Westerners want to carry the question of weakening the Soviet Union through to the end, and not just to weaken it economically, by investing their capital in the Soviet Union and its satellite countries, not just to weaken it militarily, by demanding the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Europe, but also by demanding that it open its borders to their ideas, their press, propaganda, tourists, etc. The picture is clear. They want to wean the satellite countries away from the Soviet Union and its influence (they themselves are ready for this) and harness them to their chariot.

In this way the hinterland of the West is extended and the borders of the Soviet Union are pushed back to where they were before the Second World War. This is not in the interests of Soviet social-imperialism, which wants to keep its satellites under its domination. That is why the Soviet Union proposed that the talks in Vienna should be about the reduction of national forces and armaments, while the reduction of foreign forces should be relegated to second place. Of course the Soviets made this proposal with the aim that the talks would be dragged on endlessly and to give the impression that they were "democratic", talks and not talks between two blocs or between the United States of America and the Soviet Union only, as was the case with SALT, but talks in which other countries, from each bloc would take part. This, of course, will give rise to another question, to the demand that "neutral" states, i.e., Austria, should participate and the Vienna meeting will become like that of Helsinki, if not broader, and any decision will be postponed indefinitely. The palaver must go on while matters proceed as the United States of America and the Soviet Union decide behind the scenes.

Thus, it is clear that all these questions are being manipulated by the two superpowers in order to balance their economic and military potentials in Europe, to preserve and consolidate their positions in the spheres of influence and, at the same time, to give the impression that they are fighting for "European security".

It is clear that by raising the question of the reduction of forces, they want to achieve the disarmament of the peoples, to weaken their defence potential and to impose the dictate of the superpowers easily on the countries of Europe so as to keep them under the blackmail and threat of nuclear missiles. The two superpowers will do nothing to reduce their forces or potential. On the contrary, everything is intended to conceal this while the disarmament is to be carried out to the detriment of others.

Even if these two superpowers make some small symbolic concession in this direction, it is known that their mechanized means, their paratroop detachments, their naval missile forces, etc., have a wide range of rapid action from one country to another. Therefore, this small symbolic gesture does not in any way affect the American-Soviet capacity to strike in all regions of Europe.

In these conferences everything is centered on these principal aims. Of course, as the situation evolves there will be problems and each side will have its own tactics. And there will be a reason and aim behind each of these, tactics. Therefore, without losing our bearings, we must follow the events, must analyse and explain them to our people in the first place, and as far as we can, also to those who listen to us or are interested in knowing our opinion. And this interest is by no means small in the world. Likewise, with the passage of time our political stands are being confirmed and approved.



A "friend" of ours from Vienna went to our embassy in Austria and, on behalf of the Soviet representative to the Organization of Atomic Energy, proposed that "secret talks should be held" in Vienna between us and the Soviets in order to improve relations, etc. Our ambassador replied to him in the blunt terms he deserved. What villains they are! The secret diplomacy of the Americans is being applied extensively by the modern revisionists.



It seems that NATO, at its last meeting held in May in Brussels, discussed Albania and according to information received the following was said:

"In considering the position and situation of Albania, the members of NATO have come to the conclusion that the situation in Albania is stable, unity exists and there is progress in the economy. Albania has a strong geographical position in the Mediterranean, but its policy in regard to this sea is in our favour. It opposes us but also, opposes the Soviets. Therefore, we must not upset Albania and aggravate relations with it, but, on the contrary, must try to improve them. The United States of America and Britain should try to establish diplomatic relations, with it, but without haste and without pressing the issue."

This is the information. Time will show how true it is, but very likely it is true, not only because of the reliability of the person who gave it to us, either from his own desire or urged to do so, that is not important, but also because of its content; it seems that this could have been the conclusion reached in the discussion of this organization, if it took up the question of Albania. And it is very probable that they have talked about Albania.

I discussed this question with the comrades of the Defence Council and the Foreign Minister, analysed the information, and gave them instructions for action.

Ours is a consistent, resolute, socialist, Marxist-Leninist policy. Far from being to the liking of NATO and the Warsaw Treaty, this policy and our stand are in firm opposition to their aims. Each of these two imperialist groups would like to have Albania on its side. Since it is impossible to attain this without an adventurous armed attack against our country, for the time being they prefer "not to encroach", on the freedom, independence and sovereignty of Albania and, in fact, like it or not, they accept the status quo. These two groups want to preserve the armed equilibrium between them.

Both NATO and the Warsaw Treaty are striving for rapprochement with us, showing themselves "moderate and benevolent", Moscow has done its utmost to re-establish diplomatic relations with us; Washington has made advances in the same direction. Quite rightly we turn a deaf ear to them As regards Britain and West Germany we have made our stand clear. Britain must return the stolen gold to the Albanian people, while the Federal Republic of Germany must pay reparations for the damage that German nazism inflicted on us during the War.

The United States of America is not in a hurry on this question, and this seems to confirm the information given us about the NATO meeting, The Soviets, for their part, are in a hurry, because they want to emerge on the Adriatic and the Mediterranean, but we resolutely oppose this predatory imperialist aim of theirs. This is to the liking of the NATO member states, therefore, according to the information, they say that the policy of Albania in the Mediterranean is in their favour. however our policy is equally irreconcilable and resolute against the American imperialists' presence in the Mediterranean.

This great interest of the two sides in Albania shows, on the other hand, the strategic importance of our country for both the one and the other, indicates the great contradictions between them, and shows, likewise, that in the war plans of the two groupings Albania is intended to be a battlefield to be attacked and occupied as quickly as possible by one or the other.

This confirms the accuracy of our predictions about an eventual attack on our country and the need for defence of the Homeland from all directions.

Everyone knows what is taking place in Europe at present, the plans of the Soviets and the Americans, of NATO and the Warsaw Treaty, which we are following with great vigilance. Likewise we are attentively following the relations of the superpowers for the accomplishment of their world strategy and their separate interests in the division of spheres of influence between them at the expense of small peoples. This whole complicated situation is developing amidst a great economic, political and military crisis which has engulfed the United States of America, the Soviet Union and all the countries allied to them, as well as the so-called third world, which has become totally involved in this infernal dance.

The frictions and contradictions are increasing at present. By harmonizing their actions, the two superpowers are striving to dominate their smaller partners and ensure their own hegemony, in order to avert a war between them as far as possible in this way. But there is a limit to this, because the contradictions will not only increase, but will also become the cause of local wars, which are the prelude warning of the breaching of the so-called peaceful equilibrium.

Will Yugoslavia disturb the existing equilibrium after Tito dies? In recent times the Soviets have been trying to interfere there in a "peaceful way", Tito, the friend of the Americans and allegedly of the third world, is leaving them free to operate, indeed even in the Adriatic ports. He pretends to be opposing them and trying to maintain the equilibrium. The Americans and the Westerners pose as if they are not worried. Why? Is it because they feel secure in Yugoslavia, or has Tito signed some secret agreement with the Soviets that "they will never intervene with arms in Yugoslavia" and that "Yugoslavia will remain a friend of the Soviets and the Americans even after Tito's death"? This is "a sort of sphere of influence" common to the Soviets and the Americans and "blessed" by Tito. It is possible that the Americans and the Soviets have an agreement between them about this, and just as possible that this hypothesis is unfounded. However the danger of armed intervention by the two groupings, NATO and the Warsaw Treaty, against the Balkan countries remains imminent. For us the danger is always present, and anything can be expected from the Soviets and the Americans...

In regard to this, as always, we are vigilant and ready to defend our socialist Homeland from any danger, from the West or from the East...



Today we sent the newspaper Zeri i popullit the article entitled: "The New Soviet-American Agreements - Grave Challenge for all the Peoples" (Published in: Enver Hoxha. Against Modern Revisionism (Collection of Works) 1971-1975, Alb. ed-, .8 Nentori" Publishing House. Tirana 1980, p. 396). It is one of the articles, which will be published in our press to denounce Brezhnev's visit to the United States of America.

Amongst other things the article stresses:

The Americans are known for their tendency to establish records for everything, records for who can eat the most, who can go on talking longest, or who can tell the biggest lie. The press and statistics register all the records achieved, including those to do with industry, horse racing, or the numbers of ex-husbands of Hollywood film stars. Thanks to these strange American customs, the world has now learned of the records established by the president of the United States and the secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union during a week of tête-à-tête talks. Hence, it was made known that never before had the American president travelled 4000 kms together with a foreign leader, received a non American statesman in his Californian residence, or signed so many agreements within a few days, etc. Likewise, never before has such a high-ranking representative of a foreign country begged so hard for American businessmen to invest their capital in his country.

But what the American journalists did not say was that Brezhnev's visit to the United States of America established another new record. the record for hypocrisy, political cynicism, demagogy and unscrupulous deception, the record for intrigues and plots of such proportions that they leave no continent or region of the world untouched.

The challenge which American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism are making to the peoples of the world is immense and extremely revolting. The chiefs of the two superpowers are striving to make their arbitrarity in international relations a law, to make all others accept their political dictate as a supreme order, so that world issues are decided and settled in Washington and Moscow. The agreements concluded in the latest Brezhnev-Nixon meeting, as well as those which are still kept secret, are another expression of the aims of the superpowers which want to get their clutches on and strangle everything revolutionary and progressive in the world, to invade and dominate all countries.

Now the United States of America and the Soviet Union are demanding public recognition of their self-assumed right to strangle any revolution, liberation struggle or popular uprising, which in the judgement of the two superpowers is a danger to their tranquillity, and this has been written into one of the clauses of the agreement on the so-called prohibition of nuclear war. Article 4 of the aforementioned agreement states that the American and Soviet governments should consult together and undertake joint action whenever they think that this or that action of another country, these or those relations between other countries, have reached such a point as to present a threat of a nuclear conflict, or any other sort of conflict. Translated into ordinary human language, this means that the two superpowers will consult together and take joint measures to intervene wherever their power and domination are threatened, wherever their imperialist interests are affected.

Such a canonization of international arbitrarily can be compared only with the "Holy Alliance" of the feudal emperors of Europe at the beginning of the last century. The new Soviet-American treaty, which for purposes of demagogy and deception they called an "agreement on the prohibition of nuclear war", will remain in the annals of international relations as a savage and diabolical attempt to elevate their interference in the internal affairs of other states to a norm of international law, and to call their trampling underfoot of the fights of others a virtue of international behaviour.

But, however hard the authors of this treaty try to give this ugly product of their aggressive and hegemonic policy a false lustre, they will never convince others that the new Soviet-American nuclear agreement helps to strengthen world peace and security. In all the agreements which were concluded recently between the Soviet revisionists and the American imperialists, they show themselves to be aggressive, arrogant and arbitrary in all directions against the peoples and against their own partners. They are not disarming at all, but, on the contrary, are maintaining their entire military arsenal, and by means of this arsenal they intend to crush any opposition to their dictate.

The leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union declare without any pangs of conscience that the purpose of the agreements reached between them is to prevent the emergence of international crises, to avert military confrontations, to avoid the creation of situations which aggravate the relations between states, to reduce the threat of war, etc. However, the question we ask today is the same as that we asked yesterday and the day before yesterday. Who is threatening world peace, who is causing the crises, who is preparing for war and aggression? And the answer is still the same: the American imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists. It is they who are keeping entire zones of influence under their domination and seeking others, it is they who are carrying on the furious armaments race and threatening the peoples of the entire world with nuclear blackmail, it is they who maintain military bases in foreign countries and have filled the seas and skies with warships and military aircraft, it is they who impose neo-colonialism on the peoples and exploit them economically. There is no end to the black list of their aggressive policy, plots and intrigues. Was it because of the lack of a treaty such as this which was recently concluded that the United States of America launched the war in Korea and kindled the aggression in Vietnam, intervened in Cuba and sent its army to Santo Domingo, incited Israel against the Arabs and strangled the revolution in the Congo? Can it be that the Soviet tanks entered Prague and the armed provocations on the Chinese border were committed because at that time the two superpowers were not convinced that "peace must be strengthened" and now they are convinced of this?

Both with. agreement and without agreement, the aggressive and expansionist policy and aims of the two superpowers, which result from their system, remain unchanged. What is new here is that now they aim to establish a joint international counter-revolutionary dictatorship, that they want to sit in judgement together on any popular revolt and revolutionary stand of the peoples to seize power from them or their satellites, that under the pretext of a threat to peace they want to take upon themselves to intervene to quell the flames of the revolution wherever they break out.

The American imperialists and Soviet social-imperialists also created a kind of special apparatus for the elaboration of this common reactionary policy and for their joint administration of world affairs. They decided to create a kind of biarchy which will find practical application in the repeated meetings of the president of the USA and the general secretary of the CPSU. According to them it will be precisely at these meetings that they will sum up international relations and allocate the new fields towards which the activity of the two superpowers will be directed in the future.

From the American capital, which represents the centre of open anti-communist reaction, the centre of the most vicious and barbarous imperialism known to mankind, Brezhnev, who holds the title of secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, issued the call, "Let us boldly break down any obstacle from the past, let us advance on the road of strengthening the peace, reducing tension, and developing collaboration". However he said nothing about whether or not there was class struggle in the world, whether there are peoples who are still fighting for freedom and independence. whether the working people of different countries have revolutionary aspirations and are struggling for them, whether there is colonialism and exploitation. He did not speak about these things because to him the revolution, socialism, national freedom and independence allegedly belong to that time when people were "slaves to old tendencies".

The revolutionary movements of the peoples for freedom and democracy, the internationalist solidarity of the working class are contrary to the imperialist interests of the two superpowers, which intend to suppress them by force on the basis of the agreements concluded. What the Soviet revisionists are interested in now is the reduction of tension with their American rivals and their mutual commitment not to interfere in each others' spheres of influence, to avoid friction and conflicts between them. They want to create an equilibrium so that the world will keep its mouth shut and their domination will not be disturbed by anything.

This policy and this tendency was also reflected in the new agreements between the two superpowers which, on the question of the division of spheres of influence, left each other's hands free to operate effectively in their respective zones so that the equilibrium established is not disturbed. The Middle East is a clear example in this direction. That region is pregnant with revolutionary struggles. Such a situation is dangerous for both superpowers, which, on the one hand, have established their influence there, and on the other, are trying to protect their interests at all costs. Therefore they will not allow the Arabs to recover the lands taken from them by Israel, under the pretext that allegedly such a thing would cause a world war. For this reason the situation "neither war nor peace" was reconfirmed at the recent Brezhnev-Nixon meetings. The same can be said about the other zones, too.

However, the Arab peoples understand the plots which their enemies are hatching up and will not put up with this dictate of the imperialists and social-imperialists.

The new Soviet-American agreements have been received with mistrust and undisguised concern by the allies of the two superpowers as well, who feel that now their most vital interests are being affected. The agreements recognize American imperialism's full right to establish order within its military alliances, when it considers that its will has not been carried out. Likewise, if a state which is favoured by American imperialism becomes a threat to the interests of other NATO members, the threatened state does not have the right to and must not object.

The same thing can be said of the members of the Warsaw Treaty, too. The official Soviet spokesmen made it clear again now, during the signing of the agreements with the United States of America, that the Brezhnev doctrine on "limited sovereignty" will be applied in the future just as rigorously and relentlessly as hitherto.

Brezhnev's visit to America was fresh evidence of how far the Soviet revisionists have deviated from Marxism-Leninism, how completely they have betrayed the cause of the October Revolution and the work of Lenin and Stalin, how much they have lowered the authority and respect which the Soviet Union enjoyed in the past in the world as the first country of socialism, how severely they have damaged the prestige and lofty reputation of the Soviet peoples. The impression and conviction that the first secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union created in America, even among the ultra-reactionaries and anti-communists, was that the American public was faced with a real businessman who was as far removed from communism as the managers of the New York banks or the oil kings of Texas. And truly, who could believe that "it could occur that while the red flags were flying in Pennsylvania Square, the leader of the giant communist state would be talking in a room packed to capacity with capitalist millionaires"? - as one American news agency reported. The American press pointed out with great satisfaction that, in the course of all his long speeches, toasts and interviews with journalists, Brezhnev did not use what it calls "communist terminology", did not say one word which could refer to socialism or Marxism. This "moderation of language by the Soviets", or "the absence of communist rhetoric", as Rogers called it, was hailed in America as fresh evidence of the final breaking of the leaders of the Kremlin with the revolutionary and socialist past of the Soviet Union.

The only time that Brezhnev mentioned the name of Lenin was to present him as if he had allegedly laid the basis of the present Soviet-American collaboration which Brezhnev and company realized. They pretend to base themselves on Lenin in selling raw materials and granting concessions to the American capitalists. It is as clear as daylight that here we have to do with a distortion of Lenin's ideas and his stand towards American imperialism. However, the revisionists are not ashamed to make such distortions. One distortion more or one less of Leninism is now no cause for concern to these who have turned the whole of it upside down. Nevertheless, the bosses of the Kremlin cite the odd thesis of Lenin in order to conceal and legalize their betrayal. It is true that Lenin spoke about trade with the capitalists, but in an entirely different sense, and moreover, for a purpose entirely different from that which the revisionists give the present Soviet-American collaboration. Lenin was for trade which had to serve and defend the revolution and help to break the blockade which the entire imperialist world of that time had established against the first socialist state. He regarded it as a means to split the interventionist bloc of imperialist countries, to create new contradictions in the capitalist world and exploit the old ones. Lenin's principle in this whole problem was "We engage in trade, but we do not make political and ideological concessions, do not renounce the revolution, do not renounce our solidarity with and support for the revolutionary movement." Lenin's stand towards American imperialism was entirely principled and consistent, and no matter what efforts the present revisionist leaders of the Soviet Union may make, they cannot distort or interpret it as they wish. Lenin said that blood drips from every American dollar, and he was the first to point out with unrivalled perspicuity the aggressive, predatory character of the imperialism of the United States of America. More than once during his revolutionary activity he called for vigilance and uncompromising struggle against the biggest and most dangerous imperialism which world history had ever known.

Lenin was against secret diplomacy, which he denounced and unmasked as one of the most despicable methods which the bourgeoisie uses to cover up its reactionary actions against the freedom and sovereignty of the peoples. The Soviet revisionist rulers' return to bourgeois diplomacy is another proof that shows how far they have departed from Lenin and Leninism.

Now after destroying the theoretical heritage and revolutionary work of Lenin and Stalin, the Soviet revisionists have reached that point that they worship the dollar and sell the titles to Soviet territories just as oriental monarchs grant concessions to capitalist trusts to exploit their lands.

In his pleas to the American businessmen to invest as much as possible in the Soviet Union, Brezhnev personally, and after him the entire Soviet propaganda, are trying to prove that both countries benefit equally from the Soviet-American political and economic collaboration and that neither side has the possibility to create any superiority over the other. But no profound analysis is needed to see that in the recently signed Soviet-American agreements the United States of America gains more in all fields. Above all, America conserves and increases its attack forces, all doors are opened to it to exploit the Soviet Union from the economic aspect. The American imperialists gain more, not only because they invest their capital there, but also because they become arbiters to decide the extent to which the economy of the Soviet Union should develop, which branches should be supported and which discouraged.

But above all, the Americans introduce their influence and ideology, and this is their main victory in this major sell-out. It is worthy of mention here that this surrender of the Soviet revisionists occurs at a time when, in many capitalist countries of Latin America or of Europe, a rising tide of anti-American feeling and greater opposition to American imperialism can be seen. Meanwhile in this stand the so-called Soviet communists are a long way behind De Gaulle, who had understood the danger of the infiltration of American capital and challenged it openly in his time.

The inflow of American capital and the extension of American influence in the Soviet Union will also create a new situation in its relations with its allies. At present the Soviet Union is bankrupt itself, and cannot aid them to the necessary extent. From now on, however, it will give them even less aid. The peoples of those countries are faced with two options, either to rise in struggle against social-imperialism and the revisionist cliques in their countries to take state power into their own hands, or to surrender and accept two-fold bondage to socialimperialism and to American imperialism.

The incessant process of the Soviet-American rapprochement and collaboration, the ever greater co-ordination of the counter-revolutionary activity of the two superpowers, the ever greater violation of the interests of the peoples and the ever greater inclusion of new objectives towards which they are stepping up their expansionist and hegemonic actions, prove once again in practice the correctness of the revolutionary thesis and stands of the Party of Labour of Albania, which were stressed at its 6th Congress, that both American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism must be combated and exposed to the same extent, because both are cunning and both are dangerous. Time is proving that, despite all the inevitable contradictions, rivalries and competition between them, the United States of America and the Soviet Union are now lined up in a common front against the peoples, and support and incite each other in their predatory and aggressive aims. Both the one and the other have the same features, they are sworn enemies of the revolution and the peoples, both of them are working and fighting to strangle socialism. Therefore, in this situation, the struggle on the two fronts against both imperialisms remains one of the fundamental conditions to withstand the pressure of their counter-revolutionary alliance, to oppose their diabolical manoeuvres and to triumph over their aggressive plans.



...Our influence in the international arena is connected with our revolutionary stands. The opponents of capitalism, of the governments and cliques in its service listen to us, understand us, and support us, because we express their thoughts and sentiments and fight for their rights. Bourgeois diplomacy has got itself into a great quagmire. It is trying to drag us, too, into this mire but we have always avoided it.

The United States of America and the Soviet Union are appealing to us to establish contacts with them and are ready at the smallest sign from us. The capitalist states want us to lower the flag which we are holding high. The only reason they are "smiling" at us is in order to lure us into a trap and then through a deafening propaganda tell the world: "See, Albania has joined our dance" despite the fact that we have not and never will join their dance. They want to put us at that political roundabout where thousands and thousands of politicians exchange visits with one another, hatch up intrigues and buy and sell the interests of their peoples and countries, etc. We must never make a wrong move, never be hasty. This does not mean that we shall sit idle. No, we must establish contacts with them. but at the proper moments, so that we benefit and not they...

Precisely these positions of ours make the West and the East "respect" us, reluctantly of course, nevertheless, they do respect us! With our correct stands we are free to fight and we do not stretch our hand to anyone, but the neighbours round-about us have gained confidence from our stands. If we act hastily, the enemies will exaggerate our "contacts", will hatch up intrigues and provoke us.

Our interest has been and is to steadily strengthen the positions we have. The big states have no consideration for the small states, therefore the small must build a policy of their own and this policy of ours is correct, since it is always based on Marxist-Leninist analyses.



Today we sent the newspaper Zeri i popullit the article "The Tragic Events in Chile - a Lesson for the Revolutionaries of the Whole World" (Published in: Enver Hoxha Against Modern Revisionism (Collection of Works) 1971-1975, Alb. ed. "8 Nentori" Publishing House, Tirana, 1980, p. 437) so that it can be published tomorrow.

After speaking about the causes of the counterrevolutionary events in Chile and about the falsity of the revisionist theories on the -peaceful parliamentary road., among other things, the article stresses:

In the stage of imperialism, both at its commencement and now, too, the danger of the establishment of a fascist military dictatorship whenever the capitalist monopolies think that their interests are threatened always exists. Moreover, it has been proved especially from the end of the Second World War to this day, that American imperialism, British imperialism and others have gone to the assistance of the bourgeoisie of various countries to eliminate those governments or to suppress those revolutionary forces which, in one way or another, offer even the slightest threat to the foundations of the capitalist system.

As long as imperialism exists, there still exists the basis and possibility for, and its unchangeable policy of, interference in the internal affairs of other countries, counter-revolutionary plots, the overthrow of lawful governments, the liquidation of democratic and progressive forces, and the strangling of the revolution.

It is American imperialism which props up the fascist regimes in Spain and Portugal, which incites the revival of German fascism and Japanese militarism, which supports the racist regimes of South Africa and Rhodesia and keeps up the discrimination against the black people in its own country. It is American imperialism that helps the reactionary regimes of South Korea and the Saigon and Pnom Penh puppets, which has instigated the Zionist aggression and helps Israel to maintain its occupation of the Arab territories. All the furious winds of anti-communism, national oppression and capitalist exploitation blow from the United States of America. Throughout Latin America, with some rare exceptions, American imperialism has established tyrannical fascist regimes which mercilessly suppress and exploit the people. On that continent, all the weapons used against demonstrations, the weapons which kill the workers and peasants, are made in the United States and supplied by it.

