China Backs Russia In Hungary, Egypt

Press, Volume XCIV, Issue 28157, 21 December 1956, Page 10

China Backs Russia In Hungary, Egypt

(From a Reuter Correspondent)

PEKING. The Chinese Government’s reaction to recent events in Poland. Hungary and the Middle East has indicated no lack of identity of views on foreign policy between Communist China and the Soviet Union. If there are differences, these are

not being shown to the world, and China is intent on giving positive proof of the unity of the Communist bloc and of the “eternal” ChineseSoviet friendship. This latter was much emphasised at the recent celebrations in Peking of the thirty-ninth anniversary of the October Revolution. Observers see no reason to relieve that China’s foreign policy is dictated by Moscow, for the Chinese regard themselves not as “satellites” but as partners in the front. For this attitude they can advance good reasons. Not only is the country of 600.000.000 growing politically and economically stronger and more self-sufficient all the time, but also it has the largest Communist Party in the world. China’s view is that all the Communist States should be linked on the basis of equality and that all should find their own roads to socialism. This has long been the expressed view of Chinese leaders, though they did follow the leadership of Russia in condemning “the Titoist deviation.” Soviet methods, they say, are not necessarily the best for every country, though they always acknowledge the lead of the Soviet Union. China herself has evolved her deviations from the strict Soviet pattern and the recent eighth party congress in Peking showed that flexibility is still the great virtue of the Chinese Communists. Anxiety to avoid the mistakes of other Communist countries was apparent and there were signs of some democratisation and liberalisation and the promise of a partial free market, within the Communist system. Orthodox Communism

China remains, even if some of her methods are unorthodox, an orthodox Communist State. When her leaders say that there are many roads to socialism they are merely stating that the means may vary slightly but that the end—communism—is always the same. On this they are inflexible and any attempt to divert a country from the socialist path is to them “counterrevolution.” - Thus, China’s quick condemnation of the Hungarian nationalists when when there was talk of neutrality and the abrogation of the Warsaw Pact was logical. They saw this as an antiCommunist movement inspired, led. and. from reading the Peking papers, almost entirely made up of reactionaries. fascists and imperialists which must be crushed.

At the beginning of the revolt, editorials supported Imre Nagy and newspapers made no attempt to hide the anti-Soviet nature of the riots. Soviet mistakes and local shortcomings were admitted in the case of both Hungary and Poland, and a gov-

ernment statement contained a warning against “great nation chauvinism” —an obvious reproof of the Soviet Union for her past errors. The next day, once the scope of the revolt —or as it was called here, “the white terror”—was clear, Nagy was condemned for betraying the “Socialist principles” of Hungary and the “heroic” Soviet Army was praised for protecting and coming to the aid of the Hungarian people and the people’s cause of socialism.

It is probable that the Hungarian and Polish leaders, Ochab and Kadar, received advice from Mr Mao Tse-tung during the eighth congress, which they attended as fraternal delegates, on how communism should be adjusted to suit each country. Mr Mao himself, against all Communist teachings, led the revolution from the countryside rather than the towns.

He doubtless analysed their mistakes and counselled them to pay more attention to the livelihood of the people. But observers and diplomatic circles here discount reports that he advised them to make anti-Soviet moves the basis of reforms.

Although some Chinese Communists may resist Soviet ascendancy and perhaps remember the Soviet Union’s often luke-warm attitude before they came to power in 1949, observers believe that they are too realistic to underestimate the importance of Soviet domination in Europe in holding together the Communist bloc. The strictures of non-communist European opinion would not have the least effect in China and any qualms the Chinese may have had about uncommitted Asian opinion must have been largely dispelled when India voted, wth the Soviet bloc in the United Nations against the resolution on Hungary.

Events in Eastern Europe, however, have for most of the time taken a second place, in both Chinese newspapers and official comment, to the Middle East which has dominated all foreign news here since the nationalisation of the Suez Canal. From that time, China has given unequivocal support to Egypt and this, while in conformity with Soviet views, is for purely Chinese reasons.

Since the African-Asian conference at Bandung 18 months ago, China has been wooing the Arab States, particularly Egypt, and has pushed he* campaign with political, economic and cultural missions. This bore fruit last May when Egypt withdrew her recognition from Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist regime on Formosa and recognised the Peking Government. Since then, Syria and the Yemen have also recognised Communist China.

Israel recognised Communist China in 1950, six years before any other Middle East country, but no diplomatic missions have ever been exchanged. Support for Egypt and the nationwide enthusiasm whipped up for it have been accompanied, especially since the intervention in the EgyptIsrael war, by a bitter anti-British and anti-French campaign. For a time these two countries even replaced the United States as the main target for Chinese attacks. But this lull in anti-American propaganda, including one day when the only mention of the United States was a factual report of the result of the Presidential election, was not long-lived, and the American Government was accused of conniving at the “Anglo-French aggression.” Chinese diplomacy has been conspicuously successful in the Middle East, saining more support for the admission of Communist China to the United Nations and strengthening of African-Asian unity, which is one of the cornerstones of her foreign policy. Now she is turning her attention even further afield to embrace South America with the exchange of cultural and political delegations. This new campaign has been apparent since the middle of this year. Every time imperialism or colonisation has been mentioned by a Chinese leader, Latin / merica has been added to Asia and Africa as an area where people are “struggling against colonial oppression.*’