The French in 1954 and the Americans in 1973 withdrew from the three countries in the Indochina peninsula, now subject to parties that claim to follow the same ideology. And the wars continue, either between armies, or between an army and guerrilla forces. The withdrawal of the Western powers did not enable the people to decide on self-determination, on their desire for independence or their quarrels. Previously involved in the East-West conflict, here the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians are the subject of the rivalry between the two great Marxist-Leninist powers.

The analyst who wants to score points against Marxism-Leninism can find opportunities there. The combatants profess the same doctrine, which they counter by their deeds. If capitalism is intrinsically imperialist and socialism is intrinsically peaceful, how do these views reconcile with experience? The Viets and the Khmer Rouge, allied against the Americans and the governments supported by them, seem to have foreseen the new power struggle from the day of their joint victory. The Chinese had supported and supplied the Hanoi government during the first war against the French, as well as during the second one against the “puppets” in Saigon and the United States. Four years after the fall of Thieu the Vietnamese were closely linked to Moscow, incorporated into the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) and at the same time deemed enemies by the Chinese, the formidable neighbor they resisted for centuries.

The East-West rivalry obeyed unwritten rules that were more or less respected. The most rarely broken rule was the one that forbade border crossings by regular armies. It seems that it no longer inspires respect. Indian troops, governed at the time by Mrs Gandhi, crossed the border of Pakistan’s eastern province, a province in revolt against the so-called central government in Islamabad, some 3,000 kilometers from Bengal. Should the then “Empress of India” be accused of aggression? Formally, she definitely should be, but what was the alternative? Voters in what became Bangladesh had voted overwhelmingly for the independence party. Negotiations between General Yahya Khan and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the independence party leader and the father of the nation (later assassinated), had failed. The latter was thrown in prison; revolt broke out and repression too; insurgents in the eastern province proclaimed their state, and this provoked resistance and guerrilla warfare. Without Indian intervention, guerrilla warfare and repression would have continued for years. The legal judgment does not leave any doubt; however, the political and moral judgment wavers. In Africa, Tanzania sent its troops, accompanied by Ugandan refugees, to attack Field Marshal Idi Amin’s bloodthirsty dictatorship. The Tanzanian troops have not yet withdrawn and Uganda has not established relatively stable government. […]

Raymond Aron is a French philosopher, political scientist and journalist.