The fascist military coup in Chile is not the deed of local reaction alone, but also of imperialism. For three years on end, during the whole time President Allende was in power, the Chilean rightist forces were incited, organized and encouraged in their counter-revolutionary activity by the United States. Chilean reaction and the American monopolies took revenge against President Allende for the progressive and anti-imperialist policy he followed. The undermining activity of the right-wing parties and all the reactionary forces, their acts of violence and terror were closely co-ordinated with the pressures exerted from outside by the American monopolies, with the economic blockade and the political struggle the American government waged against Chile. Behind the military junta was the CIA, the same criminal hand that had carried out many coups in Latin America, in Indonesia, Iran, etc. The events in Chile once again revealed the true face of American imperialism. They proved once more that American imperialism remains a rabid enemy of all the peoples, a savage enemy of justice and progress, of struggles for freedom and independence, of the revolution and socialism.

But the counter-revolution in Chile is a deed not only of the avowed reactionary forces and the American imperialists. The Allende government was also sabotaged and savagely opposed by the christian-democratic and other factions of the bourgeoisie, so-called radical democratic forces similar to those together with which the communist parties of Italy and France claim that they will advance to socialism through reforms and the peaceful parliamentary road. The Frey party in Chile does not bear only "intellectual responsibility", as some claim, because it refused to hold talks or collaborate with the Allende government, or because it was lacking in loyalty to the legal government. It bears responsibility also because it used all possible means to sabotage the normal activity of the government, because it united with the forces of the Right to undermine the nationalized economy and to create confusion in the country, because it perpetrated a thousand and one acts of subversion. It fought to create that spiritual and political climate that was the prelude to the counter-revolution.

The Soviet revisionists, too, were implicated in the events in Chile. A thousand threads link the Soviet leaders in intrigues and plots with American imperialism. They did not intend or desire to help the Allende government when it was in power, because this would have brought them into conflict and damaged their cordial relations with American imperialism.

These stand of the Khrushchevite revisionists towards Chile and the theory of revolution had been confirmed before the Chilean events. They had been confirmed in the repeated tragic events in Iran: while the local reaction attacked the Tudeh Party several times, while it was killing and imprisoning hundreds and thousands of communists and progressive revolutionaries, the Soviet revisionists did not lift a finger, let alone sever diplomatic relations! These stands were confirmed in the shocking events in Indonesia, where about 500.000 communists and progressives were killed and massacred Once again the Soviet revisionists did nothing, took no action and did not consider withdrawing their embassy from Djakarta. These stands of the Soviet revisionists are not accidental. They testify to the existence of a secret collaboration with the American imperialists to sabotage the revolutionary movements and to put down the people's liberation struggles.

This stand sheds light on the demagogic character of the much publicized severance of diplomatic relations with Chile now.

Such is the reality. Their fine words about their alleged solidarity with the Chilean people, like all their other demagogic catch-cries, are simply to deceive public opinion and to conceal their betrayal of the revolution and the peoples' liberation movements.

The events in Chile once again revealed all of the grave tragedy the peoples of Latin America are experiencing.

We believe that the events in Chile, the fascist attack of reaction against the democratic victories of the Chilean people, the brutal interference of American imperialism and its support for the military junta will encourage all the people's of the world to be vigilant, to resolutely reject the demagogic slogans of the imperialists, revisionists and opportunists of every hue, and mobilize all their forces in courageous defence of their national freedom and independence, peace and security.



I had a final look at the article "On Secret Diplomacy". It has been sent to Zeri i popullit to be published tomorrow under the title "The Secret Diplomacy of the Two Superpowers - a Great Danger to the Freedom and Independence of the Peoples" (Published in: Enver Hoxha, Against Modern Revisionism (Collection of Works) 1971-1975, Alb. ed. "8 Nentori" Publishing House, Tirana 1980, p. 490).

The article says:

If you listen to the propaganda of the United States of America and the Soviet Union and to its echo from their satellites, you will gain the impression that the sole and main preoccupation of Washington and Moscow now is allegedly. to ease the tension between states, to settle quarrels between nations, to secure peoples against any aggression or intervention, and to establish peace, once and for all, throughout the world. The newspapers and magazines, the radio and television of the American imperialists and the Soviet revisionists, thousands and tens of thousands of propagandists, priests, spies and zealous spielers are shouting to the world that the American and Soviet diplomacy cannot sleep in their anxiety to achieve this "peace" and "eternal security" which mankind has never known since its creation. And the American and Soviet leaders have given up heir personal comfort in order to travel to all the capitals of the world in search of the "promised peace". After them, ministers and ambassadors, envoys and agents of all sorts, levels and categories are running from one place to the other in order to find some path over which the "American-Soviet peace" can travel without hindrance and flow over the whole world.

However, this is a smokescreen of demagogy with which the big bosses of the United States of America and the Soviet Union want to cover the dirty back-stage deals of their secret diplomacy. As early as 1908 Lenin exposed the hypocrisy of this diplomacy.

"The diplomats are in a flurry," he said. "There is a shower of 'Notes', 'Reports' 'Statements'; ministers whisper behind the backs of the crowned puppets who, champagne-glasses in hand, are 'working for peace'. But their 'subjects' know perfectly well that when crows flock together there must be a smell of carrion about." (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works. vol. 15, Tirana 1991, Alb, ed, p. 208)

And who can believe that the Soviet and American chiefs gather together in private with the sole aim of renouncing weapons, returning pace to Indochina and the Middle East, securing Europe and Asia, helping starving, Africa, saving mankind from pollution of the atmosphere, opening the channels of world trade and guaranteeing the freedom of the peoples? Already there are hundreds of thousands of facts which prove that they do not meet to find ways to disarmament and peace, but to find ways to increase their armaments and occupy new zones, ways to expand their spheres of influence, to protect and strengthen their imperialist interests in foreign countries. They meet not in order to avoid quarrels or to settle international conflicts, as they claim, but to take the opportunity to interfere in the affairs of others, to step up their expansion and establish their hegemony.

Secret diplomacy is the offspring and instrument of imperialism. Lenin exposed the essence of it and its methods, showing that it represents one of the filthiest and most ferocious and barbarous activities of imperialist governments against freedom, independence, and national sovereignty of the peoples. The very first act of the Soviet government, the Decree on Peace, besides proclaiming the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, also proclaimed the rejection of the secret diplomacy, which had brought the peoples no less suffering and misfortunes than the imperialist war.

In 1918, when Soviet Russia published the secret treaties, including the secret Treaty of London on the partitioning of Albania, the peoples learned of plots, intrigues and terrible injustices which they had not heard of before, although they had suffered the grave and barbarous consequences of them to their sorrow. They had seen millions of men sent to be killed in the slaughter of the First World War in fulfilment of the secret treaties of Entente and the Central Powers to accomplish the redivision of the world, which monarchs and presidents of republics, ministers and industrialists had arranged in advance, in the greatest secrety, deceiving the peoples.

The exploited proletarian and peasant masses discovered the terrible reality that they had been slaughtered Lit the front, not "in order to save the homeland" as the Poisonous imperialist propaganda had told them, but for the interests of the bourgeoisie, for the capture of colonies and new markets, for domination of the seas and the subjugation of the peoples, according to predatory plans and schemes drafted in advance by the European chancelleries in secrecy from the peoples.

The Japanese aggression in China, Italy's invasion of Abyssinia, and the fascist rebellion of Franco in Spain were not carried out without the knowledge and secret consent of the other imperialist powers, just as Hitler did not launch the Second World War without the secret plot of Munich. without the blessing of Chamberlain, Daladier and others, who urged him to attack Central Europe the Balkans and the East.

Secret diplomacy is still the preferred method of all bourgeois-capitalist governments, of all imperialists. But now it has become a method of the Soviet revisionists, too. Having rejected the teachings of Lenin and the October Revolution, they have returned to the secret diplomacy of the czars who, together with the other monarchs of Europe, divided the Balkans and partitioned the Orient, carved up and partitioned states as if they were wedding cakes. This is also further proof of the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, of its going over to socialimperialism, further evidence of the transformation of the Soviet revisionists into quellers of the flames of the world revolution and peoples' liberation wars.

Today the leaders of the two superpowers, the leaders of their allies and satellites, ministers. envoys and diplomats, meet so often that it is not possible to remember the number of their meetings. When these meetings are over, they all hasten to announce to the world that theirs has been an "historic", meeting, "a great contribution to the elimination of wars and the establishment of lasting peace in the world", and other such palaver. The participants swear to all the gods they have that they will apply the principles of the UNO Charter to the letter, that they will never interfere on any occasion, either directly or indirectly, in the internal affairs of the other states, that they will defend the freedom and independence of every country, etc., etc. However, all these bilateral and multilateral communiqués and statements of imperialist, bourgeois and social-imperialist states are false and are made in order to conceal the plots which have been hatched up to deceive the peoples. We are not referring to remote history, but will mention some examples from our days. Didn't the communiqués and statements of the meeting of the leaders of the revisionist countries in Dresden and Bratislava contain many assurances and pledges about the freedom and independence of the peoples, non-interference in internal affairs, and equality and justice? But while Brezhnev was signing these statements which occupied the entire front pages of the newspapers, he was also signing the order for his tanks to advance on Prague..

The secret Pentagon documents, published recently in the United States of America, on the war in Vietnam, as well as those which told of the CIA's preparations for the coup d'ètat in Chile, revealed that never before have the hypocrisy, cynicism, plots and intrigues of American imperialism behind the scenes reached the level they have today, that never before have those who have been at the head of the USA engaged in such large-scale public demagogy to mislead their own people and the whole of world opinion.

Johnson and Nixon kept secret from their country and the American people, and the world public opinion that they themselves had organized the provocation in Tonking Bay as a pretext to start the bombardment of the DR of Vietnam. And while Vietnam was being burned and devastated by an aggression of unprecedented barbarity, while the American soldiers were leaving their bones in the jungles of Indochina, the White House and the State Department organized tens of "meetings", "visit" acid "talks" between all sorts of government and private delegations, allegedly to establish peace in Vietnam.

Therefore, the communiqués and statements issued after summit and sub-summit meetings of imperialist, bourgeois, social-imperialist and revisionist powers, which, for external consumption, end up with platitudes about "good will" but which conceal the quarrels between snarling wolves that hatch up plots and intrigues at the expense of the peoples, have become really intolerable and sickening.

What was Kosygin after in Cairo at the climax of the war between the Arabs and Israel? It was said that he had gone to Egypt "in order to talk about peace", "in order to save" the world from the threat of a general war, etc. But the facts proved that he went there to put pressure on the Egyptians so they would halt their offensive and stop the war. The clamour about the danger of an American-Soviet complication on account of the war in the Middle East, the alarm about the undermining of the trend to the reduction of international tension were employed as a means of pressure on the Arabs so that they would agree to a cease-fire, whereas these "theories" were peddled to public opinion as arguments to prove that the Arab sacrifices were a valuable contribution to saving world peace.

The Soviet revisionists have never wanted victory for the Arabs, Kosygin, Kuznetsov and others hurried to the Arab countries so as to quell the liberation armed struggle as quickly as possible, because if it were waged with success, it would lead to the settlement of the ArabIsraeli conflict, and also to the elimination of any need for the Soviet presence in this region. At all costs they needed a return to the situation "neither war nor pace", which gives rise to a continuous instability on which the hegemony of the two superpowers can be based and advance.

As soon as Kosygin left, Kissinger hurried to the Arab countries. The world was told that he had gone there with a "peace plan", indeed with "offer" and "proposals", to settle the twenty-five year old conflict of the Middle East once and for all. However, Kissinger went to the Arab countries neither for peace, nor to settle the conflict. Nixon's special adviser hurried to the Arab capitals because American imperialism was very afraid of the prospect that the unity of the Arab peoples, which was manifested with a new force during the war, might be strengthened.

The United States of America was especially afraid of the prospect of the revolutionization of the Arab liberation movement, which the continuation of the war made a natural process. The American bourgeoisie began to fear a development of the war which would have to do not just with Israel, but would also include the question of oil and the fabulous profits that the Arab oil wells bring the American monopolies. Since Israel is waging a total war, the Arabs will respond with a similar war. These were the motives which obliged Nixon and Kissinger to smile at the Arabs, to be unsparing with their flattery and promises.

Secret diplomacy is in the very nature of such blocs as NATO and the Warsaw Treaty, with their councils and committees. The foreign ministers and heads of state, chiefs of staff and army commanders meet behind locked doors, All the communiqués from these meetings speak of peace and defence, but all their actions speak of pressure and blackmail against free and independent countries, speak of intervention and plots in the undeveloped countries, speak of efforts to extend expansion and neo-colonialism. They keep it secret, but everybody knows that in the staffs and councils of these aggressive blocs atomic wars ace planned and operational plans are drafted for armed occupations against these or those countries in this or that contingency.

The representatives of other countries, too, have joined the dance of secret diplomacy. Thus the pretext of clarifying the situation in the Middle East is used to justify the tête-à-tête talks with the Soviet leaders.

However, the peoples are interested in and have the right to know what is being done in these meetings because, although some may have illusions that the chiefs of Moscow have been tarred and no longer constitute any danger, the peoples are convinced that the Soviet social-imperialists are hatching up plans against their freedom and independence, and trying to create the conditions for new acts of aggression.

There are some who declare that they do not recognise spheres of influence and are opposed to those who are striving to extend their hegemony. As a statement this is a positive act. But how can such statements be reconciled with their approval of Soviet policy in the Middle East? Can it be that the Soviet Union pursues the policy of spheres of influence only in Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia, and does not do this in the Middle East, the Mediterranean, the Adriatic, or other regions?

At this time of intrigues and plots, the Soviets are in great need of publicity and homage paid to them as the "champions of peace and of the Arab peoples". They need this especially now after the meeting of the "non-aligned, in Algiers, at which many countries criticized and exposed the expansionist and neo-colonialist policy of the leaders of the Kremlin.

Perhaps, in such cases the intention is to take advantage of the rivalry between the superpowers and exploit the moment to extract some favour. But history has proved that the policy of the balance of power constitutes a very great danger. It hag also proved that the big imperialist powers cannot be softened by pleas or deceived by "clever tricks".

In any case, one thing is well-known: even if some favour is gained from them, neither the Soviet leaders nor the American imperialists give anything without taking something in return. The credits or weapons provided by them represent a heavy debt for whoever accepts them, a debt which is a burden on the freedom and independence of his country, chains which link him even against his will, to the actions of Moscow and Washington as they pursue their adventurist policy.

Imperialism and social-imperialism continue to publicize and use the others or their envoys as intermediaries to hatch up intrigues at the expense of the peoples. The peoples do not trust such people, nor do they trust those diplomats and chancelleries who turn to them allegedly to settle the affairs of one country or the other.

The United States of America, which is in difficulties to assert its hegemony in the world, has opened its purse of credits. Leaders of the bourgeois-capitalist countries as well as the Soviet social-imperialists and leaders of the other revisionist countries are lured to these credits like flies to a pot of poisoned honey. So eager are they to gain something, to ingratiate themselves with America, that they do not fail to throw bouquets at American imperialism. going so far as to tell the world publicly and in official documents that the USA "is contributing to lasting peace in the world, based on freedom, equality, justice and respect for human right." They claim that renunciation of the threat or use of force, respect for territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders allegedly constitute the fundamental principles by which the USA is guided in its relations with other countries.

These friends of imperialists and social-imperialists, who open the doors of their countries to American capital and prettify imperialism, not only place the freedom and independence of their own peoples in great danger, but also undermine the revolutionary and liberation movements of the peoples.

The revisionist parties in the capitalist countries, too, the leaders of which have now begun to shuttle from one country to the other, are misleading the peoples and doing their utmost to conceal the intrigues and plots of the imperialists and social-imperialists from them. They hinder the masses from gaining a correct understanding of the dangerous situation created by the expansionist and aggressive policy of the two superpowers. The genuine communists who still remain in their ranks bear very grave responsibility for the pacifist social-traitor policy which these parties pursue.

International events not only in the Middle East, but almost all over the world show that the American imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists have raised secret diplomacy to the highest level and made it their only method in their agreements about expanding their spheres of influence and plundering the interests of different peoples. The Brezhnev-Nixon meetings have been the culmination of this savage and barbarous diplomacy. Intrigues and plots, which have not yet come to light, have been hatched up there. The speed with which the United States of America and the Soviet Union came out with a joint stand about ending the fighting in the Middle East, which this time was expressed quite openly in the resolutions of the Security Council, shows that Washington and Moscow have drawn up secret plans and prepared ready-made solutions for similar situations in other countries, too.

No one knows what was said and what was decided in the top-secret Brezhnev-Nixon talks in San-Clemente, what is transmitted and decided between them on the, "hot line". No one knows what was said and what was decided at the recent meetings in Moscow between Kissinger and the Soviet leaders about the Middle East and other regions of the world. But no one doubts that major deals and bargains have been struck between them. The American-Soviet treaty on atomic weapons, which was signed in Washington, together with the notorious Article 4, as well as the other agreements which are locked away in the strong-rooms of the two superpowers and which have not yet come into effect, contain many unknown and unexpected things and also many unimaginable and incalculable dangers for the peoples.

If the peoples of the world, and first of all the proletariat of all the countries, were acquainted with the real contents of such meetings and secret talks, if they were to know what is hidden behind the misleading statements issued on these occasions, they would see that they are facing aggressions. imperialist wars and nuclear catastrophes, which none of the chiefs of imperialism or social-imperialism, but only the peoples and the world proletariat can prevent.

The Albanian people think that the time has come, and indeed it is passing, for all to rise in revolt against this terrible plot and blackmail of the secret diplomacy of the imperialist powers, which has caused world wars in the past, which later caused the wars in Korea and Vietnam and now in the Middle East, and which may set the whole world ablaze again tomorrow.

The fear that has seized the countries of Western Europe because of the secret and undeclared agreements of the two superpowers shows that even the privileged allies of the USA have begun to feel the heavy burden of the American-Soviet secret diplomacy.

The West Europeans have noticed that now, following the Brezhnev-Nixon meetings, their countries have been subjected to greater and more frequent pressures. The "new Atlantic Charter" proposed by the United States of America at a time when it is strengthening its allround relations with the Soviet Union seeks to deprive the participants in it of some of the inalienable attributes of their national sovereignty and of rights to take part freely, independently and on equal terms in international questions. The countries of Western Europe are displeased that Nixon has undertaken to discuss world issues, indeed even those which pertain to the European continent, with the Soviet Union alone, leaving out such big countries as France, Britain, Germany, etc.

They are noticing, likewise, that following the Brezhnev-Nixon meetings the two superpowers have stepped up their efforts to turn the Mediterranean into a Soviet-American sea, and avoid consulting them or telling them about what they do in the Middle East. The countries of Western Europe do not know what is discussed and decided in the SALT talks and are informed only when they are required to approve the decisions taken in the top-secret talks between the two superpowers.

The American imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists are brandishing their atomic weapons and threatening the world with them. But now Britain, France and China also possess such weapons.

History has exposed and condemned with all its force the secret diplomacy of imperialists who, as Stalin said, try to cover up their preparations for war by clamouring for and singing hymns to peace. Just as in the past, the aim of this diplomacy, which the American imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists are applying with such zeal and consistency, is to prepare the division of the world between themselves, to buy and sell the interests of other countries, to open the way to aggressions, behind the backs of the peoples and safe from the eyes of public opinion. The more actively secret diplomacy is pursued, the greater become the dangers to peace and general security. Therefore, today just as in the past, secret diplomacy must be combated, as it was combated in the time of Lenin, for the same reasons and to avoid the same consequences.

Its exposure and destruction is a duty and an obligation for all the peace-loving peoples, a service rendered to liberation and anti-imperialist struggles, the efforts of all those who are fighting for the strengthening of freedom and national independence, against dictate and for equality in international relations.

The peoples have the right and ought to know what is done and what is decided at the top levels of international policy and what is being done in the meetings and talks between the Soviets and the Americans, what is being done in Washington, Moscow, etc., where secret diplomacy is practised to the detriment of the peoples. The questions discussed there are not private questions, but problems that have to do with the interests and destinies of peoples, with the future of states and the security and general peace.

In the terrible fog created by secret diplomacy, all these diplomats are like dangerous worms which burrow tinder the skin, causing erythema and endangering the life of the peoples, and cover themselves with false slogans. Can the proletariat and the peoples of the world accept such a situation? If they accept it, they accept death. But the peoples and world proletariat do not agree to die without a struggle, they know that they have to fight to suppress these worms.

From the time the Party was founded and the people's state power was born the Albanian people have been engaged in polemics with such persons and states and will continue this stern struggle, fearing neither blackmail, pressure, nor armed intervention. Let all those who dare attempt such steps or actions with the Albanian people rest assured that they will get the worst of it and will suffer ignominious defeat. We are not alone: hundreds and hundreds of millions of people throughout the world are thinking about and fighting for the same things that we Albanians proclaim, for the things we are thinking about and fighting for.



The presidents have problems and are rushing around frantically because they can find no peace of mind.

"President" Brezhnev (who is the sole big noise because neither Podgorny nor Kosygin carries any weight) rushed off to Vladivostok to meet another president, Ford, who has just crawled, pale and weak, from the mire of Watergate. What did they do there? Nothing has emerged except a feeble communiqué. Apparently they wanted to say to the world: See, we are here!. And China saw that they met close to its borders. The two peripatetic friars promised that they would meet again. Both of them needed this publicity for their peoples, because neither Ford nor Brezhnev is firmly established

Then, since he returned from Vladivostok empty-handed. "President", Brezhnev hurried off to Paris to meet another president, Giscard d'Estaing. The latter has problems because President Ford is putting pressure on him. "Presidents" Schmidt, likewise is putting pressure on him. So Giscard welcomed Brezhnev in order to put counter-pressure on Ford and Schmidt. At all costs Brezhnev had to get "new technology", and a kindly word about his "European Security", which has turned into world insecurity. Giscard gave him these things and Brezhnev, as though fearing it would vanish, grabbed the document from Giscard's hands before the ink was properly dry (we saw this on TV) seeming to say: "I got what I wanted, because I have great needs."

And Giscard smiled his sarcastic smile as if to say to Captain Leonidas: "And I got the gas and oil I needed, because this problem has been strangling me, while as for your 'European Security', we have time to talk about that: verba volant".

And the presidents are still sitting uneasily upon volcanoes.



American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism continue to arm themselves openly and arrogantly, disregarding world public opinion. Each is ready to fly at the throat of the other or of any other rival, one after the other. Their arming continues and the frenzied psychosis of war becomes clearer with every passing day. The two superpowers have everything in readiness and have set their armed forces in motion on the seas and oceans, at their different ports and the naval bases of third countries, rented or seized by force. As soon as a surface or submarine fleet of one superpower appears on any sea or ocean, the fleet of the other superpower immediately turns up there. These fleets are in rivalry, but they also pursue the gunboat policy against those third countries the leaders of which either want to escape from the clutches of these two savage enemies, or try to throw off the chains of one in order to fall under the chains of the other which gives them more dollars or rubles. These aggressive naval and air fleets on the seas and in different bases are like the charognards (Carrion-crows (French in the original)) which hover over the corpses on battlefields. They are ready to back up the aggressive policy of the respective governments, awaiting the signal for action from the diplomacy of aggression, which is accompanied with unrestrained espionage as well as with deals to buy and corrupt those who are corruptible in different countries, whom it uses to exert its influence there, for intrigues, corruption, "civil war" and plots.

The two superpowers have turned into traffickers in such terrible weapons that, compared to them, the Armstrongs, Mausers, and Basil Zacharovs of the past seem like traders in children's toys. But they sell these weapons, of course, each on its own account, in order to defend its own strategic interests and to set the buyers of these weapons at war with one another.

Let us take one of the battlefields: the Middle East. Here a number of Arab states are quarrelling and are in open disagreement with Israel. In reality, however, it is the two superpowers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, which are quarrelling in this region, quarrelling over zones of influence, over oil, over ensuring routes for imperial access, over penetration into the continents of Africa and Asia in order to secure markets for exploitation, for the destruction of civilizations and the enslavement of peoples. They sell only arms to the governments and reactionary cliques of these countries, worked on by their diplomacy of aggression, and rob the peoples of their daily bread. There is a race over who will demand more weapons and who will sell more of them! The governments of the oil-producing countries are wallowing in dollars -and with them they buy weapons from the Soviet Union, the United States of America. France, Britain. and anyone who has 'hem to sell. But. for what are they buying these weapons? In order to suppress their own peoples. to attack other peoples and for each to assist his own patron. Sadat is trying to walk the tight-rope. He links up with Brezhnev and gets weapons from him, then he becomes annoyed with him and links up with his "brother" Kissinger who is also a brother to Israel which is at war with Egypt. Thus Kissinger manoeuvres with both of them. Russia is "on good terms" with Syria to which it supplies weapons, and has fallen out with Egypt, which is on good terms with the King of Saudi Arabia who, for his part, gets on none too badly with the United States of America, which protects Oman and has built bases there. Oman is friendly with and protected by the Shah of Iran, which is in conflict with Iraq which is pro-Soviet and anti-Jordanian. Jordan is pro-American, anti-Egyptian and against the Organization for the Liberation of Palestine, and so we could go on and on. All this is a real reflection of the political situation in the Middle East.

What is occurring in the Mediterranean?

The same thing. The colonels in Athens, incited by the CIA, carried out a putsch in Cyprus. They and the Americans failed. The Soviet Union "defended" Cyprus and "encouraged" Turkey. The latter attacked Cyprus and established it self there. Greece was very angry, but could do nothing about it. It threatened to leave NATO Find took some half-measures in this direction. The United States of America became annoyed with Greece, Russia abandoned Turkey and turned its face to Greece with a cynical smile. Fearing that the Russians might gain a foothold in Greece, the United States senate took the decision to cut off supplies of weapons to Turkey. "We'll provide you with weapons," the Russians told Turkey. But, since the United States of America is endangered in both these tableus, recently, through the CIA, it organized a new, "minor", putsch against Karamanlis and pro Papadhopoulos, to serve as a warning. This putsch failed, but others must be expected later, because there is no calm, no stability in the Balkans, there are countries in which this or that superpower, which is armed fever of predatory war, to the teeth and has the fever of predatory war, intrigues, oppression in its blood, is dominant.

The World is simmering like a volcano about to erupt and only the staunch resistance of the Peoples can save mankind from the menace of these two monsters and their intrigues.



The United States of America has washed its hands of Cambodia. Together with their puppet, Lon Nol, the Americans killed and maimed Cambodians, burned cities and villages and now, being unable to continue with their atrocities, they have removed Lon No and the war criminals and sung the de profundis over Cambodia.

The Americans are washing their hands of South Vietnam, too. One after the other three or four American presidents dropped more bombs, more napalm and more defoliants on Vietnam than were used during the Second World War! The numbers of killed and wounded, the amount of destruction and devastation are incalculable. History describes the Huns as very barbarous, as they were in fact, but the Americans have outdone them in barbarity to such an extent that we would not be wrong to describe the Huns as humane. in comparison with the Americans! But the Americans, too, have had their "Catalaunian Plains" (The battlefield where Attila was defeated). The noose has tightened around the neck of Thieu, their puppet in South Vietnam, and is strangling him. Facing defeat, lie is screaming to the Americans to help him. But Ford has turned a deaf ear to him because the last smoke is rising from a new "Dien Bien Phu" called Saigon, where the American general does not wish to suffer the same fate as General de Castries.

Now Ford has launched a "humanitarian campaign" for Vietnam. He is evacuating the "orphans" caused by his atrocities, 100.000 Vietnamese refugees, an-long whom he prefers as many young men and women as possible. These are the new colonists whose skin, unlike that of the slaves who were bought in Africa in the past after their teeth and muscles had been examined, is not black but yellow. The new slaves are coming from Asia, although once again their teeth are examined and those whose teeth are not in order are thrown into the sea. The Americans need such reserves of slaves, and that is why they launched the operation to "rescue the Vietnamese refugee", an operation which will be blessed by Pope John-Paul VI and "wept over", by American old women who will give each of the refugees. "these victims of communist barbarians", an old nylon shirt to wear.

Yesterday, after a meeting with Ford, Kissinger sang another de profundis, that over Vietnam. "All we have", he said, "is 150 million dollars in aid which will be used for the rescue of refuges" i, e., for the above-mentioned operation and for the preparation of some compromise. The arrogant United States of America has slight the aid of France or some other country (read the Soviet Union) to do something to save the face of the American aggressors, and in return, the United States of America will give a bone to those who come to its aid.

The bells of defeats for the United States of America are ringing out everywhere. They are not yet tolling its death knell, but announcing great and fatal defeats.

These political defeats are the result of the grave economic crisis which has had the capitalist-revisionist world in its grip for years causing deep disturbances which have weakened its strength and constantly exposed the manoeuvres and intrigues of the imperialists and revisionists. The Middle East is another "furnace" for American imperialism. Through its pistol, Israel, the United States of America has spent billions of dollars in this region. Why? To get hold of the oil of this zone. However, the myth of the "invincibility" of Israel was dispelled and the American plan did not produce the desired results. Kissinger's intrigues to gain domination by means of Israel have failed. That is why another American plan is looming on the horizon: why should the USA not act as if it will leave Israel in the lurch and turn to "friendship", with the Arabs? The policy of hostility towards the Arabs and friendship with Israel brought nothing but the oil crisis. Therefore it seems a new phase is beginning: "wooing" the Arabs and "Anger" with Israel. In fact the United States of America will never sacrifice Israel, but it will engage in great demagogy as if it is for the "containment" of Israel, even for its "return to its former borders", while telling the Arab peoples that "we are your friends". Another de profundis for the aggressive American policy, an alleged return to the road of "appease" and "friendship" which will please Pope John-Paul VI very much. The friend of the Americans. the Shah of Iran, is working in this direction. He "embraced" Al-Bakhr, though only yesterday they were slashing at each other on the border, The aim is: to oust the Soviets from this region, to tip them out of Afghanistan and to support Bhutto with weapons against India, where the Soviets are doing what they like. Thus, with this turn which they were forced to make because of the defeats they are suffering, the Americans aim to clear the terrain of the Soviets, who want to rove freely over the pastures of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and everywhere in the surrounding regions. Thus, it is clear that American imperialism is in a deep crisis.

Its partners, too, have got themselves up to their necks in this mire. Their voices have all become hoarse, they are writhing, trembling, taking hesitant steps. NATO is being rocked by earthquakes but is still on its feet: France says it has left it but is still in it. Giscard d'Estaing is reeling this way and that like a drunken man without personality and without any clear-cut policy, He poses as if he is on the side of the Arabs, pokes his finger in there and withdraws it again, pokes his finger into Greece and hastily withdraws it, puts in a good word about Turkey somewhere, gives two smiles to Russia, a handshake to Germany, a smile to Britain, and so on with the others... France is allegedly against the Americans but the reality is not so. Britain is at the bottom of the barrel or rather at the bottom of the sea. It is even dealing with Shelepin! (At that time he was expelled from the Political Bureau of the CC of the CPSU and relieved of his functions of chairman of the Central Council of the Trade Unions of the Soviet Union). West Germany is saying nothing but is certainly working under cover.

Russia is in a crisis just as colossal as that of the United States of America. In the face of the American crisis, it is sitting still like a lap-dog. Why? Will it not attack when its big partner is in difficulties? No! The Soviet Union is aggressive but has an internal, political, economic, and military crisis itself. It is in economic decline, its industry is outdated, it wants to modernize it, therefore it is seeking huge credits from American imperialism which does not provide them without exacting some concessions. The satellites of the Soviet Union are moving. They are kept in the Warsaw Treaty and in Comecon by force and are likewise compelled to hold party meetings and to issue joint declarations by force.

And although all this crisis, all this decay of imperialism and social-imperialism is evident, efforts are still being made to hide it, to cover it up. How? With what? With the psychosis of general and local wars. This psychosis is created by the two superpowers and fostered by their agencies.

"Cyprus!" - a big noise: "The Mediterranean in danger!" The Greek colonels acted, the Turks counteracted, the Soviets moved, the Bulgarians did the "touching up", Tito "howled", Giscard "prattled on" and the United States of America goes on increasing and strengthening its military bases. The imperialist and social-imperialist powers act in this way because they are afraid of the peoples of the world, because they want to get out of the grave crisis, which has gripped the Soviet Union, the United States of America and the anti-popular cliques in the various countries, without major injuries.

A general feature of the anti-popular capitalist cliques in various countries is the efforts they are making to avoid aligning themselves closely or openly with either superpower. This is not because they are for a policy independent of the superpowers but because they are uncertain as to how they will emerge from the crisis. Under pressure, they keep their old connections, but when need be they also bridle against them, pose as if they are defending "the national Interests", whereas in fact, the trusts and concerns which run those countries are totally cosmopolitan, completely under the control of the superpowers.

The countries of Western Europe want liberation from the yoke of the Americans but cannot do without them, because they are afraid of the Soviets. They fear a departure of the American forces from the continent, because they are well aware that if the Americans come to their aid, in an eventual war with the Soviet Union, they will do so only after the eleventh hour, just as they did in the two previous wars. However, according to some, the United States cannot return to "isolationism". That is true, but it was precisely this game of "non-isolationism" that it played both in the time of Wilson and in the time of Roosevelt. It may very well play it again under another president. This can be called a "small manoeuvre" to weaken the opponents in a bloody war so that the USA can join in later and eat the chestnuts which the others have pulled out of the fire for them.

I am of the opinion that in this situation, the two superpowers, both the United States of America and the Soviet Union, are in a great crisis, therefore, the struggle against them must be continued sternly on both fronts. We cannot come to or agree with the conclusion of some who say that Soviet social-imperialism is more dangerous than "American imperialism", therefore "we must intensify our struggle against the former and weaken our struggle against the latter" (At that time he was expelled from the Political Bureau of the CC of the CPSU and relieved of his functions of chairman of the Central Council of the Trade Unions of the Soviet Union). This means to help one, American imperialism, and unite with it in the struggle against the other, Soviet social-imperialism. "We are deepening the contradictions", they say. In whose favour are they deepening them? If they claim that they are deepening them in favour of the proletariat and the peoples, then they must fight both superpowers equally.

I am of the opinion, too, that those views according, to which the European Common Market, which is nothing but an offspring of world capitalism, must be defended, are likewise mistaken. Why should it be defended?

1 At that time he was expelled from the Political Bureau of the CC of the CPSU and relieved of his functions of chairman of the Central Council of the Trade Unions of the Soviet Union.

Allegedly to cope with the pressure of the United States of America and the Soviet Union. But in whose hands is this Common Market? In the hands of capitalists and international monopolies to oppress and exploit the peoples. Consequently, those who defend these theses accept that the power of the European bourgeoisie over the peoples should be strengthened. This means that instead of promoting progressive people's revolutions against national and cosmopolitan capital we should encourage oppression and exploitation, encourage imperialist world war. We communists are for just wars and not for unjust wars and if an unjust war is launched by world imperialism we must sabotage it and turn it into a revolutionary war.

As far as the Party of Labour of Albania is concerned, it will continue to implement its correct line without the slightest vacillation. The line of our Party is revolutionary, therefore we help the revolutionaries, the communist parties (Marxist-Leninist) which are in revolutionary positions and progressive individuals. Our Party's aid to them is modest but they help and support our Party and people in the international arena. Albania must assess this help it receives from outside correctly. This aid has made it possible not only for the bourgeois-revisionist encirclement of socialist Albania to be broken, but also for the policy, history, development and progress of our country and Party to become known everywhere. We must take this aid into account in both good and bad times Therefore we must constantly extend our work with our foreign friends on the Marxist-Leninist road, must always pay attention to and provide material for our propaganda for foreign countries.

The small countries and small peoples need one another; they must support one another in the struggle against the diabolical aims of the superpowers. This does not mean only that they must be vigilant towards alliances which the bourgeois or revisionist chiefs who oppress their own peoples hatch up together, but that they must create and activate progressive revolutionary opinion to defend the cause of all peoples in general and of each individual people in particular.

Of course the times are very dangerous. The peoples must realize that the two superpowers are now preparing a third world war, which will break out when the contradictions between the two superpowers become extremely exacerbated, when both imperialists have expended all the peaceful. means of pursuing their policy and continue to pursue it with other means, with war. But both sides are afraid of this war because it will be a devastating war with nuclear weapons, in which there will hardly be victors or vanquished. Therefore the two superpowers are making their preparations for this war not only by competing over which will arm itself more. heavily, more quickly, and to the teeth for the day of the "terrible clash", That is one aspect. The other aspect is that in their policy the superpowers are blackmailing each other over the division of the world markets and developing the process of the colonization and exploitation of other peoples. Part of this process is the arming of the cliques which rule these peoples. These cliques are oppressors of their own peoples and "allies" of the superpower which offers them more. This gives rise to, regional conflicts which lead to the general world conflict.

Thus, before the last "tragic game", the two superpowers are playing their game of chess, by using their pawns: Israel against the Arab countries, the Vietnam of Thieu against North Vietnam. They are inciting the differences between Greece and Turkey and tomorrow will incite the peoples of Africa against one another, something they have already begun with Ethiopia and Somalia etc. Regional wars might spread to Latin American too. After Bangladesh, a war between India and Pakistan. or between Pakistan and Afghanistan, might begin. The war between North and South Yemen is continuing and this is how things will 90 on until the flames of the war spread to Europe.

This is the method being pursued by the two superpowers in their contest for world hegemony. Before the First World War and disguising themselves more carefully after it, the Big Powers dispatched their armies and gunboats to colonize the peoples. They did the same thing after the Second World War, but this time in different forms. Various countries, as is the case with Europe, have been occupied de jure and de facto by the superpowers with their armies and atomic bombs. These military forces have been kept there intact and have been steadily increased since the war with Hitler was won. Instead of being liberated, the peoples of Europe have been subjected to a three-fold, political, economic and military enslavement. With the exception of Albania, all the other states of the world are, you could say, subject to a three-fold occupation: politically some have become appendages of the two superpowers, others have become their colonies economically and others again have been turned into military bases, where the cliques in power are supplied with weapons to keep the peoples in bondage.

These tactics, this lethal strategy of the two superpowers, must be exposed and combated. This is a common cause of all the peoples, therefore all the peoples must wage a stern struggle. The struggle against the two superpowers and their satellites all over the world is a tremendous, serious and complicated undertaking which cannot be fully successful unless all the peoples rise to their feet. In this struggle the peoples of the world must have their own strategy and tactics and these must be revolutionary. We do not say that only the true communists must organize and wage this struggle. No, that would be a mistake. The struggle against the two superpowers and their allies must be waged not by a minority, but by the majority, provided that the minority, the Marxist-Leninist party, does not lose its identity, does not do as China does when it declares that it is "a third-world country", or that "we must fight against only one superpower", etc. Socialist Albania is not a member of the so called third world and does not accept this anti-Marxist concept. Albania helps all those peoples and states who revolt against the two superpowers, who foil their aggressive and enslaving plans, who weaken them with their blows and arouse the revolutionary fighting spirit to go on to the complete victory of the peoples. Albania will be on the side of these forces without being in either the "second world" or the "third world" Albania belongs only to the socialist world, and is fighting for this on the Marxist-Leninist road.



The United States of America has received a sound thrashing, has suffered an irreparable defeat in Cambodia. First, the whole world has seen very clearly that despite its military and economic potential, American imperialism cannot impose its will even on a very small people who are determined to resist and fight it with weapons. The United States of America threw its modern weapons, advisers, generals, armies, and incalculable economic supplies, on the balance of Cambodia, brought a handful of traitors headed by Lon Nol, on the scene, organized mercenary armies and staked its "prestige" as a great superpower, but despite this the balance tipped to the side of the Cambodian people.

What lessons do the peoples draw from this colossal defeat of the United States of America? They learn that imperialism is in decay, that the empire of the United States of America is cracking in its foundations, its organization and in the policy on which it is built. It has to use wars, weapons, puppets, military bases, credits, exploitation and blackmail to keep the peoples under domination. But everybody knows the blood-stained character of the dollar. The puppets are used to the last to support their patron, they shed the blood of their own peoples, but in the end, they are smashed to smithereens by the people's war. A most recent example are Lon Nol and Van Thieu who are at their last gasp. Therefore the demagogy that the "democratic" United States of America is fighting together with its "democratic" friends, Lon Nol and Van Thieu, for the "freedom and democracy" of the peoples, has no basis on which it can stand.

That means all-round political, military and economic defeats for the United States of America. Understandably the "confidence", of the allies in the United States of America is at a very low ebb. The former confidence of the cliques and puppets in their "powerful", patron has vanished. In fact, now more than ever before, the cliques and puppets think that their patron has become dangerous, is working only for itself, uses them as murderers of their peoples and leaves them in the lurch whenever it is defeated in battles against the peoples of the world. It is not only the cliques and puppets like Lon Nol and Van Thieu or the Chilean fascists who think like that, there are even officially declared "major allies", who have long been having doubts about this rotten alliance which is dominated by an imperialist superpower which, despite the treaties, has the same aims towards them and is acting and will act with them in the same manner it is acting with the cliques and puppets.

This real distrust in their perfidious ally is becoming evident from the forms of blackmail they are exerting on it "National" feelings and "national" defence have begun to appear in the "alliances". Even if they don't say so, the "allies", have begun to think and move: "How are we going to defend ourselves? Nothing is certain with the United States of America: it leaves you in the lurch for its own interests".

For its part, Soviet social-imperialism is experiencing a similar major crisis. Nobody believes its demagogy, because every action it takes shows the peoples that its policy, objectives and ambitions are identical with those of American imperialism: world hegemony, division of markets, while doing its utmost to avoid confrontation with the other superpowers. But the struggle for markets does not prevent these two superpowers from having cliques and puppets, from playing them one against the other in order to draw the chestnuts out of the fire for them. The "allies" of Soviet social-imperialism are extremely disatisfied with their patron: their countries are occupied and cannot be liberated without war. But this they cannot undertake. Up to a certain point, they can do some trade with the capitalist countries and obtain some credits from them, to the extent the patron finds it advantageous to allow them. But if they pull too hard at the leash the patron jerks them back into line with stern brutality.

Rumania is an exception to this state of affairs, but apparently the Soviets have allotted it special tasks, so that it can kick out a bit against the patron, but in the long run it has to be completely in its service. All the activity of the Ceausceseu group allows one to suspect this, because while it shouts that it is being threatened by the Soviets, it makes no move to withdraw from the Warsaw Treaty. This means to be inside while posing as if you have one foot outside.

In the patron-satellite relations, the satellites of the United States of America have greater freedom to manoeuvre and resort to blackmail, whereas the satellites of the Soviets are kept under a tight rein. The United States of America threatens its allies with the Soviet menace, whereas the Soviets cannot threaten their satellites with the American menace, because they beg for ties with the USA and want the American "freedom". But both superpowers speculate with the threat of a world war. Meanwhile the so-called non-aligned countries are under a double threat - of a general war and a partial war.

Nevertheless, in this general framework, the myth of the big powers which can do what they want without being punished or suffering defeats, is steadily waning. The Americans are suffering such political, economic, military and other defeats. The Soviet Union has not yet suffered military defeats. It suffered a major political defeat in Czechoslovakia from which it still has not recovered. So far it has guarded against committing aggression where it foresees it might encounter armed resistance, because it will certainly suffer political and military defeats. It is taking great pains to keep up a certain reputation through demagogy, but if this veil is tom from it, then it is finished from every standpoint. With this tactic the Soviet Union wants to preserve the "myth" that the Soviet army is an "Invincible monster". It needs this myth and doesn't want to shatter it, because that would bring its terrible slide to disaster. The Soviet strategy is to preserve this myth and continue the hegemonic policy of social-imperialism.

American imperialism has suffered defeats, but the Russians do not appear to have done so. This is an illusion, because both of them have suffered defeats and both are manoeuvring for a new strategy and new tactics. Ford issued a blunt warning, "let nobody try to fish in troubled waters against the United States of America". The "troubled waters" are Cambodia, Vietnam, the Middle East. This "nobody" is the Soviet Union, in the first place.

Faced with defeats, the United States of America is not failing to consider and prepare a kick for the Russians if they dare make a move. What form could this kick take? Suppositions: first, it refuses to grant credits which they need go badly; second, it drives Russia completely from the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and Africa. The latter measure involves vital economic and strategic issues.

He who has influence in the Arab and African countries shuts Russia up in a cage. The United States of America will try to do this; it will defend Israel but it will not sacrifice its "friendship" with the Arab countries...

The Soviet Union is left only with the positions it has in Europe. Some are spreading the rumour that the United States of America will proceed in its policy according to the "Monroe Doctrine". No, it will not withdraw into complete isolationism, but may adopt semi-isolationism, if it is unable to establish its complete hegemony over its NATO allies. The United States of America has interests in Europe which it will continue to defend. Hence, in principle, it is the "shield" of Western Europe against the "Soviet danger". However, "American isolationism" may be expressed as: "I will help you but you must help me out of these two colossal crises, because in this way you are helping yourselves".

We see that France is moving in this direction, giving the impression that it is becoming a world power whose opinion must be sought. Tomorrow Federal Germany, which is not being heard much at present, will take this course. Brandt's policy was a failure. Its main aim was "to bring about the unification of the two German states". This he failed to achieve, but this does not mean that German imperialism has laid down its arms. One morning it will wake up and its main aim will be against the Soviets. Britain will follow this same course. Hence, a new strategy should be given consideration: the Soviet Union should be isolated in Europe and its advance halted everywhere, the United States of America should remain the main gendarme, but other gendarmes who have been treated with contempt, should be revived, thus Tamerlaine and his allies will defeat Bayazit Yalderem - the Soviet Union, shut it up in a cage and drag it around to exhibit it like the bear in a fair.

We don't know how true it is that the Westeners have "agreed", that the first stage of the meeting on "European security" should be ended and that they "do not insist strongly on the free circulation of ideas and people". Apparently, both sides want to sign a worthless scrap of paper. Why? Do they want to give a "satisfaction", to the pro-American group of Brezhnev, in order to gain time until the United States of America can recover from its defeats, mend its broken vases, regain its lost credibility and prepare for the coming presidential elections while its western allies assist it and assist themselves to consolidate a certain independence and greater power in the alliance with the United States of America? We must watch this development. because it is taking place, although in what forms and directions is not vet clearly defined. It is important that the decline of the two superpowers should continue, that their hegemony and arrogance should be undermined, their intrigues stopped and combated, that the psychosis of fear which the two superpowers are keeping alive should be combated, that the sentiment for the defence and the national dignity of the peoples and independent states should be strengthened and the revolutionary spirit and international unity of the proletariat and the people all over the world should be enhanced and tempered.

The defeats of the superpowers must be exploited to the maximum and in all possible ways. We must make our contribution to this struggle as we have always done and more than over before.



The whole of South Vietnam has been liberated. Saigon was taken by assault and not on the basis of the Paris agreement. With the fall of Saigon one of the most protracted and barbarous wars the world has seen during the 20th century came to an end. American imperialism had taken the place and played the role of Hitlerite fascist imperialism, while the valiant Vietnamese people fought heroically and relentlessly against the French, the Japanese, against the French again and against the Americans, for 35 years on end. From its duration, the war of Vietnam is like the Hundred Years War and the Thirty Years War of by-gone centuries, but the war waged by, American imperialism in Vietnam far outstripped the Second World War in its ferocity, the barbarous atrocities committed. and the quantity and variety of means employed.

Nevertheless the fraternal heroic Vietnamese people fought arms in hand, resisted and triumphed. The greatest world power, American imperialism, suffered the most sensational, ignominious and costly defeat. The United States of America poured 150 billion dollars into the war against Vietnam to earn disgrace and the hatred of all the peoples of the world. The friends and allies of the United States of America, also, suffered the greatest disillusionment and they are terror-stricken over this victory of the people of Vietnam and Cambodia.

This war confirmed the Leninist thesis that power is won with the rifle, through fighting. Wild pigs on the rampage must be shot. American imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism and the reactionary bourgeoisie must be fought arms in hand. Only in this way can the peoples liberate themselves. There is not a single example to show that the people and the working class can take power by the parliamentary, reformist road. The revisionists loudly advertise this road, indeed they stress it as the only road, because they are against the revolution in general, and against the proletarian revolution, the liberation of the peoples, in particular. They are for the conciliation of the proletariat with the capitalist employers, for reforms which give the proletarians the crumbs from the capitalists' well-laden table, for the "historic compromise" of the Italian revisionists. This is the road which the Soviets support everywhere in order to dominate others. They even employed this tactic with the Vietnamese... The Paris agreement was the offspring of this dirty Soviet-American compromise at the expense of the Vietnamese. The Paris agreement prolonged the existence and domination of the American and the Saigon bandits for another two years. The Vietnamese had to continue to fight to achieve their complete liberation, which, in fact, they did. We told them openly what we thought about the Paris agreement. We told them that unless they threw it in the waste-paper basket they would never secure their liberation. And so it turned out.

Even now that Vietnam has been liberated the Soviet and American intrigues will continue, the fierce struggle will continue with other means...



China is showing Itself in favour of and supports the European Common Market and "United Europe".

What is China's strategic aim and is it based on Marxist-Leninist principles? In order to determine this, we must define the aims of these organisms which China defends or supports.

When it was created, the European Common Market had as its aim the development of economic and commercial relations between its members, which were six at first, and then became nine. The aim of this institution was to enable the capitalist bourgeoisie of each member country to make the maximum profit, as well as to strengthen the capitalist economy of each separate state and all of them in general. Of course, together with the regulation of the problem of customs conventions, a series of other problems, such as prices, currency and bilateral and multilateral relations, were tidied up, too.

At first the European Common Market could not avoid reckoning with the powerful American economy and taking its steps allegedly separate from it, but, in fact, co-ordinated with the steps of American imperialism. Immediately after the Second World War, the latter contributed to the economic revival of Western Europe with the "aid" it provided, but at no time did it forget its own interests which were and became major ones.

Hence, with the creation of the European Common Market, on the one hand, the efforts of American imperialism to dictate its economic policy to this institution continued, and on the other hand, the efforts of the members of the European Common Market to liberate themselves from American tutelage also continued. In this way, contradictions, which grew steadily deeper, arose between them.

The so-called cold war concealed these contradictions to some extent, because even though the members of the European Common Market began seriously to display their economic independence, from the angle of defence, they were obliged to live under the American atomic umbrella. Naturally, the United States of America knew how to exploit the feeling of fear of a war with the Soviets, which emerged in the member countries of the European Common Market, to its own advantage.

The Khrushchevites' betrayal freed the capitalist bourgeoisie from their fear of the revolution and communism, assisted world capital and gave it breathing space. The Khrushchevite betrayal split the revolutionary forces of the whole world, put off the proletarian revolution, fostered nationalist manifestations and gave the capitalist bourgeoisie time and the possibility to strengthen its weak internal position at the expense of the proletarian revolution, to undertake other activities and enter new combinations among states in the international arena. Filled with nationalist sentiments, the Khrushchevite social-imperialists aspired to turn the Soviet Union from a socialist state into an imperialist atomic superpower, and they worked until they achieved this aim. Thus, two superpowers competing for world hegemony were created. The law of both of them, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, is the law of the fight for plunder, the law of the enslavement of the peoples. This law is associated with the achievement of monstrous "alliances", with the capture, through disguised force, of strategic points to he used for the preparation of war, with their arming to the teeth, and the build-up of ever more modern atomic weapons, is accompanied with the plunder and the economic and political gobbling up of many states by means of intimidation, blackmail, credits and "aid", and subversion.

In these ever changing situations, Western Europe took more courage. France under De Gaulle developed a policy more independent from the Americans and the Anglo-Saxons in general. De Gaulle left NATO, respecting only the treaty. Of course De Gaulle, too, dreamt of a European Common Market and a "United Europe" in which, without neglecting Adenauer's Germany, France would dominate. De Gaulle was filled with a great nationalism, a thing which he sought from his other partners, but channelled to such a Europe as he dreamt of. Of course De Gaulle's aims could not be achieved, because his partners had their own aims, ambitions, and fears. Not all these states conceived the role of the United States of America in Europe and in the world in the same way. West Germany, first of all, at present divided from the rest of the country, prefers to make certain concessions to the United States of America in other fields, without following the course of France of breaking away from the American defence. Germany and the other partners place little value on the "atomic strength", of France or of Britain, or indeed of Britain and France taken together. They consider this strength a "dwarf", compared with the Soviet or American nuclear strength.

All these imperialist powers, whether the two superpowers, "United Europe", or Japan, aspire to hegemony. Since the time that the grave crisis of the dollar began, and the American military defeats in Southeast Asia - in Vietnam, Cambodia and elsewhere, "United Europe", has begun to reinforce its internal political positions, and to aspire more strongly, as a self-contained organism, to turn into a new capitalist and imperialist superpower. This, then, is the "United Europe", which the China of Mao Zedong encourages and assists. The France. of Pompidou and later of Giscard, also, encourages and assists this "United Europe". Not only is France trying to preserve and further develop its nuclear strength, but it has begun to revive its old colonialist policy more actively under the neo-colonialist cloak, in French-speaking Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East. Its economic strength does not permit France to compete with the others, but to the extent that it can, this is what it is doing. The stand of France towards the United States of America is no longer like that of the time of De Gaulle and Pompidou. Now this stand is somewhat softer. Despite this, however, its independence is apparent. Britain, too, is continuing to strengthen its lost economic influence in the Commonwealth countries to some extent, while Bonn is intervening economically in Central Europe, in the Balkans (apart from Albania), in Turkey, and wherever it is able, around this region.

All these efforts of theirs may increase their joint economic potential which is a necessary factor in order to be a superpower. However, in order to become a superpower, this factor alone is not sufficient. This "United Europe" lacks the nuclear strength which the two superpowers have. On the other hand, in this "United Europe" there are such great political and economic contradictions between the states which comprise it that it will not be able to attain the political and military potential which the United States of America has, even for dozens of years. From many viewpoints, the "United States of Europe" is not like the United States of America. It is difficult for these European states to become assimilated as those states of the American continent from which the United States of America was formed, have been assimilated. Each state in Europe has its own individuality as a nation, formed historically through the centuries. Each of them has its own history, its own social, economic and cultural development, different from the others. Within each capitalist and revisionist European state there are strong class contradictions, which make not only external unity, but also internal unity, difficult.

Hence, to support a course of European capitalism which aspires to hegemony, aspires to become a superpower, as China is doing, is wrong in principle. To act in this way means to leave the road of the revolution in oblivion and to become caught up in the political game of the two superpowers, struggling and manoeuvring from the stand-points of their policies, while overestimating the manoeuvres of the superpowers in the changing situations of the contradictions which they have, underestimating the world proletarian revolution, and underestimating the struggle of the peoples against the superpowers and the capitalist bourgeois states. China is wrong when it preaches that "the main enemy is the Soviet Union, while the United States of America is less dangerous". It is true that the United States of America has suffered defeats, but it remains an imperialist power. To weaken the struggle against it means to weaken the revolution and assist American imperialism. The Chinese will be making the same mistake, if the United States of America starts "to show its wolf's teeth"; then China will begin to say that the "Soviet Union is less dangerous, whereas the United States of America has become more dangerous". China is wrong when it, puts itself in the position of Don Quixote towards the old capitalist Europe, allegedly because it will become a counter-weight to the Soviets, on the one hand, and the Americans on the other, while China will benefit., since it supports "United Europe".

The contradictions between imperialists must be deepened and exploited in our favour, but only from the class positions, from the positions of the proletarian revolution. China is not doing this, but doing the opposite by telling the peoples of Europe, America and the "third world": "Support your capitalist and imperialist bourgeoisie, because the main enemy is Soviet social-imperialism". This road is not Leninist, does not encourage the revolution, but defends that opportunism which the Second International advocated and Lenin exposed. We cannot agree with this strategy and tactic of China. For us, the main struggle against the imperialist superpowers and world capitalism is the peoples' struggle, the proletarians' struggle, the world proletarian revolution. From this angle, and while supporting these just struggles, we must manoeuvre and benefit from the situations that develop by helping to deepen the contradictions.

The contradictions and crises within imperialism, social-imperialism and world capitalism have their source in the oppression of peoples by the capitalists and in the struggle which these peoples wage against capitalist oppression and exploitation. Then, either you must encourage and assist the struggle of the peoples against the capitalists, or you must assist the latter to manoeuvre, to fatten themselves, and to wage war on one or the other imperialist by telling the peoples, "Go and get yourselves killed for me". The Marxist-Leninists, must encourage and assist the peoples' struggle and unite their forces with it, with the struggle of the proletarians against the imperialist superpowers and world capitalism. This is the road which our Party of Labour has followed and will continue to follow.

Mao's mistaken foreign policy in this direction gives the impression that it is simplistic. In this policy the Chinese not only do not proceed from proletarian class positions, but without saying so, indeed while denying this in words, they are proceeding on the road of a great power. China is not a superpower, but its influence in world affairs is and can be great. China can and will play a role in the world on one of two roads: either on the Marxist-Leninist road, the road of the revolution, or on the bourgeois-capitalist road, with a new revisionist nuance. Only by militating on the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary road will China win the trust of the peoples who want and are fighting for the revolution.

At present, China is trying to convince the capitalist countries that the threat to them comes from the "Soviet Union". As if China were teaching the capitalists of the world something new' But the capitalists consider communism and the revolution their main enemies. If China proceeds on the revolutionary road, its statement that the "revisionist Soviet Union is the main enemy" will convince no one, while all the capitalists of every shade will aim their blows at China. If they are not afraid of China at present, there are several reasons for this: either because China is communist only in words and not in deeds, or because it is still weak economically and military, or because it is an anti-Soviet factor which they want to exploit to the limit to weaken the aggressiveness of the Soviets against themselves.

The aim of the policy of both the Chinese and the Americans is to combat the Soviet Union, but while the Chinese want to set the Americans fighting the Soviet Union, 1e United States of America and its allies want to set China fighting the Soviet Union. Both sides are developing this chassè croisè (Reciprocal change of places between two parties (French in the original)) from the same positions and with the same hopes. However the Soviet Union is not sitting idle. It is trying to avoid war with the United States of America, to dominate the peoples whom it can oppress itself, to break up the NATO alliance, to isolate China and, if possible, to subjugate it. And all these aims it is pursuing under the disguise of socialism. World capitalism and European capitalism, in particular, has gone through a series of world wars which have had their source in the savage nature of capitalism. Thus, the "United Europe", the France of Giscard d'Estaing, or West Germany are not easily hoodwinked by the policy of Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping. They will not go to war with the Soviets on Deng Xiaoping urging. No, they are trying to avoid the collision with the Soviet Union, since they consider it stronger than themselves, trying to weaken the fortress from within, and then prepare the assault. All of them - the United States of America, Britain, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, etc., are trying to weaken the Soviets in the alliances they have with Poland. Rumania, Czechoslovakia, etc., but they are not proceeding in the way China wants them to. The old wolves are well acquainted with the tactics of attack, therefore it is hard to lead them on to those paths which suit you, because they themselves have used and are still using such plans, also, in the direction of China itself. No doubt, the president of France has turned a deaf ear to the tale of the "Soviet danger". Without doubt Giscard d'Estaing has told Deng Xiaoping that the French want to develop their friendship with China, but not against the Soviet Union, because they want to avoid the conflict. On the other hand the d'Estaings and company indirectly urge Deng to move against the Soviets, to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them while they look on.

The European bourgeoisie is an old intriguer. It is experienced in trickery and intrigues. Only the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat and the peoples gives it its deserts. In the fight on this terrain it is exposed and smashed, and its intrigue and trickery loses its force. This is the terrain from which China should fight, proceeding from the principles that diplomatic recognition and trade with the capitalist countries of Europe should serve a sound revolutionary strategy, and it should not try to incite Western Europe to fight the Soviets. In the past Britain and France used this wrong course which China is using today to incite Hitler against the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union against Germany. We know the outcome of those manoeuvres. Stalin did not fall into those errors, did not fall either into the positions of the Anglo-Americans or those of the Hitlerites.

By taking a firm revolutionary stand, you are better able to exploit the contradictions among the enemies and to weaken the most dangerous of them, first of all, without forgetting those which, though weakened for the moment, could revive. If you judge events and situations from the revolutionary positions you see clearly that your basis of support is not a temporary factor, but that You have a very powerful and lasting potential in the struggle against capital, you have the proletariat of each country and the international proletariat as a whole, as well as the peoples who want freedom and the revolution. The revolution must be made by fighting, both the United States of America and the Soviet Union.



The Helsinki Conference on "European security" was opened yesterday with great pomp, "beating the drum without the sacrement", notwithstanding the fact that the Vatican's Cassaroli is guiding it -on behalf of the "Vicar" of Christ. The councils of Worms, Prague, and the orgiastic liturgies are being repeated in discourses like those of Pope Alexander Borgia VI. Only this time Tito has not taken his "Vannosa" along, or at least the press has made no mention of her. The world press is committing "mortal sins" when it enumerates the "great" leaders who are taking part in this meeting and puts Tito at the bottom of the list. What a crime! The Italian radio mentioned Tito at the end, just ahead of Makarios.

Naturally the Helsinki Conference is proceeding successfully, but behind the scenes, in the hotels and residences of Ford, Brezhnev, Giscard, and others, private talks are being held, the whisky is flowing, and everything is being decided prior to the plenary meeting of the Conference. At this conference the only thing lacking is a ball like that at the Congress of Vienna at the time when Napoleon escaped from the island of Elba and marched on Paris. At the Helsinki Conference the "dance" lasted for more than two years, but the "mountain laboured to bring forth a mouse". It produced a document of more than 200 pages that says nothing. It commits nobody to anything. It requires the heads of delegations only to put their signatures to it.

The much advertised meeting was not yet open when the article of Zeri i popullit (The article "The conference of insecurity in Europe" Published on 29 July 1975), the voice of the only country in Europe which is not taking part in this conference and which exposed this sinister manoeuvre of the two imperialist superpowers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, was circulating in the corridors of this conference. The journalists in hundreds jumped upon the article of Zeri i popullit, the organ of the Party of Labour of Albania, and served it up right away to the world public. The waiters in the hotels served it on silver trays to Brezhnev, Ford, Tito, Ceausescu and the others in the morning before they spoke.

It is interesting to analyse the aims of this conference. In reality it is the Soviets who insisted on its being held. The western press complained that Brezhnev wanted it for personal prestige, "to give a lustre to his personal policy of peaceful coexistence". All this is rubbish!

The American and western imperialists pretended to be displeased, to be reluctant to take part, while their message boys, Tito and Ceausescu, clamoured that they wanted it allegedly not for "the aims of the Americans and the Soviets", but for "the lofty aims of peace". All these are fairy tales to put people to sleep.

Then what are the true reasons for this conference? In my opinion both the Soviet Union and the United States of America wanted this conference and it was precisely these two big imperialist powers which manipulated and organized it. This conference created illusions among some people about subsequent aggressive actions, about the division of the markets in the world and the creation of their spheres of influence. All the reactionary cliques that are ruling in Europe, except in the proletarian state of socialist Albania, were to put their signatures to these evil aims.

But let us take the issues one by one.

In my opinion, the Soviet Union is trying to avoid a nuclear confrontation with the United States of America, trying to continue the dialogue with it, in rivalry but also in collaboration. As the great imperialist power it is, the Soviet Union is seeking economic and political expansion, at the same time. It has become a neo-colonialist power in competition with the United States of America. Both these competitors have great military potential, but in comparison with the United States of America, the Soviet Union is weak economically. Both for its internal development and for the hegemonic role it wants to play in the world, the Soviet Union needs time, needs the current "status quo" in order to capture a strong economic position and to modernize its obsolete and unprofitable industry and agriculture. If it is to attain these possibilities, it has to make concessions, because it needs aid from abroad. But this aid the Soviet Union has to get mostly from the United States of America as well as from the other wealthy countries of Europe. Then donnant, donnant as the French say "you give to me then I'll give to you". This is the illusionist basis of the Helsinki Conference.

The two great world wars began in Europe and then spread to the whole world. They began as imperialist wars of plunder and ended in national liberation wars. With the exception of the People's Republic of Albania now all the capitalist and revisionist states of Europe are dancing to the "tune" which the American imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists play.

Two blocs confront each other in Europe. Will the third world war, the nuclear war, break out in Europe or elsewhere, in Asia, on the borders of China? The "mighty" are making their calculations. The Soviet Union is striving to "reassure the Europeans that it is not going to attack them", that they should not fear present day Russia. But the Europeans want proofs and guarantees, they also want "room to expand" and to have their, own friends, including the Soviet Union among them. They want the satellite countries of Eastern Europe, linked with the Soviet Union, and even the Soviet Union itself, to throw their doors wide open for people and ideas to go in and out without restriction, that is, to decay completely from within. At Helsinki the Soviet Union is trying to create the illusion that it is making concessions in these directions. Of course it is making some concessions, from necessity, because it has to gain time, to obtain credits and modern technology, must free its hands to some extent in order to extend its activities on other continents apart from Europe. In the Europe of wolves it has nothing to gain except bites. Let the revisionists and their friends operate in Europe, let them collaborate with the capitalists. On the other hand, since the Soviet Union itself is going to get credits and modern technology from the United States of America and the West, is cannot prevent its satellites from doing the same thing, only it has to keep them under military occupation. The Warsaw Treaty serves as the shackles which the Soviet Union is riveting tight. However the satellite states like Poland. Rumania, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria have become capitalist countries, degenerate from every viewpoint. This is of no consequence to the Soviet Union. It has become such a country itself. All of them are heading for disaster.

This is how things stand in the Soviet fold. All the satellites of the Soviets with the possible exception of the Bulgarians want to break the shackles of the Warsaw Treaty, but they cannot. Then their only hope is that which the Helsinki document allows them, that is, to strengthen their friendship with the United States of America and the West, to seek investments from them in the form of credits and imports of their technology without any restrictions, to allow the church to occupy its former place, to deepen the moral degeneration, to increase the anti-Sovietism, and the Warsaw Treaty will remain an empty egg-shell. "We must have the treaty, but at the same time we must be with the others", this is what the Giereks, Ceausescu, the Hussaks and the Honeckers dream of and hope for. The Americans, and the Westerners also are pursuing this aim, that is, to make the glacis (French in the original) between them and the Soviet Union their own. The Americans and the Westerners are competing to attain their goal in these directions, while the Soviets are trying to restrain their satellites as far as they can and the latter are doing all they can to escape from the Soviet grip.

This is what Helsinki is all about, these are the illusions, the hopes, the sleight of hand tricks, this is what the dinners and lunches put on by Brezhnev, Ford, Tito, Giscard, and others are intended to achieve. A hopeless infernal gamble! The Soviet Union and the United States of America are watching them closely to see which way they move in the dance.

"Nuclear weapons, economic strength, blackmail, fear are the basis and the key positions", while the objective is: "we must achieve a certain disengagement in Europe in order to interest ourselves elsewhere". "We must fight, but not in Europe, if possible we should wage war through other peoples, we must use every means to crush those countries which hinder us, the capitalist countries of Europe, from competing on other continents" and the law of the jungle will continue to reign more fiercely than ever, the law "the big fish eats the small fish" will be on the order of the day. The Helsinki Conference opens this prospect to the Soviets and the Americans, a gloomy prospect for the peoples, full of dangers, hardships and imperialist wars of plunder.

Brezhnev and Ford are holding special meetings on financial co-ordination, armaments, the SALT agreements and many other problems which are connected with their domination of the world, and preparing for the coming Ford-Brezhnev, meeting.

Brezhnev, Ford, Giscard and Schmidt are holding meetings on "West Berlin", but this is the "finger", on which the Westerners seized when the Soviet Union made them the notorious concessions, in order to grab the arm, the unification of the two German states. At this meeting the three told the fourth: "What we gained in relation to West Berlin we must not only safeguard but also extend further on the basis of what we are signing at Helsinki".

All the lunches and dinners which the other "heads of states", are putting on are simply monkey-tricks, in order to talk for the sake of talking, to imply that they, too, are doing something behind the scenes. Nevertheless, their role is merely to "propose toasts" at the wedding organized by Ford and Brezhnev. These are the aristocrats who hold the "bomb and the purse-strings", the others loiter around the corridors and the hotels dressed up to the nines but with no more importance than waiters and bell-hops. Not only Ford, but also Giscard and Wilson openly said that the things they declared and decided upon at Helsinki are not obligatory, but "principles" which "ought to the applied" in other words, that the Soviet Union should "apply".

While the Conference at Helsinki was going on, the manager of the British news agency, Reuter sent a letter to Gromyko and the Conference in which he said that his correspondents in the Soviet Union were being persecuted and expelled, were not allowed "to work", in peace. Reuter made this protest known to all the delegates at the conference. This is the prelude which was orchestrated at Helsinki and which Ford conducted. The "grandiose" tunes will be heard later. 'The articles we wrote about this conference had great echo in the world because they pointed out openly and courageously what the others are unable to say, because in them we revealed every thing that was being concocted by the two superpowers and everything that would occur later.

Returning to the motives which impelled the Soviet Union to seek the holding of this conference we must say that it did not do so because it wanted to create troubles for itself. No, it gives ground in one direction to gain it in another. Apart from "submitting" to the conditions of the United States of America in order to obtain credits and new technology, the Soviet Union also wants to develop its domination in the Middle East, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma and elsewhere. Its purpose is to establish Soviet neo-colonialism in those countries, to establish its hegemony and the military, political and ideological encirclement of China. At the same time, of course, this will mean waging a struggle against American imperialism, which has not in any way or for one moment i enounced the aim of establishing its hegemony in those countries. It will oppose the Soviet Union in these aims. And China will not sit idle.

Is we are seeing, bourgeois France, too, has undertaken certain roles in the Mediterranean basin, in the countries of Africa and Indochina, in order to regain some of its lost advantages, to oppose the Soviet Union and, in this direction, to tell the United States of America that as its partner, it too, wants a small place in the warm sun. As it seems, West Germany remains one of the main powers of Europe to oppose the soviet Union, to bring about the decay of its satellites in Europe, indeed even of the Soviet Union itself. Its main aim is to achieve the unification of the two German states.



I discussed with Ramiz that we must commence the study of the materials of the 25th Congress of the CPSU and, as always, prepare a serious article (This article, entitled "The Congress of the Soviet Revisionists - a Congress of Demagogy and Social-Imperialist Expansion", was published in the newspaper Zeri i popullit, March 12, 1976) which will denounce the treacherous anti-Marxist line of the Soviet social-imperialists from every standpoint. Our article must point out the Soviet revisionists' permanent concern to disguise themselves with allegedly Leninist slogans. They try to show that their course of betrayal is a "consistent continuation of the theory of Marx and Lenin", and want to say that, "if there is no proletariat in our country, this is because we have passed beyond the phase of socialism and are in communism"; if "the party is a party of the entire people", this is because "classes have disappeared in our country"; if "the state is a state of the entire people", this is because "in communism there is neither dictatorship of the proletariat nor class struggle", etc.

For what does all this serve the Soviet revisionists? To disguise the fact that their regime today is an imperialist, social-chauvinist regime, that their state is a dictatorship of the fascist, capitalist new bourgeoisie, because it crushes everything and anybody who does not obey this bureaucratic fascist bourgeoisie. A large majority of the "party of the entire people" is made up of people from the unlimited bureaucracy, men in the service of the police, the security forces, and especially from the big, aggressive army. In the party, workers take second place to officials, but these workers, in the party are from the "worker aristocracy", lackeys in the service of the revisionist new bourgeoisie and the Soviet espionage network, the KGB.

Basing ourselves on information published by the .Soviets, we must point out in the article that, despite the manipulation of figures, the Soviet capitalist economy is experiencing a very grave, catastrophic crisis. That economy is caught up in the great world crisis and, in striving to get out of it, the Soviet Union has placed itself more inextricably in the clutches of American imperialism and world capitalism, by accepting immense foreign credits. Its agriculture is bankrupt and its industry likewise. By means of Comecon, in which it makes the law, the Soviet Union savagely exploits its satellites, while the aggressive Soviet army is gobbling up vast sums from the budget in order to turn into an army of the Hitlerite type by means of which it intends to dominate the world.

The Soviet revisionists want to cover up these defeats, this decay and degeneration, both at home and abroad, through the scandalous pomposity of their appearance, puffed up like turkey cocks. For the first time in history the army greeted the 25th Congress of the CPSU (a congress only in appearance), the delegates to which displayed their chests covered with decorations. "Handsome" officers, dressed in carefully tailored uniforms and their .chests covered with medals, came to the rostrum to speak.

With this the revisionists declared to the congress of the party that the army dominates over everything and everybody, therefore both you at home and you abroad should be afraid of us!. The floor quaked under the martial tread of officers, and the new bourgeoisie, the aristocracy of the regime, present at the Congress rose to its feet in enthusiastic applause. It felt itself secure, and, secure in the wealth it has appropriated.

The article must also bring out that the Soviet revisionists had invited to this congress all sorts of filth, all those whom the Khrushchevites needed to impart "majesty" to their congress, to say that Moscow "is the centre of the communist world", and this whole revisionist world is singing hymns of praise to the Khrushchevites! Of course, the Party of Labour kept itself far removed from this cesspool and it continues to expose the disgrace, the blackmail, the treachery and revisionist hegemonism of the Soviet social-imperialists.

Our article must point out, also, that the French Communist Party, the Italian Communist Party and the Communist Party of Spain created a "diversion"; they did not "synchronize their watches" with the Kremlin. It "criticized them", but with kid gloves and not by name. It had to do this, because otherwise its false disguise would, have been torn from it completely. But these revisionist parties, allegedly dissident from Moscow, are telling the Kremlin through their statements and programs: "What have you to worry about? We begin where you left off, we begin from your betrayal, you rejected the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that's what we are doing; you have a party of the entire people because there is no class struggle in your country, and we are going to, socialism (in dreams) without class struggle, through reforms and together with all the parties of capital, including even the cagoulards (Members of a French terrorist organization (1932-1941)) and the new Fiery Crosses, so you have no reason to be upset".

The article must show that the two sides are pretending to be upset with each other, because this is in the interest of both the revisionists of the East and those of the West. The latter want to prove to the bourgeoisie of their countries that they have renounced the revolution, therefore they are demanding a place in the sun, and on the other hand, want to demonstrate that "we have broken with Moscow, we are free, independent".

It pleases the Soviet revisionists that this revisionist water is being mixed with the capitalist bourgeois wine, because they hope to have a fifth column within those Western states (if the bourgeoisie swallows this potion). So they pretend to quarrel, pretend to criticize each other, but both sides want to emerge, and in fact have emerged, on the same course. However, there is one thing the Soviets do not like: they do not like these pseudo-dissidents, trumpet loudly that they have broken with Moscow, because this is not good for either side and nobody believes it, anyway.

We can guess what is going on behind the scenes at the 25th Congress, what farces are being played out, what blackmail, threats, bribery and promises of credits are being made. The main leadership of the Kremlin has placed all the delegations under observation with eaves-dropping devices and battalions of officials who are attached to these delegation. The "lobbying" goes on all day at tables laden with fabulous quantities of food and drink in order to deceive. This is a means to illustrate the fraud of the plenty that the revisionists want to prove exists in the Soviet Union, where the reality is quite the opposite. It has been decided in advance where each delegation will go and what it will see, who will speak to it and what they will say, because those who will welcome the delegation may not know anything at all about the country from which the guest come. The Agitprop thinks, the delegations my not know anything at all about the country deception operates, and the threats, the rubles, the stick and the carrot, likewise.



The 7th Congress of our glorious Party was opened in Tirana today.

The Skanderbeg Square and the streets around the opera and Ballet Theatre, where the Congress is being held, were filled with people. The hall was packed with delegates and guests and echoed with an indescribable enthusiasm...

Speaking about the international situation and the foreign policy of Albania, in the Report which he delivered at the Congress Comrade Enver Hoxha pointed out:

The People's Republic of Albania does not accept and publicly exposes the so-called theory about the need to preserve the "balance between the superpowers" as a condition or a basis to avoid war and defend peace. It rejects the imperialist concepts on the preservation of "spheres of influence" as alleged factors for stability and security, the concepts of "limited sovereignty" and the "interdependent world", of "bipolarization", the policy of blackmail, etc. These so-called theories and doctrines invented in Moscow and Washington are meant to create a capitulationist opinion that no state or nation can live outside the domination and tutelage of one or the other superpower.

The history of Europe has proved that the "balance of forces" among the big powers has always been a weapon in the hands of the exploiting classes to suppress the national liberation and revolutionary movements. Intervention has always been a weapon of the system of balance, to restore it when it is upset or to guard against its being upset.

Peace and international security in Europe and the world are not achieved through the establishment of "harmony" or balance between the superpowers, but through struggle against imperialist pressures and intervention, through efforts for the liberation of the peoples, through the strengthening of national independence and sovereignty...

Our Party upholds the thesis that both when the superpowers work together and when they quarrel, it is the others why pay the bill. Collaboration and rivalry between the two superpowers are the two sides of the one contradictory reality, important expressions of the same imperialist strategy, to rob the peoples of their freedom and to dominate the world. They pose the same danger, therefore the two superpowers are the main and greatest enemies of the peoples. That is why, one must never rely on one imperialism to fight or escape from the other.

There are states that, aware of a threat from either one or the other superpower, base their defence on the military protection of the United States of America or of the Soviet Union. But military protection by the superpowers is an illusory defence, because its aim is to convert the "defended" country into a protectorate. Shelter tinder the "defence umbrella" of the superpowers is always accompanied with political and economic concessions, with concessions in the realm of national sovereignty and restrictions in the field of decision-making on internal and external issues...

Consistent in their Marxist-Leninist line, the Party of Labour of Albania and the Albanian people have been and are against the two superpowers, against predatory imperialist war, against the monopoly bourgeoisie and international reaction. Therefore, in the future, too, they will spare no effort and will fight together with all the other anti-imperialist and anti-socialimperialist peoples, with all the Marxist-Leninist parties, all the revolutionaries and the world proletariat, all progressive people, to foil the plans and manoeuvres of the enemies and ensure the triumph of the cause of the freedom and security of the peoples.

At every moment our country will be found standing beside all those peoples whose freedom, independence ire threatened and whose rights are violated. We have repeatedly declared this stand, and not just in good times, but in dangerous times as well: the peoples of the world can be sure that socialist Albania is with them and fears no sacrifice...



For us there is no doubt at all that China is in alliance with the United States of America. It seems that there is a secret agreement between these two countries on their joint struggle against Soviet social-imperialism. Hence, China, which has built its strategy, or to put it better, which has altered its strategy, has taken no account of the interests of the world revolution and the peoples' liberation, but has reckoned only to strengthen itself as a great social-imperialist state. In this framework, these two states aim to achieve the weakening of Soviet social-imperialism. This policy of China is expressed in its efforts to ensure that all the communists, the Marxist-Leninist parties and the national liberation movements in the world should consider Soviet social-imperialism, not only from the strategic aspect, but also from the tactical aspect, the main enemy, or the only enemy, which must be fought at all costs.

China has received and is receiving aid from the United States of America and from other capitalist countries of the world, both from those of Europe and from Japan. Especially now, at the start, this aid is military aid. The United States of America in the first place has supplied China with powerful computers and will supply it with more later. However, the Soviet question is restraining the United States of America in its pro-Chinese course, because the Americans do not want the Soviets to become more antagonistic in their attitude towards the United States of America. This means that American imperialism wants to have in hand "both the stick and the carrot". It has not cut off the carrot to the Soviet Union, but has given it large credits. It is known that these large credits are not granted to the Soviet Union with no strings attached by American imperialism. With these credits it has certain definite aims and, first of all, that the Soviet Union should not be aggressive against the United States of America. This does not mean that there are no contradictions between Soviet social-imperialism and American imperialism. No, there are big contradictions between them, indeed major ones, which we must exploit. But we cannot say that agreements and understanding between these two superpowers do not exist. This is the phase of the division of the world, the division of markets. Hence, there is bitter contest in the relations between them, but there is also agreement, because otherwise there is no sense in all this great aid which the United States of America and all the other capitalist states are giving the Soviet Union, states which, as China says, are under the daily threat of a sudden, lightning attack by the Soviet army.

As the Chinese themselves say, the Soviet Union is keeping about a million soldiers on the border with China. To keep a million Soviet soldiers on the border with China means to weaken the European front, which China considers the most dangerous front in case of some attack by the Soviets.

The Communist Party of China wants all the Marxist-Leninist communist parties and the peoples of the world to adopt its strategy, the author of which is Mao Zedong. This is similar to what Khrushchev and the Khrushchevites did when they sought to impose on us the theoretical, political, economic and military theses of their 20th Congress, etc. for the strengthening of Soviet social-imperialism. Now China, too, is doing the same thing in an anti-Marxist way and for non-revolutionary aims, for its own interests as a great state. It is precisely for such aims that it seeks to impose on the Marxist-Leninists of the world a new strategy which obviously cannot be called a revolutionary strategy.

When it decided to give China credits in armaments, in industry and other directions, the United States of America calculated not only the great financial profits in this, but also major political gains, because China, with its weight and influence, carries on propaganda in favour of American imperialism, presenting it as a non-aggressive power. In this way China is bringing about that the peoples, who are suffering under the economic and military domination of American imperialism, are blind to this oppression, or accept it in the face of another great danger. However, this other great danger is no greater than that with which the peoples of different continents are already saddled. It is for this reason, too, that American imperialism is financing China and will finance it in the future, too. As long as China carries on its support of the imperialist and hegemonic interests of the United States of America, as long as China exacerbates its own conflict with the Soviet Union, and in this direction the United States of America is trying to deepen the contradictions between China and the Soviet Union, precisely the aid of American imperialism serves to fuel the flames of these contradictions. It is for this reason that we say that the war that may be waged in Europe could also he waged in Asia, because wax: is the offspring of imperialism and social-imperialism. Soviet social-imperialism is a power which is inciting war, which is preparing forward, just like the United States of America, which likewise is preparing for war.

China has become entangled in the activities of these two superpowers in order to attain the objectives it has set itself to become a superpower, too. Naturally, its efforts to incite a third world war result from this, and no one knows where this war will break out, whether with this course that China has taken it will break out in Europe or in China. In any case the United States of America will use others to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for it.

If China were a genuine socialist country guided by the Marxist-Leninist doctrine, and carried out a revolutionary policy, then it would fight on the two flanks, against the two imperialist states, but in fact it is proceeding on the opposite course. With the alliance which it is forming with the United States of America. China is courting war between itself and the Soviet Union, between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. Why do I say this? Because we can judge that at present it is the two superpowers which are fighting for hegemonic positions in the world, fighting for markets, to absorb the wealth of other peoples, but on this course on which China has set out, it too will not fail to become a third partner in these aims and this policy.

As Marxist-Leninists, we must not follow the counterrevolutionary and anti-Marxist course of China, but must follow our own Marxist-Leninist revolutionary course. By fighting for this course, we have defended Marxism-Leninism and its purity, have defended the interests of our people, the interests of other peoples, their liberation, and have tried to undermine the imperialist atomic war which may burst out amongst these three partners that are fighting for hegemony while relying on one another. The support of these states for one another is always to the detriment of the world revolution, the socialist countries and the peoples' liberation.

As Marxist-Leninists, we are against predatory, imperialist wars, whether launched by the Soviet social-imperialist, the United States of America, or China, which is transforming itself into a social-imperialist great power. Therefore, as Marxist-Leninists we shall struggle against these predatory wars, because such wars are always to the detriment of the lofty interests of the peoples, their liberation, independence and self-determination, to the detriment of the triumph of the revolution and socialism in the world. Therefore, being against predatory wars we are against aggressive powers, against those who aspire to become superpowers, we are with the peoples, whom we must encourage to struggle to stop the wars, and if this main objective cannot be achieved, then they must turn them into liberation wars, The alliance .of the Marxist-Leninists with the democrats and progressive patriots of each country today is based on their unity against the imperialist and social-imperialist warmongers. There is no other course, no other strategy...



People of our trade organization, the economists and all the leading comrades must acquaint themselves more thoroughly with the international situation, especially in connection with trade relations, with the import-export trade between different capitalist countries and the capitalist-revisionist countries on the one hand, and between them and our socialist state on the other hand. Now China, too, has entered the ranks of capitalist states and will aim to trade with us in capitalist forms. We mustn't have the slightest illusion about this.

We must understand that the multinational companies, which are colossal trusts, have entered into co-operation with one another, have captured markets, have toned down the competition between them to some extent and have invested their capital especially in the Soviet Union and the other revisionist countries, in the countries of Africa and Asia and now also in Hua Guo-feng's China. This is a noose around the neck of the revisionist states, from the Soviet Union to Mao Zedong's China, and every year this noose is being pulled tighter.

The revisionist states have now turned into capitalist states ruled by the powerful dictatorship of capital, which allows no protest, but imposes its decisions on the working class and people of its own country. In these countries the labour power is cheap but also the import-export trade of these countries in general is small, it is not more than 15 per cent, or 20 per cent of the total national product. In these conditions they set up joint companies, trusts, in open or secret co-operation with the capitalist countries which hold 49-50 per cent of the shares. Hence, we may say that the capitalist trusts have captured vast markets of those self-styled communist countries. In the Soviet Union the investments of these big capitalist multinational companies hare deeply implanted. Rockfeller, Shell and others have co-operated with the big oil trust of the Soviet Union in Siberia, and so on.

These countries have left the introduction of new technology and the modernization of plants and factories in the hands of these big capitalist concerns, because they are not able to pay for them with hard currency. We have seen in the press that the Soviet Union has several times tried to sell gold on the market in order to gain hard currency, dollars or convertible currencies of other states but the selling of gold on the international market has only lowered its price. Therefore, the Soviet Union is unable to buy the hard currency it needs with the amount of gold it puts on the market, hence, it has been obliged to stop the sale of gold at once and to continue to enslave the country to the foreign capital of supranational companies by accepting credits, one after another. These companies have control over Soviet factories and plants know the cost of the goods produced and have reached agreement on the prices at which they are to be sold in the countries which have made investments for the technology, etc. These trusts have the right to sell the goods produced wherever they want to.

This activity has caused unemployment in the Western capitalist countries, for example, in the United States of America and elsewhere. Unemployment is increasing there, because these capitalist states which are under the control of these big trusts secure greater profits from investments abroad. The Soviet Union, for example, will repay these investments with high-quality goods on the basis of pre-determined prices, while the investors, France or the United States of America, for example, have the right to sell these goods on the world market at international prices, which they themselves set and, in this way, make a double profit, a very small portion of which they pay out as dole to deceive the working class which they throw out on the streets and leave without work. China has begun to do the same thing.

When our Party declared that you could not rely on one imperialism to fight another imperialism, it had in mind precisely this enslaving capitalist line which China has begun to follow. China says that American imperialism is not aggressive and is for the status quo. Why does it say so? Because the United States of America withdrew from Vietnam in disgrace, but the decision to make this withdrawal, which was the result of the fight put up by the Vietnamese people, was taken not by Nixon but by the big trusts of the Rockfeller and the Duponts to which broad prospects of profits were opened up both in the Soviet Union and in China. The purpose of the visit of Nixon and Kissinger to China, the visit of Brezhnev to the United States of America and all the comings and goings of others was precisely to prepare this situation which is developing now.

It is precisely the powerful multinational companies which dictate the policy of capitalist governments and which are interested to some extent in preserving the "peace", because war ruins their plans for the exploitation of the peoples, the credits they have advanced are lost and they are not sure who will come to power after the war.

To a certain degree American imperialism is sure about the treacherous leadership of Brezhnev. It has also been studying the Chinese leadership for many years, and it is sure, and becoming more so day by day, that this leadership, too, is predisposed to favour investments of capital in China, thus American imperialism can make profits, in other words, can invade China economically just as it has invaded Yugoslavia and other countries of the world. But, of course, this is not a calm situation for imperialism, because the peoples, the proletariat and progressive individuals see what is happening, see the scandalous colossal profits of the big capitalist owners, on the one hand, and the poverty of the masses, on the other hand, therefore, day by day they are trying to get organized against these leeches which have attached themselves to their bodies and are sucking their blood. And the day will certainly come when quantity turns into quality. In the West workers' strikes are erupting furiously. They are powerful expressions of protest, which if given proper political direction, are bound to cause capital irreparable damage. But, in the revisionist countries and in present day China, too, the forces exist which will overturn the situation when the peoples see ore clearly that they are being led on a course of betrayal and the integration of their "socialist" states into the sphere of world capitalism.

Likewise, it must be understood that the question of the compromise in the Middle East is linked with this situation, because a war in that region of the world endangered the big multinational trusts and their states. The war of the Arab peoples was of major importance, and that is why the United States of America came to agreement with the Soviet Union and suppressed it.

The clamour about Angola, Mozambique and Portugal is a natural result of the struggle for the division of markets. But if the peoples do not organize themselves to throw off this yoke, a certain stability will be reached in this division of markets between the big imperialist powers and the multinational companies. What, then, is the road that must be followed? The road which must he followed is the road of the political and ideological struggle, including armed struggle, of all the peoples and the progressive and revolutionary forces against imperialist powers, against world reaction, against capitalism, against the big multinational companies...

The contradictions between the imperialist powers in the international arena exist and will become more and more profound, the four contradictions of the present epoch (The contradiction between the two opposing systems - socialist and capitalist; the contradiction between labour and capital in the capitalist countries; the contradiction between the oppressed peoples and nations and imperialism; the contradiction among the imperialist powers) defined by Lenin and Stalin will grow deeper. These contradictions will result in the destruction of imperialism, capitalism in decay, by the revolution. We always keep them in mind and our Party fights will all its might in this direction in order to explain its correct policy to the peoples of the world.



Today I spoke with the comrade secretaries of the Central Committee of the Party about how I see some very important current economic problems of our country. They were:

1. The fulfilment of plans, especially export plans.

2. The world monetary crisis.

3. Why the Chinese want to use the Swiss franc in their transactions with us.

We must devote even greater attention to the development of the economy of our country and the fulfilment of plans. We must stress this with special force at present, because the whole of our economic and cultural development is being accomplished with our own forces. But it is important that everybody understands clearly that self-reliance does not mean autarky. By pursuing the course of self-reliance in the development of the economy, we have reached that situation in which we have greater possibilities to export goods and product to other countries in such quantities that we secure more and more income in foreign currency with which we boy goods, machinery and equipment which we need but still do not produce ourselves. Autarkic development of the economy is completely different. Autarky means that you neither sell nor buy. But to develop the economy without selling things abroad you have to produce everything within the country, which would be pure fantasy. Foreign trade through self-reliance, with our exports, is essential...

Another problem is that of the real meaning which must be given to the isolation, which the imperialists and revisionists try to impose on us. In my opinion, we should not fear a political and ideological isolation on the part of our enemies, the imperialists and revisionists. Our enemies are not in a position to impose such an isolation on us and cannot do so. If they impose or try to impose isolation on us, this they will do in the field of the economy, and precisely in the field I mentioned earlier, to hinder our import-export trade. But today we have all the possibilities to overcome this type of isolation and we must overcome it. How?

First, through the fulfilment and overfulfilment of plans, and through the production of commodities and other articles for exchange with foreign countries.

Second, we must produce, as we have always said, goods of those types and that quality which are in demand in the world abroad. The better our goods are, the more the possibilities of our country to conduct exchanges with the other countries will increase and the more widely the good name of our products will be spread.

Third, while taking account of the real pressure of the ,capitalist-revisionist countries, we must always bear in mind the fact that between those countries there are contradictions that we know about. Besides this, there are also contradictions between them over the question of Albania, and this is in our favour...

We must pay close attention to the present international political situation so that we are thoroughly acquainted with it. This must help us to forge ahead also in increasing trade exchanges with other countries...

Although I have read the report which the leading comrades of the Ministry of Foreign Trade have made on the insistence of the Chinese that our side agree to use Swiss currency in our transactions with them, to tell the truth, I am still unable to understand this despite the discussions we have held on it. The Chinese are not raising the question of the currency for nothing. Therefore, it seems to me we must delve more deeply into this matter. If we think that this is being done by the Chinese simply for ease of accounting, since they have all their accounting in Swiss francs, this is not right. It is not simply a question of ease of accounting for the reason that in its current and future trade China cannot limit its accounting to Swiss francs alone.

The question of currencies seems to me rather complicated. I have done some study on this problem, especially since the severe monetary crisis, which has engulfed the whole capitalist-revisionist world today, began. It is known that in recent years there has been a gold standard and a hard currency standard. As a rule the gold standard means that you can have a volume of paper money equal to your fund of gold. The Central Banks, which are national banks and have other private banks under their dependence, issue reserve currencies. They have an external exchange rate and an internal value. However, the Bank of France, for example, has cancelled the right to exchange paper money for gold. Thus, if, say, a Frenchman takes the notion to exchange the paper money he. possesses for gold, as was practised in the 18th century by those who possessed money, today the big banks do not permit such a thing. Other countries have taken a similar action. The Central Bank of France maintains the parity on the foreign market, that is, it has to place in. circulation a volume of francs equal to the gold it possesses. However, it happens that this Central Bank, compelled by the crisis, issues more paper francs than the quantity of gold it possesses. Then, what occurs in this case? Within the country prices begin to rise and, likewise, the attack from abroad begins, the exchange rate of the franc falls because a parity has long been established in relation to the other currencies.

Now the countries of the European Common Market are trying to create a common monetary unit. These efforts began and are continuing, following the grave crisis which affected the American dollar. Nevertheless, this cannot stabilize the problem of the currency and its many fluctuations in the capitalist world. In this field there will still be attacks and counter-attacks. Thus, for example, with the devaluation of the franc, from the sale of a commodity in France a West-German, instead of getting three francs, gets seven francs and with them buys there the goods which are advantageous to him. The Frenchman can raise his prices if he likes, but in this way the established balance is further disturbed and endless difficulties are created. Therefore, the currencies in the capitalist-revisionist countries must not be regarded simply as a means of circulation in the internal or the external market. They have links with the prices in the countries which have issued them, and also with the prices of other countries with which the issuing country maintains commercial and economic links. In the capitalist-revisionist countries money plays a very important role in the exploitation and robbery of the broad working masses by the bourgeoisie of a particular country and of other countries.

Before the Second World War, a super-bank was created and imposed because the national bank of one country could not be allowed to emerge as superior to the national banks of other countries. For instance, the national Bank of France could not emerge as superior to the Bank of Germany or Bank of England. They had reached a certain agreement with one another and exchanged the paper money of each of them for gold. During the Second World War, the bulk of the gold was transferred to the United States of America because the combatant countries of Western Europe were obliged to pay the United States for the armaments they received. However, matters reached the point that the banks of Europe and other countries had extremely great payment difficulties. In order to overcome this situation, in July 1944, a meeting was held at Bretton-Woods in the United States in the time of Roosevelt and an international agreement, which was called the "Bretton-Woods international monetary system" was reached, on the basis of which the gold standard was replaced with the paper dollar. This meeting set the exchange rate of 35 dollars for one ounce of gold. As a result, the other currencies, such as the pound sterling, the franc, the mark, the lira, were left behind. The United States of America benefited from this agreement, because it not only accumulated even more considerable reserves of gold from the other countries but it also bought from them many shares in industrial monopolies and obtained all sorts of concessions in Europe and other countries thanks to the issuing of large quantities of paper dollars.

When the other countries gradually grew stronger and began to recover from the economic standpoint, they could no longer reconcile themselves to this situation. Stop, they said, where are we going? Thus, they demanded that the United States of America return to them the gold which it had taken, in exchange for dollar notes. The United States refused, saying that it did not have the gold. This conflict caused a fall in the value of the dollar so that the official price of one ounce of gold was set at 42,2 dollars instead of the previous 35 dollars. However, the devaluation of the dollar proceeded rapidly from the time when the United States of America was relieved of the obligation to convert dollars to gold. Today the dollar has no fixed gold basis, because the price of gold on the free market has risen to 70, 810, go, 100, 110, 120 up to 170 dollars for the ounce. This is an indication of the heavy devaluation of the dollar on the free market of currency exchanges, while between banks, the value of the dollar did not show any great decline. The "allies" of the Americans were not obliged to revalue one or more times their currencies in relation to the dollar, that is, to always set new Parities which they were committed in advance to respect on the exchange markets. On the free market, however, the law of competition did its work.

Following the devaluation of the dollar, there, were falls also in the currencies of other countries, such as the French franc, the Italian lira, the German mark, etc. In fact. as a result of the crisis, the "Bretton-Woods system", with its exchange rate for the dollar, has collapsed.

But can it be said that the reign of the dollar as a reserve currency has ended? And Will this role pass to another reserve currency? For this to occur all the central national banks of states must leave the parity of currencies completely free to, float. But, if the dollar continues to fall, in order to avoid a major revaluation of currency, it will be necessary to intervene again to defend the American currency, and then the risk will be greater.

The United States of America has no obligation in regard to the parity of the dollar. In March 1973. the "allies" demanded that the United States of America take part in the defence of the dollar, but it replied "with what?", because the links between the dollar as a reserve currency and the gold standard had been severed earlier. Thus the "allies" would in no way agree that these links should be re-established.

Then, what will happen with the other currencies?

The Americans will say to the Europeans and the Japanese: if you want us (the Americans) to take part in the defence of the dollar, then you must give us credits in your currencies. This, of course, is a loss for the Europeans and the Japanese, although the more serious newspapers are shouting that the Europeans scored a "victory" over the Americans. In the final analysis, the dollar is still the only currency which can permit major manoeuvres at the level of international trade, but its reign cannot last forever. Why? Because the United States' balance of payments may continue to go further into deficit if the central banks of other countries do not withdraw more dollars from the quantities which the United States of America leaves. Because of this deficit, the value of the American currency will suffer further falls on the international exchanges, and this means that the other currencies will be stronger rivals with the dollar.

Likewise, it is known that the fluctuations in the value of the paper currencies of various capitalist countries are important not only for the bourse d'èchange (Stack exchange (French in the original)), but they are linked closely with credits, the sale of commodities, and many other factors, and are accompanied with grave consequences, both internally and abroad, for every capitalist-revisionist country.

Thus, at present, the "socialist" countries in general have great shortages and are in conditions that they absorb a large part, but not all, of the global overproduction of the capitalist countries. On the other hand, what is called aid to the "third world", and the credits which are provided for the revisionist states by the countries of the West are precisely for the aim of financing this absorbtion of the capitalist overproduction. But this absorbtion is partial. The remainder of this capitalist overproduction is so large that it causes unbalance and disorganization in the plans and prospects which each capitalist state seeks to achieve. For this reason, although compromises are very possible, when the so-called United Europe and the Asiatic empire dominated by Japan or by China become entitles powerful enough to balance North America, these compromises may no longer be possible and the final fracture of the capitalist world will be caused.

Of course, these are some incomplete, simple, general notions which I have in connection with the question of money, its role and fluctuations in the national and international market, and of the banking manoeuvres of the capitalist states. But the comrades of our bank who are engaged with the financial aspect, with the questions of the Bourse, the comrades of the foreign trade organizations who are engaged with the problems of international prices of various commodities, must go into them more thoroughly, must delve deeply into these problems, have a thorough understanding of their movement and the aims which the various capitalist and revisionist states with which we have trade relations are pursuing in connection with these movements...

At present the Chinese have begun to cheat, to blackmail us and are trying to impose their financial and commercial views on us. We must watch these things with great care and have no illusions. Naturally we must keep cool heads, but we must be able to understand their aims, to combat them, to state and defend our views in order to checkmate them, or to find a middle way, a way of economic and financial benefit both for us and for them, because one-sidedness in commercial relations cannot be permitted either by them or by us.

As to the question of why the Chinese want to go over to the use of the Swiss franc in transactions with us, it seems to me that this matter should be studied carefully and the reasons found for why they are insisting on this. It is known that in the trade that others will do with China they will say that we want to buy this and that commodity and sell this or that commodity. Now let us reckon both your goods and ours at international prices.

The question arises: at the concrete present juncture which currency is falling and which is rising? If, for example, the French franc is falling, then prices in France go up. To recover dollars France sells goods to China which, for its part, can sell them to whoever it likes, including Albania. If it buys them cheaply, China will do this and will try to sell them to us more dearly, while for our part, we must try to get them as cheaply as possible.

In this case then it is important for us to carefully determine the average of international prices and which prices we can accept. China, which plays this game, is fully informed about prices because of its large-scale trade. It knows more or less the level and stability of the prices of goods, that is, more or less recognized international prices, such as for chromium, copper, bitumen, oil and other raw materials which we export, but for many other goods which we import from China, the international prices are very variable, have no stability, especially at this moment of the crisis of overproduction. Having trade relations with many states of the world which, to avoid increasing inflation or devaluating their currencies, produce great surpluses and dump goods on the markets at cheap prices, 1 am speaking of bulk goods and not retail goods, China buys these. These states may sell the Chinese these large quantities of goods even more cheaply than at international prices and China, for its part, tries to trick us to make more profits and at the same time to obtain from us allegedly at international prices those goods which it needs and are valuable to it. Therefore there must be vigilance in this direction because now China is in a hostile position towards our country.

For all these reasons we must insist that the buying and selling prices are set jointly, taking the international fluctuations into account. We must know these prices well both for the goods we want to buy and for those we want to sell. After this, before the contracts are signed, we must carefully calculate how much x or y commodity costs. X commodity costs, say 3 dollars, the other 5 dollars, a third costs 7 dollars, etc. At these prices our state buys 20 of x commodity, 10 of y commodity, 7 of z commodity, and so on. As to how you who agree to sell these goods want to make your calculations, that is your affair, do it in whatever currency you like, but these quantities of goods which 1 need at these average international prices come to so many thousand leks. If you want to convert them into dollars, for example, they are worth 2000 dollars all told. If you want to convert them into Swiss francs they amount to 6000 francs of that country. That is no concern of mine.

Why are the Chinese exerting this pressure? Can it be for ease of convertion?

It seems to me they are not doing this for this reason. They are not worried about making their calculations more rapidly with the Swiss franc, on the contrary we have to do here with definite political and economic aims. It is clear that the Chinese want to make the maximum profits out of us, to sell to us dear and buy from us as cheaply as possible. Now they are operating like capitalists, and there can be no thought of an internationalist stand on their part in relations with us.

Therefore, the situation in our relations with China s not easy. On the contrary, it is very difficult, and we must go into this matter seriously because our sales and purchases with that country make-up an important part of our import-export trade. We have difficulties with the others, too, because they are all the same. The revisionists try to get the better of us either on prices or on the quality of goods, "to sell us soap for cheese" as the people say. Now China is doing the same thing as the others.

Hence, the imperialists and the revisionists are incapable of imposing isolation on our country from the ideological and political standpoint, while they have possibilities to damage and hinder us from the economic aspect. Therefore, we must try to cope with any difficulty they will raise for us. We must thoroughly understand the importance of the fulfilment of plans, especially in the existing conditions. There is no cut-and-dried recipe for this, but it requires deep thought, sweat, and the accomplishment of tasks in time, in quality and quantity, and we must make savings everywhere. We will never proceed towards autarky, it would be crazy of anyone to think of such a thing. We must work so that we can sell and create possibilities to buy, naturally to the extent that we have the possibilities. We see that the others all accept credits and are up to their necks in debt, binding their countries hand and foot to the creditors. No one buys stones because everybody has them, but they do buy chromium, refined copper etc., because they all need them. Therefore, the Party and all the cadres must be thoroughly acquainted with the situation through which we are passing and realize the tasks which emerge for each of us...



I am reading the interview given by President Carter in Warsaw (On December 30, 1977. the American president, Carter, who was on a visit to Poland, held a press conference). To a question in connection with the relations of the United States of America with the Soviet Union he replied: During the past few months the United States and the Soviet Union have made great progress on a number of important issues, the most important of which is control over the deployment of strategic nuclear weapons.. Carter also expressed the belief that the SALT would be concluded this year.

Naturally, many problems remain to be solved, admits Carter, but during recent months we have made good progress in this direction. Then he speaks about a number of issues, on which, generally speaking, he takes a positive view. Thus Carter says, "We have made progress in establishing principles on the basis of which nuclear tests may be prohibited altogether in the future". And he makes this declaration after both sides have conducted all their tests and have built up stockpiles of all kinds of weapons. Carter goes on, "We have made progress in regard to banning the setting up of further supplementary military bases in the Indian Ocean". And he says this after the United States of America has completed the installations it needs to dominate the Asiatic subcontinent. He goes on to say, "We (i.e. the American imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists) have begun talks on reducing the sale of conventional weapons to other countries", a thing which will never be realized, because it is clear to all that the business of selling arms to others in order to have them as "friends", and cannon fodder brings in colossal profit. This business is their life's blood. Likewise Carter did not hesitate to say that in the talks with the Soviets they hoped to attain good results "regarding the prohibition of the use in the future of chemical and bacteriological means of warfare". Everything Carter said about these things is out-and-out demagogy.

This interview by the chief of American imperialism is, so to say, a slap in the face for the Chinese with their policy of inciting savage hostility between the United States of America and the Soviet Union. And this not from any lack of contradiction between the latter, but Carter and Brezhnev are heaping praises and flattery on each other, giving each other hope, and are not proceeding on the course advocated by Hua Guofeng, the disciple of Mao Zedong, and Deng Xiaoping, the disciple of Zhou Enlai.

In regard to relations with Sadat's Egypt, in this interview the American president saidi "Our relations with the Arab countries, including Egypt, of course, are very good and develop in harmony". There is not the least doubt that this is so because Sadat has placed himself totally in the service of American imperialism.

Carter was lying when he said that the United States of America "does not support any Israeli military solution in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank of the Jordan River". But the American president once again confirmed that Israel is a US satellite when he said that the United States of America does not accept the creation of an independent Palestinian state, but only of a independent "Palestinian entity", which would be included in the Hashernite Kingdom of Jordan.

Carter, this fascist who is shouting about human rights and poses as a defender of them, is not only trampling underfoot the rights of individuals but al years has been existing miserably in refugee camps outside its homeland. Of course, these are the perfidious stands and villainous action of that enemy of the peoples and rabid war-monger, American imperialism.

To a question regarding the right of the Polish people to live free and independent from the Soviet Union, Carter replied in a "democratic" way, saying the Poland, like all other countries, must be a free, indipendent and sovereign state! "Polish people", said Carter, "have remained very close to the Soviet Union since the Second War and they belong to a military alliance, the Warsaw Pact". With this he implied that it is up to the Polish people to decide whether or not to join NATO.

Later he did not fail to point out that "there is great religious freedom" in Poland.

Carter poured extravagant praise on Gierek and the Polish people for their heroic deeds during the war, for their great contribution to the freedom and independence of the American state in their War of Secession and mentioned a number of Poles who had fought in the United States of America, and so on and so forth in this strain.

He prattled on, also, about the question of the Helsinki Charter, enumerated, one by one, all those "rights" and "duties" that must be applied on the basis of this Charter and, especially, in connection with human rights, of which Carter and American imperialism are the greatest Violators of all.

In other words, on this occasion, too, Carter expounded that same policy of out-and-out-demagogy that he has expounded in his various speeches, statements and interviews in Washington about Europe, NATO, Warsaw, Helsinki and the peoples of all continents. This policy of Carter's is nothing but the imperialist policy of the United States of America presented in a style of high-flown demagogy and an allegedly benevolent religious spirit.

The American president wants the "Pax Americana" to reign everywhere, but concealed behind this "Pax Americana" lies imperialist war, the deception and gobbling up of nations, the exploitation of the sweat and blood of others. The exposure of this policy must be done actively and thoroughly. Therefore the support which the Chinese leadership gives such an aggressive policy of American imperialism, such demagogy which is preparing even greater suffering for the peoples of the world, but which is couched in the honeyed words of a baptist, a religious zealot, who worships the dollar and violence as his god and is guided by the principle of enslaving and shedding the blood of the peoples for the benefit of the wealthy, the American magnates and their multinational companies, is a crime.



In the interview he gave in Beijing, Raymond Barre pointed out that China was concerned about the danger posed by the Soviet Union, but now, he said, it has changed its stand somewhat, and it no longer thinks that the Soviet Union will start a war quickly, and likewise it does not think that the Soviets will attack Europe for the time being.

Hence, we can draw some conclusions about the instability of the Chinese policy, which we have pointed out on other occasions. The policy of the Chinese leader ship is anti-Marxist, pragmatic, a policy determined by passing circumstances. Even the Chinese themselves see the absurdity of their thesis that the Soviet Union is preparing to attack Europe and declare a world war. They realize that if such a thing were to occur it would involve the United States of America, too, in an atomic third world war,

This thesis of China is not finding the approval of the big Western states of Europe and the United States of America, nor is it supported by the states of the so-called third world. The United States of America has declared that it is against the exacerbation of relations with the Soviet Union. The main leaders of the capitalist countries of Western Europe, which take part in the "United Europe" and the European Common Market, also, have declared that they are in favour of détente, of agreement with the Soviet Union, and are working in this direction. These states are interested in developing economic relations with the Soviet Union and the other less developed countries of the West, on the one hand, and on the other hand, are doing everything possible to weaken and disrupt the Soviet Union. While this policy of world capitalism is clear, the Chinese revisionists defend the thesis that the Soviet Union will attack Europe and the capitalist world, today or tomorrow, in order to establish its hegemony.

Though this thesis of the Chinese revisionists is absurd, as we have pointed out on other occasions, its purpose is to draw the forces of the Soviet Union to Europe and thus, ease the situation on the border with China. Hence, the Chinese want to take the Soviet military pressure off themselves. However, the revisionist Soviet Union, as a new and powerful imperialism, is aggressive, it wants to dominate, to create markets, but at the same time, is trying to avoid the outbreak of a nuclear war.

If the Soviet Union is going to make war, it will launch it at the weakest link, so it will attack China first, and then might hurt itself against Europe and the United States of America. If the Soviet Union attacks China, the intervention of the United States of America is questionable, while if it attacks Western Europe, that is, NATO, American intervention is certain, because the USA is in NATO, a member of this bloc. Hence it is clear that if Western Europe is attacked, NATO, that is, the United States of America, is attacked.

Now Deng Xiaoping's policy aims to raise the low level of development of the economy of China and to equip the Chinese army with the latest weapons, to make it a modern army. In order to achieve these aims of his policy, Deng Xiaoping needs modern technology, time, credits and funds. China will obtain these funds and credits from abroad, but also from inside, from the sale of the country's assets.

The United States of America, the capitalist states of Western Europe and Japan are the developed capitalist countries that might provide China with credits and invest there. For these credits and investments both the United States of America and the other capitalist countries, of course, demand guarantees and the best guarantees for them are the Chinese market, the spheres of influence in China and the subjugation of China. So, the existing facade of socialism in China will disappear. The base and superstructure in China will assume the appearance of a capitalist socio-economic formation.

The maintenance of a large army will bring as a consequence the backwardness of China, therefore either it will have to maintain a large number of soldiers and have a backward army, or maintain an army with a reduced number of soldiers and set about its modernization. In order to achieve this, the tension with the Soviet Union, the tension on the Sino-Soviet border, will have to be eased. Hence it is possible that China will crawl like a lizzard towards a détente with the Soviet Union, that is, slide towards a certain rapprochement and improvement of relations with it. This might be done in order to ease pressure on its border, to reduce the large number of soldiers it maintains, and possibly, also to obtain credits from the Soviet Union for the construction of the capitalist economy and the modernization of the Chinese army. So, even in such a situation, even in such a condition. China becomes the counterbalance between the Soviet Union and the United States of America.

The anti-Marxist, bourgeois and pragmatic Deng Xiaoping might very well follow this political orientation. From this point of view we can understand the conclusion expressed in the interview of the French prime minister, Raymond Barre, that China does not see an immediate war in Europe.

But why has China begun to alter its opinion? This, change in the Chinese policy results from what I said above, from its aims and the course it has found for their achievement. Nothing in all this suprises us.

In the speeches he delivered, Raymond Barre did not, approve the main points of Deng Xiaoping's policy and be did not fail to express his disagreement openly. He was not for the exacerbation of relations between Western Europe and the Soviet Union, but opposed to it, while Deng Xiaoping raised the problem as if relations between them are already exacerbated. However, although Raymond Barre did not approve the main points of the Chinese policy, Deng raised the question of strengthening the European Common Market, a thing which is advantageous to France, as well of strengthening friendly and commercial relations between China and France, because the latter wants to occupy an important place in the Chinese market. France will make efforts in this direction.

France is interested in China's making propaganda noises against the Soviet Union, because this propaganda, however absurd it may be, to some extent creates problems for the Soviet Union and compels it to ease the situation in Europe. Indeed, if Maoist anti-Marxist capitalist China does not perform a volte-face as is its custom, possibly France would like the Soviet Union to, withdraw its military forces from Europe to deploy them on the border with China.

The present policy of China is adventurous. In this political chaos into which the present revisionist clique of Hua Guofeng and Deng Xiaoping has plunged it, China, is trying to find a capitalist "stability".



True, the war with weapons has stopped in the Middle East, but now a feverish diplomatic struggle is going on there between the United States of America, Israel, Egypt, the Palestinians and other Arab countries and, behind the scenes, the Soviet Union.

Egypt's Sadat has reached agreement with Carter and each has made concessions to the other. It is said that Carter has issued an "ultimatum" to Begin that Israel must give up Sinai and remove the Jewish colonies settled on some of the occupied Arab territories. Begin seems to be kicking against this. Dayan goes to Washington as a lackey, but he, too, appears to be kicking a bit against it. Meanwhile Carter is engaged in a major game. He is supporting the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran, obviously for the oil of those countries, trying to prevent the return of the Soviets to Egypt, trying to keep Sadat on his side and to guarantee the independence of Israel, etc.

The interests of the United States of America require a greater concentration of the weapons and diplomacy of the American government in Africa, where hot wars are going on, such as the war between Somalia and Ethiopia, etc. These are unjust, predatory wars. The Soviets are predominant in Ethiopia. They send there weapons and Cuban mercenaries who are fighting to occupy the territory of Ogaden and possibly the whole of Somalia. Somalia was formerly under the wing of the Soviets, but the United States of America intervened, of course indirectly, and Somalia let the Soviets down and occupied the provinces of Ogaden and Harar. Fierce fighting is going on there now, but the United States of America does not like this situation. It wants Somalia under its control, because it dominates the entrance to the Red Sea. Hence, the Horn of Africa, as they call it, is a strategic point and the United States of America has, so to speak, issued an ultimatum to the Soviets who are in Ethiopia, that they must not allow the Abyssinians to pass the Somali border and the Somalis must withdraw from Ogaden.

Meanwhile the situation in southern Africa remains the same as it has been. The United States of America and Britain support the reactionary, racist government of Ian Smith in Salisbury, Rhodesia, and are allegedly manoeuvring for a kind of independence and freedom, for seats in parliament for the native people, etc. Nevertheless, it is clear that Anglo-American imperialism is trying to keep these regions, especially Rhodesia, South Africa, Mozambique, etc, firmly in its clutches.

Another centre of hot war exists between the POLISARIO (The Popular Front for the Liberation of Western Sahara, formed on February 27, 1976) Front, supported by Algeria and indirectly by the Soviet Union, and Morocco and Mauritania, supported by the United States of America and France. Hence, Africa is seething, the two superpowers are trying to establish their hegemony and dominate there.

In all these countries of the so-called third world or non-aligned world, the cannons are roaring and the muse has been silenced. The psalm-singing of the Chinese and the Titoites has ended in fiasco, while the reality is just as our Party has defined it. None of those states is truly independent and sovereign, because they are headed by cliques sold out to one imperialism or another that make the peoples shed their blood. Therefore the peoples of these countries must rise in struggle, in revolution against the local reactionary cliques and against the two imperialist superpowers and others who follow their course. Hence, life is confirming that the line we are pursuing is a correct, Marxist-Leninist line, and the Titoite, Soviet and Chinese revisionist line is a fraud.

Recently, a grave situation has been created in Cambodia and Vietnam. Those two countries are engaged in bloody fighting and neither will give way...

We see that now China is trying to strengthen its links with Japan and extend its influence in a number of other countries. Yesterday, China and Japan signed a 7-year trade agreement which envisages exchanges amounting to 20 billion dollars.

A short time ago, Deng Xiaoping went to Burma to strengthen the friendship with Burmese reaction and to strangle the struggle of the Communist Party of Burma. He also visited Nepal in order to strengthen relations with that country, so that it will serve as a barrier for the defence of Tibet in case of an attack by the Indians. Deng will certainly go to Pakistan, also, to refresh the old friendship with Ali Bhutto. For his part, Li Xiannian toured Iran and Afghanistan to see how things are going there, because the Soviets are firmly established in those countries. Li Xiannian is to go to the Philippines soon, to strengthen China's influence there. The fact that the Soviet Union has started to poke its nose into and advance credits to that country has impelled him to make this visit.

Hence we see that the Chinese policy is to try to spread China's influence quietly everywhere in the Far East. Of course this is done where the United States of America permits and China is in agreement with the USA, so that together they can resist the other imperialist superpower, the Soviet Union. But China is proceeding with its policy in Western Europe, too. It has signed trade agreements with the capitalist European Common Market, with the big western capitalist monopolies and concerns. That was a victory for western capitalism, powerful assistance given this capitalism so that it remains on its feet and sabotages the revolution...



The Sino-American neo-colonialist tactic is co-ordinated especially in Africa. The aim of these two international robbers is to consolidate their positions wherever they have them and to occupy new positions in those countries where they have nothing. Both these partners in crime against the peoples, poke their noses wherever local wars between African peoples are being waged, wars incited by imperialism and social-imperialism.

Tito, the old agent of the United States of America, has washed his hands of the African continent. He no longer has any credit either in Egypt, or Algeria, let alone in Libya and Tunisia. For example Boumedienne's meeting with Tito (On January 14-15, 1978, the former president of Algeria, Houari Boumedienne visited Yugoslavia) was unsuccessful, because he asked Tito to support the struggle of POLISARIO. But Tito will not do this, because he does not want to fall out either with the Americans or with the Soviets.

The leadership of China has taken Tito's place in Africa. But Tito is known as an intriguer, as the advocate and father of the system of self -administration, the spread of which American imperialism has encouraged in Africa and will employ in other countries as well to patch over the great splits and consolidate imperialism and world capitalism. The new Chinese social-imperialism, likewise, will use this system in China and other countries, wherever it can spread its influence.

China is trying to penetrate into Africa for two aims: first, to sabotage the interference and establishment of the Soviets and to spread its rug to squat there itself, and second, to strengthen the positions of American imperialism there. Whereas the Soviets and Americans go to Africa under their true colours as neo-colonialists and imperialists, China goes dressed in flowery robes and with Marxist phraseology...

Is the United States of America afraid of the policy of the Chinese in Africa? For the moment no, because China does not have that economic potential, that cavalry of the dollar and Saint George to really capture the hearts of the Mobutus, Bocassas and others, but it could become dangerous to the United States of America later. Therefore, now and in the future, the USA will keep a careful eye on the extension of both China and the Soviet Union to new countries and zones. As soon as they show their claws the United States of America will cut them off, and it has always had sharp scissors for its rivals. It has the guns, the missiles, the economy, the dollars, the credits, and the new technology which the Soviet Union and China need, beg for and want to possess, and so they are afraid of the United States of America.

Therefore, for the time being, the United States of America is riding both horses. Naturally one "horse", Soviet revisionism, is a bit fractious, while the other "horse", Chinese revisionism, is a lazy palfrey. It will be worked lean, too, and then the whip will crack more loudly over their backs or between them, but the revolution will whip the three of these bandits who are gambling now at the peoples' expense.

The peoples of Africa and the peoples of the world are passing through phases that are making them conscious of the need to fight all those who try to fleece and exploit them, internal and external enemies of every hue, whether American, Soviet or Chinese. The aim of all the latter is to plunder these peoples and to destroy their autochthonous cultures, to crush them so that they cannot rise, cannot advance economically or from the cultural standpoint, and cannot raise their well-being in freedom and independence and under genuine sovereignty.

Hence, we face the task of waging a stern struggle to expose the anti-revolutionary, anti-popular aims of the two superpowers and China. We the Marxist-Leninists, our genuine Marxist-Leninist parties, in every country must co-ordinate our actions. We must try to make the voice of the Marxist-Leninist truth heard in all countries. We must work in such a manner that people think about our views, about the aspects of the genuine Marxist-Leninist policy of our parties. We should do everything possible to ensure that progressive representatives of different peoples come to our country to see how socialism is being built in Albania, how our economy is progressing, how our culture is being developed, how the socialist patriotism and consciousness of our people are being built up and strengthened amidst this great mire of political, ideological, economic and moral degeneration which surrounds US. We must accomp1ish this. This is a question of great importance.



The big imperialist powers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, as well as the French, British and other imperialists, always use mercenaries to protect their assets, or rather their companies, which exploit the former colonies that have now been transformed into neo-colonies.

It is known that the French Republic has long had a detachment which has become "famous" and is called "Légion étrangère" (The Foreign Legion (French in the original)). This detachment has served in Africa, in Mexico and wherever it has been needed to occupy colonies, to put down the revolts of natives and to maintain law and order in the colonies.

As is known, the French "Foreign legion" is made up of paid "volunteers", volunteers of a new type. criminals. That is, all those foreigners who are members of this legion are delinquents, persons who have committed crimes of various kinds, adventurers, desesperados (Spanish in the original) who sell themselves by contracting to serve for terms of 5 to 10 years and are commanded by French officers, or foreign officers who emerge from the ranks of the legion itself.

In times gone by, most of the legionnaires were Germans, Italians, Austrians and others, drug traffickers, pimps and murderers. Since the legion was made up of such men it is obvious what morality it has upheld, what ugly acts it committed and what methods it employed wherever it was dispatched. Further explanation is unnecessary.

The French "Foreign legion" still exists. Indeed only two or three days ago, the President of France, Giscard D'Estaing took the decision and dispatched 800 members of this legion to Katanga of Zaire allegedly because there are French citizens there, experts employed in the mines, who must "be defended", from the so-called Katangan gendarmes who have entered the country from Angola to liberate Zaire, beginning from the Shaba province. This province is the former domain of Chombe, where there are mines rich in uranium, diamonds, etc. American, British, French and Belgian companies have established themselves there, too. In other words, Katanga and the whole of Zaire is under the domination of big imperialist powers which are exploiting it.

This is the second attack on Katanga by the so-called Katangan gendarmes. Who are these Katangan gendarmes? They are nothing but mercenaries, who are trained in Angola by the Soviet social-imperialists and the Cubans, and are certainly accompanied by officers of these two states. They undertake these interventions in Zaire in order to topple Mobutu and transform Zaire into an allegedly democratic, or even a socialist. country, as they may call Ethiopia tomorrow, and place it under the suzerainty of Soviet social-imperialism.

Hence, there are Belgian and French mercenaries in Zaire at present, but Moroccan mercenaries, who were there once before, may also be dispatched there. So far the Americans have not sent their mercenaries to that country, but Carter declared that he will send means, armaments and other material assistance to General Mobutu. Likewise, China is assisting this "famous", general, and the Xinhua news agency and the newspaper Renmin Ribao are shouting about this, because China, too, is hungry for markets.

The United States of America did a similar thing in the time of President Kennedy during the attack he launched against Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, where he sent in Cuban mercenaries trained in Miami, but on that occasion these mercenaries were defeated.

The Cuban army has now become a "Foreign legion" of the Soviet Union and is being used as a mercenary army especially in Africa, in Ethiopia against Somalia. There the Cuban mercenary troops are leading the Ethiopian troops and, at the same time. fighting to liquidate Somalia, in other words, to create a new Soviet colony there. They achieved this in Angola, where the Cubans, assisted by the Soviets, supported Neto, brought him to power, and maintain a considerable number of mercenaries there to this day to fight Neto's opponents, that is, the tools of the Americans and the other former colonizers, in order to firmly establish the Soviet influence in that country and turn it into a Soviet market.

Similar situations are developing in Rhodesia, Zambia, and in the Sudan. The use of mercenaries has become fashionable today. World capitalism uses mercenaries to fight the peoples who rise to win their freedom and national independence, to throw off the yoke of foreign imperialist exploiters and their local allies. The mercenaries are described as liberation armies that "defend" the sovereignty and freedom of the respective peoples. There are mercenaries, such as the Albanian mercenaries in the United States of America and elsewhere, whom our enemies are training for use at the moments they consider favourable. They are blood-thirsty elements from the ranks of Balli Kombetar and scum from some other traitor organizations who collaborated with the Germans and the Italians during the war, and now feed from the American trough and engage in propaganda and are trained against our country. But the imperialists and social-imperialists will never get away with this in our country, either with mercenaries or even with their regular armies, if they dare to infringe the independence of the borders of our socialist Homeland.

Hence, the use of mercenaries is a means which is being developed to defend neo-colonialism and to disguise the direct intervention of the armed forces of capitalist states in different countries of the world, or to conceal their aims for the redivision of markets and the occupation of territories of allegedly independent states which, in fact, are under the influence and exploitation of another imperialist state.

That is why the peoples who are endangered by the armed intervention of foreign imperialists and by the various forms of diversion now employed by foreign imperialists in collusion with the internal oppressors, must be vigilant and understand the character of the pseudo-uprisings incited from abroad with citizens and subjects of their countries. They must understand thoroughly that these political fugitives, in general, are included in the "Foreign legions", of the imperialist powers. It cannot be ruled out that some may have changed their opinions and be trying to adopt good stands but, in general, they are overwhelmed by the evil overall purpose, which is the will of that imperialist power which uses these individuals or groups to subjugate a people, to topple one leadership and replace it with another, in other words, to gain a market or regain a lost one. Therefore the people and the revolutionaries of a country like Zaire or any other, such as Angola, Ethiopia, Somalia, the countries of Asia, etc., must clearly distinguish an internal uprising hatched up by the elements of reaction and directed by the foreign powers, from the uprisings carried out by the people, the true revolutionaries, the militant elements from the ranks of the people, to whom the freedom and independence of their own country is dear and who are ready to make the supreme sacrifice to win it.

The basic issue here lies in the correct political orientations which must be given to the internal movement for liberation. The most correct and precise orientation is the Marxist-Leninist orientation. Only a genuine Marxist-Leninist party can give and apply this orientation properly.



The question of China will always concern us, because through its policy it is threatening the world with a new, predatory, imperialist world war. China has set out on this hostile course against the peoples, and without concealing its aims in the slightest is taking all the necessary measures to create the triangle of superpowers, the United States of America, the Soviet Union and itself, so the three of them will lord it over the states and peoples, suppress any revolution and national liberation struggle, of the peoples and dominate the world from every point of view. This is China's aim which its leaders, from Mao Zedong to Hua Guofeng and Deng Xiaoping, have expressed openly. Mao Zedong said that the Chinese must dominate the world.

This view is already clear. In its policy China today is following the course of the great state, the great power, for world hegemony in the way, with the policy and with the measures through which this objective can be achieved, that is, by combating Marxism-Leninism and socialism, and eliminating one of the superpowers.

The two superpowers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, of course, do not like the elevation of China to the same level as them, but this does not mean that one of these superpowers, the United States of America and world capital, will not carry on their plans regarding China. They are financing China to accomplish its plans to become a capitalist power, a capitalist bastion against the proletarian revolution and national liberation struggles. Such a thing will sharpen the contradictions between China and the Soviet Union, which have begun and will increase in the future, for the reason that the United States of America is assisting both the Soviet Union and China simultaneously. This means that American imperialism and world capitalism provide aid to them in measured doses. For it Soviet social-imperialism is a great imperialist Power, with a powerful modernized army and industry, whereas at Present China is powerful only from the standpoint of its population, because from the economic and military standpoints it is lagging far behind. And these imperialist powers, namely American imperialism and world capitalism, which are assisting China, know very well that China's program of becoming a superpower within this century will not be realized because of its great backwardness.

China, of course, will become powerful, but not to the extent that it intends and aspires to. The other capitalist powers will also become powerful during this period, provided that the policy goes smoothly for the two contenders. Marxist-Leninist science, dialectics and the historical materialist development of society teach us that situations do not develop according to the desire Of imperialism, which is the final stage of capitalism, There is no doubt that such a thing will bring about deep contradictions between the superpowers themselves and between them and the other states and peoples that are exploited by these superpowers.

Therefore the policy of these superpowers constitutes a great danger to the world at present, bemuse they are striving for domination over each other, of course, at the expense of the weakest capitalist states and all the peoples of the world, in general.

China is openly undertaking initial action of a broad character for two purposes:

First, in order to ensure credits, to acquire technology from wherever it can, and to ensure the development of culture and education so that such technology can he employed.

Second, in order to conduct propaganda in its own favour, in favour of its American allies and the world capitalist bourgeoisie, and to provide effective aid, in this field, in favour of them and against the Soviet Union. That is why we see that China is dispatching its envoys all over the world for these two purposes. Hua Guofeng himself is doing the rounds for economic aid pro-Chinese and pro-American propaganda...



We see that the various imperialists, and in the first place, American imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism, Chinese social-imperialism, Japanese militarism and German revanchism, are engaged in feverish activity. These imperialist powers are consolidating their strategic positions, giving importance to sophisticated armaments and the development of their economy and technology, that is, to their preparations for war with modern weapons while simultaneously preparing their support bases.

Therefore a race to make deals is going on between them. The division of spheres of influence, or the more concrete definition of the spheres of Influence of these main imperialisms, has begun and, at the same time, they are grabbing from one another, or trying to neutralize, certain zones like Africa, the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific, etc.

We see, also, that contrary to the Chinese view, which is a false, reactionary view, American imperialism is on the offensive, while in the existing circumstances Soviet social-imperialism is more on the defensive. Therefore American imperialism, which is dominant economically and militarily, is playing the main role in the world at present in the transactions I mentioned earlier. Like wise, this imperialism is trying to preserve its old alliances and form new ones in its favour and to the disadvantage of Soviet social-imperialism or other imperialists or militarists who could threaten American imperialist power.

Of course the United States of America has great military, political and economic potential and influence in NATO. Despite its unity, however, we see that within this organization differentiation is occurring from the point of view of the influence of one state over the others.

The Federal Republic of Germany is growing stronger within NATO year by year. Its economic and political strength and its arms trade go beyond the bounds of the European Common Market and we may say that West Germany is ever more openly seeking to establish its own spheres of influence. Naturally this is not to the liking of either Britain or France, the two main partners of the United States of America in NATO.

The Federal Republic of Germany is developing very close relations with China, in particular, and it occupies the main place among the capitalist countries of Western Europe in regard to links with China. These links are not in the economic field alone. West Germany is also China's greatest and most powerful supplier of credits, technology and modern sophisticated armaments.

Britain and France, likewise, have interests in China, therefore they are developing relations with it, although China as a loyal partner of the United States of America is more interested in links with Bonn. Thus Britain and France see the Federal Republic of Germany as a danger within the alliance, because it may become even more dominant over the other partners in the alliance. Therefore we see that both the British and the French governments are speaking about friendship and relations with China, but they do not fail to stress that; they want further development of their economic and friendly relations with the Soviets, too. Indeed, contrary to the Chinese view, they are saying openly that war between the Soviet Union and the United States of America in Europe, that is, between the Soviet Union and NATO, is only a remote possibility. With this they want to tell the Soviet Union that they have no reason to attack the Warsaw Treaty countries. On the contrary they want to continue their friendship with them. Bonn is saying this, too, but it is rapidly developing its relations with China, which is presented as the main enemy of the Soviet Union. Thus the Soviet Union does not see Federal Germany in the same light as it sees France and Britain. On the other hand, in all its strategic game, the United States of America is not exacerbating its relations with the Soviet Union. It is continuing the SALT talks with it, despite Carter's declaration that he will produce the neutron bomb. Nevertheless a tendency to preserve the status quo between the United States of America and the Soviet Union can be seen.

Hence, in this direction we see that the USA and NATO are trying to preserve the status quo with the Soviet Union, of course, despite their contradictions with one another, but these contradictions are far from sufficient to justify the Chinese predictions that war is imminent in Europe.

At the same time American imperialism is supporting China so that it becomes stronger militarily and economically. In other words, American capital is pouring into China, where many investments are being made with credits from the big American banks, and from the American state itself. At present China is receiving credits not only from the banks but also from the governments, and not just from Japan and the United States of America, but from all the big industrialized capitalist states. The United States of America is playing the card of China very cautiously. Likewise it is continuing to play the card of its world strategy with Japan and wants to keep the waters calm with that country, while the aid between them should be reciprocal. According to the Americans, Japan must be strengthened and become an Israel in the Far East, in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, and why not, eventually even against China.

In this situation China signed the Treaty of Friendship and Collaboration with Japan (In August 1978). But this Sino-Japanese Treaty of Friendship is and will continue to be fraught with an immense, many-sided danger with hideous consequences for the fate of the world. This will come about because an economic-military unity will be established between Japan and China, with the aim of creating separate or joint spheres of influence, especially throughout Asia, in Australia and in the Pacific basin. This unity, naturally, will begin under the umbrella of the alliance with the United States of America and will be publicized as being against Soviet social-imperialism. The truth is that this Sino-Japanese alliance has as its main aim the strangling of Soviet social-imperialism and its liquidation in Asia, Siberia, Mongolia and elsewhere, as well as the elimination of its influence throughout Asia and Oceania, and in all the ASEAN countries.

This is the grand strategy of American imperialism, but at the same time, also of Chinese imperialism and Japanese militarism. The United States of America will try to keep the balance of Chinese and Japanese power, which is building up, in its favour, but one fine morning this balance will slip from the hands of the Americans. Thus the imperialist, militarist Sino-Japanese unity will become a danger both to the United States of America and to the Soviet Union, because the interests of Japan and China, those two big Asian imperialist countries, for domination of this huge sphere of influence and the simultaneous weakening of both American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, coincide. Hence, we shall see a relatively rapid development of many changes in this zone...

The United States of America is trying and will go on trying to assist China and Japan with the aim of keeping them under its direction, to strengthen its alliance with them and hurl them against the Soviet Union. This is one possibility. But there is also the other possibility that one day the diabolical, hypocritical imperial policy, which is unprincipled and in the imperialist-militarist spirit, of these two great powers, which were helped to revive, will turn against the USA, just as Weimar Germany did in the past, when, after becoming a terrible fascist power in the time of Hitler, it attacked the allies of the United States of America and the USA itself. These two superpowers. that are being created in Asia, are a similar danger to the United States of America. Likewise, we shall see mounting contradictions among the ASEAN countries, as well as between Japan and China, together and separately, between those two and the United States of America, between those two and the Soviet Union.

With the aid of the Soviet Union and the United States of America, India, which is a huge country with colossal human potential, will try to become a superpower with the atomic bomb. It will try to further increase its military and technological potential in the rivalry between the United States of America and the Soviet Union, and will be an important objective for both superpowers which have their separate and common interests for the future in the course of possible changes in the alliances.

At present China has no influence at all in India. On the contrary. However it wants to begin to have somewhat better diplomatic relations with that country. On the other hand India has major pretensions in regard to Tibet. India will fight to liquidate even what slight influence China may have in Pakistan, because Pakistan, too, is a strategic country bordering on Iran and Afghanistan, and that is where interest in the great Middle-East oil basin begins. Of course American imperialism is dominant in the Middle East, while China has just begun to poke in the tip of its finger, but it is unlikely that it will penetrate there. It will pursue a policy against the interests of the Arab peoples and in favour of American interests. The United States of America will help China to become, together with such countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., a powerful barrier against Soviet political-economic and military penetration in this zone which is vital to American imperialism and European imperialism, since we may regard "United Europe" linked with NATO as a new imperialist grouping in the course of creation, despite its many internal contradictions.

As a conclusion, we may say that at present American imperialism exists and likewise Soviet social-imperialism exists, but there is also "United Europe" linked through NATO with the United States of America. The imperialist tendencies of the countries of United Europe. are not concentrated but separate, and like the other imperialists, impelled by necessity, they could become a threat to the world from the political-military aspect.

On the other hand we see Chinese imperialism which is rising and Japanese militarism which has already risen. These two imperialisms are joining together in an alliance in order to form an imperialist power in opposition to the others and then, in the future, India, too, will rise and have its pretensions for the others' spheres of influence, particularly in Asia. In these conditions the great danger of a world war will he increased.

The current alliances exist, but they will continue to develop or shift. They will continue to shift in the sense of change of direction, but not in their content. Until they are wiped out altogether, the imperialist powers I mentioned above will remain imperialist and war-mongering and will go on trying to embroil the world in a great atomic war.

At present social-imperialist China is striving in many directions. First, in the internal direction, in order to create a fascist unity and to ensure the domination of the Chinese capitalist bourgeoisie over the Chinese people, and it is trying to do this through violence and oppression. It will give this unity a false democratic form after it has unified the army and its support base to serve its plans of invasion and oppression.

The current tactic of the imperialists is to deceive progressive mankind, to deceive the peoples and to spread the fear of a new, bloody war, to crush any resistance among the people, any national liberation struggle under the pretext that any revolutionary act is allegedly an act of gangsters, a terrorist act which disturbs the .1peace. and "tranquillity" and is a breach of democracy, naturally, bourgeois democracy. They base this theory of theirs, also, on actions instigated and organized by the espionage agencies of the imperialist countries, such as the CIA, the KGB, the Chinese "security service", the Japanese "security service", etc. All these offspring's of capital organize bands of terrorists who kill, maim and persecute revolutionary elements of the peoples, the Marxist-Leninists in order to discredit and attack them.

All the imperialists, jointly and individually, have found various forms to keep the peoples in bondage, to suppress and discredit the revolution, the Marxist-Leninist theory and, particularly, Leninism which is the true Marxist theory in action in the present epoch of imperialism in decay, in the epoch of proletarian revolutions.

It is clear to us and to all the peoples that the road of revolution is not easy. Many regressive forces are operating against it in the world. In every country these forces, both external and internal, have disguised themselves and are in unity and divergence with one another. They are in unity to keep the peoples in bondage to world and local capital, but are in divergence to extract the maximum profits for themselves from the sweat of the peoples and the enslaving loans which the most powerful advance to the weaker.

It is true that this global strategy of world imperialism is being followed by great powers with mighty economic-military and political-demagogic potential. But our glorious strategy of the revolution, the great theory of Marxism-Leninism, also exist. The fire of the revolution is burning everywhere in the hearts of oppressed peoples who long to win freedom, democracy, true sovereignty, to take power into their own hands and embark on the road of socialism by destroying the imperialist powers and their local lackeys.

We Marxist-Leninists who are in the forefront of the revolutionary struggle which is being waged today between the proletariat and the oppressed peoples who aspire for freedom, on the one hand, and the savage greedy imperialists, on the other hand, must thoroughly understand the aims, tactics, means and forms of struggle of our common enemies and the particular enemies of each country. We cannot see this properly if we do not rely on our Marxist-Leninist theory of the revolution, if we do not see that in the present situation and the situations that will develop in the future, there are a series of weak links in the world capitalist chain. The revolutionaries and the peoples, separately and simultaneously, must carry on uninterrupted activity, wage a courageous, relentless organized struggle to break the links of the chain one after the another. This, of course, requires work, struggle, sacrifice and self-denial. The peoples and courageous individuals, guided by the interests of the revolution seen from the standpoint of our Marxist-Leninist theory which opens to the peoples the way to the fulfilment of their aspirations, can and will face up to these mighty forces of imperialism and reaction that are rising, joining with one another in new alliances, and seeking solutions to the difficult situations that are being created for them. The difficult situations for these regressive forces are created by the peoples, by the exposure of the various imperialist theories and actions, by the Marxist-Leninists in all countries and on all continents.

Therefore, we must carry out our actions and express our opinions openly, fearlessly, without hesitation, regardless of the sacrifices. In this way we contribute to that great struggle which the peoples are waging and must wage against their capitalist-imperialist oppressors, whom we must never for one moment allow to do what they like and concoct plans and intrigues to the detriment of the peoples of the world.

The Soviet, Titoite, Chinese, and Eurocommunist modern revisionists are playing a Machiavellian role in aid of imperialism and world capitalism. Therefore we must expose them, too, with the same force, relentlessly, in every action of theirs. Nothing must seem too much for us to do in our struggle and we must not proceed from the mistaken idea that, since we are a small country and Party, we should not speak out and tell the truth because others will call us conceited. Certainly they will call us conceited, because the truth and the correctness of the ideas expressed by the Party of Labour of Albania and the Albanian state are not to their advantage. They have many arrows in their quiver to throw at us, but we have a very strong shield against their poisoned arrows and our shield is and always will be the unity of the Party, the unity of the people with the Party and Marxism-Leninism which always guides us in our titanic struggle.



A new Pope in the Vatican. He is a Pole, the former cardinal of Cracow, the famous centre of Polish Catholicism As everyone knows, the Church has exceptionally great influence in Poland. Poland is second only to Italy in matters of religion. The Polish cardinals, headed by Wyszynski, have stood up to all the pseudo-communist, pseudo-socialist governments in Poland under Ochab, Gomulka, Gierek, etc., etc., and have gained great privileges. Recently, Gierek has given them a completely free hand: Wyszynski makes the law in Poland. The state there has not only left the believers free to fill the churches and cathedrals, but it pays for the building of new churches instead of halls of culture.

Therefore, the advent of a new Pope to the head of the Vatican is not only of great importance for the Roman Catholic religion, but it has to de with a specific political aspect. The new cardinal, Wojtyla, who took the name John-Paul II, will pursue a Roman-Christian international policy. Now, for the first time in four centuries, the Pope elected to head the Vatican is not an Italian, but precisely a Pole. I think the advent of this Pope to the head of the Roman Catholic Church is the work of the CIA, the United States of America, of Brzezinski, this Pole who is actually adviser to the American president on national security.

His predecessor, John-Paul 1, the former cardinal of Venice, was found dead in his bed one morning only one month after he was elected "unanimously" as they say, by the conclave. They said he "died suddenly", but it is possible that neither his election nor his death were normal. This might have been a cleverly arranged manoeuvre, because the deceased was not very old and did not suffer from heart disease. A tactic was employed so that his election would seem in order, very satisfactory, without opposition, but then they secretly sang de profundis over him in order to bring the new Polish Pope, the Pope appointed by the United States of America to the head of the Vatican, the man who, with his policy will serve American imperialism first of all. The election of this new Pope will have an influence in many countries of Europe and the world, especially to build support for imperialism and to deceive the proletariat and the peoples. This event will exert a major influence in Poland as well as in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and France, where the bourgeoisie is pleased that the Roman Church is not headed by an Italian cardinal. On the other hand the Italians are very disappointed, especially the Christian Democrats and the whole bourgeoisie of that country, all the different parties of the Italian bourgeoisie and the Italian Catholics, because the Pope is no longer theirs, a Pope from the Italian Church, but one of Polish citizenship who has the backing of the United States of America...



Tomorrow begins the new year. This is the last day of 1978 so we can sum up the situation of world strategy in general and of the superpowers in particular.

The two major nuclear powers, American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, are continuing to arm themselves. Regardless of some agreements they have signed and some SALT projects which are not being realized, the fact is that these two superpowers are trying to consolidate their international positions and forestall the danger of a nuclear war. Naturally, neither the Soviet Union nor the United States of America wants this war, but the deepening of the crisis will bring about such a situation. The war could start with conventional weapons but turn into a nuclear war later.

Therefore, besides increasing its armaments, the Soviet Union is trying to consolidate its "alliances" with the countries of "people's democracy" through the Warsaw Treaty and COMECON. In fact those countries are occupied by the Soviet Union which considers them as a glacis between it and Western Europe. Today the Soviet Union is a social-imperialist revisionist country. The laws of a socialist state do not operate there. Irrespective of what they say, the Russians, the "White Russian" dominate in the Soviet Union. Hence the consolidation of the Leninist-Stalinist Soviet Union, the unity and solidarity that existed in the war against the Hitlerites, cannot and do not exist any longer in that country in the face of a new world war. There is unrest in all the republics of the Soviet Union, indeed, in time of crisis they may not go to war against a possible invader in unity. It is revisionism which has caused this possibility of division. That is one aspect.

The other aspect is that the Soviet Union is facing many dangers today, but especially on two fronts: on the front of Western Europe, NATO, in unity and military and economic alliance with the United States of America; and in the East, on the Sino-Japanese front behind which the United States of America is lurking again.

Thus today the Soviet Union finds itself between two fires, especially in Asia. Now China is arming very rapidly, aiming to attack the Soviet Union, provided, of course, that the situation continues as it is, because we may also see a change in the Chinese policy towards the Soviet Union, that is, the creation of a situation in which the issues will not be presented as they are today.

Nevertheless, the signing of the Sino-Japanese Treaty and the close rapprochement of China with the United States of America, with the countries of the European Common Market and world capital make the threat of war against the Soviet Union on the Asiatic front more imminent. Therefore the Soviet Union must smash this front now, while it is not yet consolidated and has not become dangerous for the outbreak of a frontal war. For this the Soviet Union may take advantage of the present weak state of China and the inability of the United States of America and the countries of Western Europe to make the law everywhere. it has begun to gather round itself a number of states linked with it in one form or another, with the view to extending its domination to other countries, just as its rivals want and are attempting to do.

We observe that the Soviet Union is trying to penetrate into Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and possibly also into India. Likewise we see that it is strengthening its links with Vietnam and Laos at the moment. This constitutes another Soviet glacis, but also a point for an eventual attack against China from Southeast Asia.

Despite the words being said, if the situation is studied in detail, it emerges that neither the United States of America, the Soviet Union, nor the states of "United Europe" are able to make the necessary investments on the African continent. According to statistics, "United Europe" ought to invest at least 15 billion dollars a year in Africa as a whole, while it is able to invest no more than 3 billion dollars. France, which is pursuing a policy of closer links with Black Africa, invests most on that continent. This is because of its old colonial links with those countries, which are publicized as allegedly cultural, social, economic links and so on. And France tends to influence the European Common Market and together with it to create the Euro-African bloc since Africa is a continent of great importance, not only to them, with a sparse population and immense amounts of raw materials. In general Africa is little exploited, nevertheless Southern Africa supplies Europe with many materials, indeed with important strategic materials.

But the problem remains that the present level of investments by "United Europe" is very low, therefore the tendency of the states of "United Europe" is to establish links between Northern and Southern Africa and to prevent both the Soviet Union and the United States of America from getting their clutches on the African continent. This is causing contention between the two superpowers and the states of "United Europe", jointly and separately.

As regards the investments of the Soviet Union in Africa, they are minimal, but recently it has begun to get a military foothold there, is seeking naval bases, and has also intervened with its armed forces, as in Angola together with the Cubans, in Ethiopia and Eritrea, in Somalia, in Aden and elsewhere. Thus the Soviet Union is acting in two directions: to create a Soviet glacis and breach the militant unity that is being forged and developing on both its flanks. The Soviet Union will do a similar thing both in Europe and in Asia Minor. And in fact it has set about this task, although it has suffered some defeats. At present, however, the Mediterranean assumes great strategic importance for the Soviet Union because there it hampers NATO, could endanger the army of this pact in a conflict with it, and at the same time, bars the way for "United Europe" to bring about an eventual Euro-African unity.

Thus, by insinuating itself in many ways, with investments (but, as I pointed out, these are small), with propaganda or diversion, the Soviet Union, for its part, is striving to have Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, if not completely, at least three quarters, on its side; the problem is that these countries should not be dangerous for it, but its allies in a war against the East, that is, in a war against the three: China, Japan, the United States of America, or to be able to create a great glacis in all this zone, including the Persian Gulf, Pakistan and India and weaken the encirclement around it.

Meanwhile the United States of America, for its part, is trying to finance and arm China in order to have it as a permanent threat to the Soviet Union, which will try, at least, to defend its empire, Siberia, Mongolia and Central Asia, or "to withstand" an attacker, of course, strengthened with great military and economic potential by having super-industrialized militarist Japan armed to the teeth, on its side.

In its conflicts with the Soviet Union, the United States of America will also try to protect the Indian Ocean, to have India and Burma on its side and prevent the infiltration of the Soviet Union either into Oceania or, by land, into all that belt which leads to the Persian Gulf and Central Asia.

Hence the present situation looks like this: Feverish war preparations; the imperialist states, first of all, the United States of America, the Soviet Union and China, are continuing to arm themselves. The contradictions among them are becoming more acute and, in order to avoid a general nuclear war, they incite local wars. The Soviet Union is trying to reach a détente with the European Common Market and NATO, and also trying to tone down its contradictions with the United States of America, and pursuing a policy of splitting fronts. Likewise Europe, to which the Soviet Union poses a great danger, does not want to get burnt. It is ready to urge others, especially the Sino-Japanese eastern front, to clash with the Soviet Union and pull the chestnuts out of the fire for it. That is why we see that the investments and trade exchanges between the European Common Market and the Soviet Union are not hampered; they are developing, not only with the Soviet Union, but also with its allies, the eastern satellites, members of the Warsaw Treaty.

Meanwhile in Africa the situation is still unclear because the "free" and "independent" African states are ruled by the cliques of the big bourgeoisie, the big chieftains and feudal lords linked, naturally, with those who, give them most. And these, first of all, are the British, the French, the West Germans, the Americans, and then the others, while China gives them nothing at all. Hence it has scarcely gained a foothold there. It needs a long time, to penetrate into Africa. In that zone China plays the role: of the gramaphone record for all. It supports the United States of America and "United Europe" and begs them to help it with whatever they can, and not to give the Soviet Union credits so that it is weakened. Indeed the Chinese have declared this.

Thus it seems to me that now, on the eve of the New Year 1979, the current situation is fraught with dangers, is turbulent, but at the same time it is revolutionary, that the policy of the big imperialist-revisionist powers is not acceptable to the peoples, who are kept under their bondage and dictate with force. The peoples understand their intrigues, manoeuvres, strategy and tactics and are not sitting idle. The people's liberation movements are building up and bursting out openly, but are still weak. These outbursts may be momentary, may be short-lived, but still they are outbursts which serve to weaken the great powers and prevent the outbreak of a new world war.

We must work and struggle in this direction to extend our contacts with the broad masses of the peoples of the world as much as possible. By linking ourselves closely with the Marxist-Leninist parties, with progressive individuals and, through them, directly with those peoples, we will carry to them the opinion of socialist Albania and the Party of Labour of Albania.



The war against Vietnam is continuing, indeed it is becoming fiercer (On February 16, 1979, China began its aggression against Vietnam). For the first time the Chinese issued a communiqu6 and showed a three minute telefilm for the whole world to see. They transmitted this telefilm for the Chinese people, too. It was terrible to see it! It seemed as if they were fighting against German nazism. Fire poured from the barrels 3f heavy guns and rocket launchers, turning the sky to flames. These were the artillery shells of Deng Xiaoping's China which were being poured upon Vietnam to kill its people and destroy the country. Meanwhile the Chinese communiqué with the vilest hypocrisy that could exist in the world said that China had no motive other than to teach Vietnam a lesson. (with artillery fire on the Vietnamese people!) and that allegedly it has no need for even an inch of its territory.

On the other hand, China says that it is ready to hold talks with Vietnam and sign an agreement, but naturally it wants to do this while keeping its troops in Vietnam, that is, to impose its conditions on Vietnam through force of arms. To this end the Chinese government has sent a note to Vietnam, which has replied that it is willing to come to terms with them, on condition that all the Chinese troops down to the last soldier, are withdrawn from Vietnamese territory. But the Chinese hypocrisy is like that of the Americans who on the one hand continued the war to bring Vietnam to its knees, while on the other hand launched test balloons, saying that they were ready to sign the cease-fire. Johnson did this, Nixon did this, and this is what Deng Xiaoping is doing at present.

However, no one believes China's words. China is reinforcing its troops on the border and in the regions it has occupied in the north of Vietnam. There are rumours that the Chinese have captured the town of Lang Son...

Anything could happen with the great Chinese adventurer, Deng Xiaoping. As I have said before, he is trying to incite a major world war, which might break out in Southeast Asia, and then spread to Western Europe. This, of course, is a plan co-ordinated with the Americans. For the moment their plans are for hotbeds of war in various regions of the world, which might one day lead to world war. The Americans think that an involvement of the Soviet Union in a war with China would ease matters for them on the Eastern front and if the Soviet Union were to attack Western Europe, too. then it would be easier to defeat it, because in a world war the Soviet Union would find itself encircled.

However, it seems the Soviets did not fall into the trap. In the speech Brezhnev made to the electors he condemned China in just two or three lines, saying that it must withdraw from Vietnam immediately. Brezhnev said nothing about the United States of America, but he declared that the Soviet Union proposes to sign a treaty of collaboration, non-aggression and peace with Western Europe. In this way he is telling the European states that the Soviet Union does not intend to attack Western Europe as the Chinese and world reaction say in their propaganda. On the other hand, Brezhnev said that he is ready and willing to meet Carter in order to sign the treaty on the SALT-II describing it as good although not as complete as they would like. Thus Brezhnev isolated China with this policy.

This Soviet manoeuvre has also frustrated the plans of American imperialism which has given its approval to the attack which Deng Xiaoping made, indeed it has urged it with the aim of angering the Soviet Union and making it much more hostile in its relations with China. The United States of America wants to become China's greatest supplier of modern weapons and to embroil the Soviets and the Chinese in war with each other during which they will be weakened so that the United States will remain the only superpower to make the law in the world. Likewise the United States of America thought that weakening the Soviet Union in an eventual conflict with China would make it unable to open a second front in the West, that is, in Western Europe, and then the Americans would have their hands free to penetrate into the Central and Eastern Europe with allegedly peaceful means and liquidate the power of Soviet social-imperialism in that region.

If China continues its war against Vietnam for long, then in its present circumstances it will suffer the greatest defeat ever suffered by a world imperialist state.

If the United States of America, Japan and the countries of Europe continue to urge China not to stop the war for the occupation of Southeast Asia, then this presents dangers for American and world imperialism, because, although they rely on American aid, the ASEAN countries want to preserve the "independence" of the countries that comprise this organization, hence will not allow the Chinese expansion. But even the capitalist countries, headed by the United States of America, will not want any further Chinese expansion because, if China continues this predatory war, then it is possible that the Soviet Union will create major disturbances in Iran, a thing which would be a major catastrophe for American imperialism and world capitalism because of the oil. If this happens the entire oil basin, that is, the Middle East, will be involved in disturbances and revolt, or in a conflict that could not be easily settled. In this case, American, British and other imperialisms would have to go to war against the Soviet Union.

Perhaps the Soviet Union will not move into Iran with military force, but it is possible that through Azerbaijan, with the Azerbaijanis, the Kurds and the "Tudeh" Party, it will create great difficulties for Ayatollah Khomeini, indeed it might tip him out and seize power as it did in Afghanistan. In this way a unified bloc of states: Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, in favour of the Soviet Union will be created.

India, naturally, is opposed to China's actions. It will rely heavily on the Soviet Union, but also on the United States of America, provided the latter does not continue to help China in its plan to occupy other territories in Southeast Asia and does not allow it to move towards Burma, Bangladesh and India to emerge on the Indian Ocean.

Therefore Deng Xiaoping's adventure, a fascist venture of the Hitler type, is now in an impasse. China must either withdraw from Vietnam in disgrace or it will continue to commit brutal provocations as a big imperialist state. In reality it is an imperialist state, in its aims, but does not possess the means, and when you lack the means you cannot realize the aim, thus it will suffer the most ignominious defeat.

SUNDAY MAY 13, 1979


The two biggest imperialist powers of the world, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, are raising a loud clamour in connection with disarmament especially in nuclear weapons.

Finally it was announced that the SALT-II agreement, which had been talked about for a long time, had been concluded in Washington between the representatives of the United States of America and ambassador Dobrynin of the Soviet Union. After being signed by Brezhnev and Carter, this agreement has to be ratified by the American Senate and the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union.

Brezhnev is tongue-tied and can hardly speak, Carter is singing but, in any case, both imperialisms are keeping their eyes and their gullets open, and have taken all measures to ensure continued production of their nuclear armaments, irrespective of such agreements. Both Carter and Brown, the US state secretary of Defence, as well as Brzezinski, have declared that with the signing of the SALT-II agreement nothing has changed, because the United States of America has taken all measures allegedly to defend itself against Soviet social-imperialism. In other words, they have stacks of nuclear weapons, just as the Soviet Union has.

As these leaders of the United States of America repeat at press conferences, the essence of the matter is I hat the American Senate ought to approve this agreement, should be content and not complain about it, because such a thing is in the interests of the United States of America. Carter says that, of course, the SALT-II agreement does not fulfil all the desires of the United States of America, but it is better than nothing.

The purpose of the SALT-II agreement is to maintain the balance of nuclear power between the two superpowers, i.e., they should proceed parallel with each other in their atomic and nuclear armaments, as well as in sophisticated secret weapons. That is why they signed this agreement, so as to have the right to conduct observations, either inside the respective country or from the adjacent bases that both of them have, in the territories of other neighbouring states, hence, to control from the air, sea and land whether one partner or the other invents or creates a new weapon, or increases the number of weapons it already possesses. As to how effective such a thing will be, this we shall see, but this does not prevent either one or the other from violating this agreement, openly or secretly, and when this violation is discovered, both of them have the means, the methods and the technology ready for the production of the same weapon. The two superpowers are working night and day to this end.

Why was the SALT-II agreement signed? In the first place, it was signed to deceive the peoples who have risen and are struggling in various ways against American imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism and all those who possess atomic bombs, demanding the destruction of these weapons. However such a thing can be achieved only through the revolutionary strength of the peoples, through uprisings in every country, a thing which will not be achieved everywhere at the same time. But the world is coming to the boil and in different countries "the lid of the pot" will be blown off one day.

The great world crisis which is all-sided, political, military, financial and a crisis of overproduction, compels the two superpowers to restrain their military expenditure to some extent... This restraint may be temporary, because as yet there is not the slightest sign of any easing of the crisis visible on the horizon. Indeed the contrary is occurring in all the capitalist countries. The problem of energy has become a very acute problem, so much so that all of them, individually or collectively, in the European Common Market, in the United States of America, in South America, etc., etc., are holding meetings and taking decisions to reduce the consumption of energy, that is, of oil.

Hence, oil is a very dangerous weapon for capitalism, the imperialist states, the "modernized" states which have a high level of technology. Without energy, i.e., without liquid fuel, everything will he brought to a halt.

In Iran the people overthrew the shah and with their strikes the workers ensured that oil no longer flowed to the United States and the other capitalist countries in the quantities they used to receive in the past. The reduction of oil supplies from Saudi Arabia and the whole Middle East, in general, has compelled the United States of America and the European states to take measures. The Soviet Union, also, is taking measures to make savings and increase its profits. It has turned off the taps to its satellites and a drop of oil is a drop on their heads, for which they have to pay dear. The Soviet Union is holding on the reserves for bad times and is not greatly concerned whether its satellites or the other countries it supplies are short of oil.

Thus, throughout the world a great number of factories have been closed down, millions of cars have been locked up in garages, while buses and trains have been put in circulation. This solution, however, has brought about another crisis, the coal crisis. Coal, which had been neglected hitherto, is somewhat in demand again. The producing countries are selling it at a high price.

As to the response to the signing of the SALT-II agreement, we can say that some like it, and some do not like it. For example, the French government did not like this agreement. In the time of De Gaulle, France developed its own atomic deterrent to avoid remaining under the American umbrella or even in close collaboration with it, as Britain did. De Gaulle knew that in case of an eventual war in Europe France would be unable to take any initiative because the United States of America would press the button to drop the atomic bomb, and then only when it saw that its interests were threatened, regardless of the interests of France. Hence, De Gaulle broke away from the United States of America and France continued to develop the atomic weapon independently.

Now Jean-François Poncet, foreign minister of France, has declared that France will not adhere to the SALT-II agreement, it will develop the atomic weapon outside this agreement for its own interests and defence. In other words, Giscard D'Estaing and his government do not agree to wear the shackles of the two superpowers which have extremely large stockpiles of atomic weapons and bombs. On the other hand. West Germany, through its chancellor Schmidt, has approved the SALT-II agreement. It is clearly apparent that the United States of America and West Germany are closely linked with each other. The United States considers West Germany as its outpost in Europe in case of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, Britain has not yet declared its attitude to the SALT-II agreement, but the new conservative prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, implies that Britain is going to develop its own atomic weapon... Thatcher gave the reason that Britain wants to have its own weapon in order to defend itself against any eventuality.

Of course, the peoples of the world are not deceived by the SALT-II agreement. Those who signed this agreement will certainly eulogize it in flowery terms, but lurking behind it there are other secret agreements and numerous protocols which testify to the bargain struck between the United States of America and the Soviet Union on many questions to do with nuclear and conventional weapons.

Carter is worried and points out that the relations between the United States of America and the Soviet Union will be greatly embittered if the American Senate does not ratify the SALT-II agreement on the limitation of secret and strategic weapons. Carter claims that this agreement is the best that could be achieved, although, of course, it is not perfect. According to him, if the senators do not accept this agreement, such a thing will have the most disastrous consequences for their country and for peace in the world.



The European Parliament was elected after a feeble propaganda campaign. The participation in the election was a real fiasco, because in all the West-European countries which form this common European Parliament, the percentage of electors who cast their votes was very low.

The highest percentage of electors who voted, 65 per cent if I am not mistaken, was in West Germany but it was still far from the percentage of electors who voted in the general elections for the Bundestag, which was as high as 90 per cent. In France about 55 per cent cast their votes while Britain had the lowest percentage.

The general impression created is that there is very little interest in this parliament and it is only of formal importance. As to what competences this parliament will have over the various countries, that we shall see later, but as far as we can see these competences consist in the increase in the number of members from 200 to 450. They increased the number of deputies to this European Parliament so that it would suit "United Europe" and the so-called government of "United Europe"!

Of course this parliament will assume some general competences of no great consequence and will not impose any opinion or action on any member country. Each of these states has its own parliament and government which take orders from the capitalist bourgeoisie of their own countries, from the trusts and concerns of the particular country and from the joint companies on the basis of the shares they hold, which exert their influence on the individual parliaments and governments of each state of "United Europe".

There is no doubt that this organism called "United Europe" has a reactionary character and the efforts of this union are based on eliminating the competition between member states to some extent, if this is possible, opposing the development of one country in advance of the others, and on each country capturing foreign markets, regardless of the decisions they have taken to act in unity, because, in fact, this unity must be understood as a great disunity, and so on.

"United Europe" is a political-organizational-economic organism of the big concerns and joint companies of those states. These concerns and joint companies, in other words, the capitalists or the big sharks, are making deals and will go on making deals using the organisms of "United Europe" as means of struggle for domination. This is precisely how the cooling which is observed on the part of France in regard to "United Europe", the European Parliament, etc., can be explained, because France sees that this "United Europe" is dominated and will be dominated by Federal Germany, and France does not like this domination. American imperialism, on the other hand, does not like United Europe-, the Parliament and the government of the "United Europe", or the European Common Market, because, in any case, any "unity" of these joint companies, of these concerns, regardless of the fact that the Americans are deeply involved in them, will cast some slight shadow over the American expansion. In West Germany and in the European countries, individually and perhaps jointly, too, the United States has powerful rivals, and this does not please it, either.

But like all the other imperialist states, the USA pursues the policy of "divide and rule" because if these states are divided it can out-manoeuvre them more easily than if they are united. So the United States does not want another not yet consolidated power, such as "United Europe", to be built up as an opponent or a rival to challenge its policy and its political and economic potential.

And of course, during these parliamentary elections we saw that Carter took draconian measures in regard to oil, something which has dismayed and angered the Europeans. Indeed West Germany sent Schmidt in person, and France sent François Poncet, to the United States of America on this issue. Apparently the actions of the United States of America in regard to oil and energy, cause greater damage to Bonn than to France. This can be seen from the level of the delegations sent to discuss the problem with Carter. We shall see how things will develop later, but in any case, if the United States of America applies the measures it has adopted the contradictions will be deepened.

The Soviet Union, too, does not find the European Common Market to its liking not from the ideological -aspect, of course, because the present-day Soviet Union is just as capitalist as the member states of this market are, but it, too, sizes things up and sees that now it is facing a Europe which is more united and not divided, therefore its manoeuvres will be of two kinds: smiles to and negotiations with "United Europe" and also with each individual member country. Of course the Soviet revisionists pose as if they are fighting this "European unions" from allegedly Leninist ideological positions. Nevertheless, in general, it must he said that such an organism is not to the liking of the Soviet Union.

Hence, as a conclusion, we shall see that, irrespective of the contradictions between individual countries, contradictions will emerge also between groupings, between imperialist forces such as American imperialism, the imperialism of "United Europe", Soviet imperialism and Chinese and Japanese imperialisms in the Far East, etc.

It has also been reported, although, according to the news agencies only by one European newspaper or a Chicago banker, that the United States of America, China and Japan are going to set up an American-Asian common market of course this is not true. Such a common market may be set up, but I cannot see it being done, because the highly developed United States of America cannot join forces in such an organism with an undeveloped China, On the other hand, neither can Japan place itself in such a straight-jacket under the direct control of the Americans, with only weak China, which will beg it for credits and new technology, on its side. Then neither the United States of America nor Japan need such an American-Asian market to exert their economic and strategic influence in the Far East, South-eastern Asia, India and other regions, because they are able to do this for themselves, with no need for China, and at the same time, to engage in a fierce competitive struggle or even wage war against other big imperialists if they threaten their interests.

Thus, the elections to the European Parliament were a soap bubble, just to create illusions, to deceive the peoples and the proletariat. In the countries of the Common Market, there are 7 million totally unemployed, not to mention those working half-time or just one hour a day and who amount to several millions more; prices are going sky-high, the competition is fierce both inside and outside this European Market, outside this "United Europe". In reality, nothing of benefit to its peoples is coming out of this "United Europe", their misery continues. And these peoples must continue their fierce struggle against the internal capitalism and against this "unity" of the capitalists and their concerns, against this false unity the purpose of which is merely to slightly reduce the catastrophic effects of the great crisis which has engulfed European and world capitalism and to soften the contradictions or the fierce competition. But there is nothing which can heal these permanent ulcers of capitalism which have become extremely serious at present.