Considering Intrigue, a Cold war tale

Looking at the Aginter Press, and the attempted intrigue and neo-fascist contamination by the Far Right, which with Portuguese sponsorship, reached into the anti-revisionist movement involves a transnational look at Switzerland and beyond. The contradictions and weakness of the first Swiss anti-revisionist organisation, the Swiss Communist Party, led by Gerald Bulliard, secretary general of the party, provided an avenue for attempts from the Far Right to infiltrate those international forces engaged in anti-colonial armed struggle in Africa through maoist solidarity activity based in Switzerland. This preliminary attempt to unpick the various strands that are woven into a narrative of far right intrigue draws upon the existing literature in the absence of archival evidence or known Marxist-Leninist analysis.


The French leftist daily Liberation reported disturbing allegations that Portuguese documents reveal journalistic cover of the European press service, “Aginter Press” for an international fascist group. Evidence pointed to Aginter director Yves Guillou, alias Guerin Seracy and another Frenchman, Robert Leroy, as being the principle organizers of many of the bomb explosions in Italy associated with a “strategy of tension” including the one in December 1969 at a Milan bank, leaving sixteen people dead and over one hundred wounded. Several leftists are arrested and charged with the bombings and jail on false convictions.

According to Italian police report, Aginter Press served as a cover for an international fascist organization responsible for the planning and execution of many fascist attacks throughout Europe in the late 1960 early 1970s.

It also link group to bombings and counter insurgency and arms traffic. Liberation reported, an investigation by officers of the Portuguese Armed Forces Movement (MFA) that overthrew the Portuguese dictatorship in April 1974, corroborated the findings of the Italian investigation.

On the night of May 2l, 1974, the questioning of one PIDE agent revealed that the Lisbon-based Aginter Press Agency had served as a base of support for PIDE, and as a center for the coordination of the activities of related fascist organizations in other countries.”

 A searched of the deserted offices of Aginter Press, revealed information and archives on the activities of the agency, as well as facilities for the manufacture of false documents. This archive provided the main source for the prime exploration, the French-language study by Frederick Laurent,  L ‘ Orchestre Noir   published in 1978 in Paris.


Propaganda and Intrigue

Swiss Maoism was one of the stories Julia Lovell’s interesting global history of Maoism choose not to dwell on.[i] Certainly it was of negligible effect upon Swiss society but there was a disproportionate interest in the early days of the anti-revisionist movement there, not least due to the presence of, what was thought to be, the centre of China’s propaganda effort based in Switzerland, which aroused the interest of state agencies domestically and externally.

Switzerland, in January 1950, was one of the first Western nations to recognize the People’s Republic of China. Switzerland soon became a hub for the PRC’s diplomatic and trade activities throughout Western Europe, and was regarded as the centre of their propaganda effort in Western Europe. [ii]

The Chinese embassies were often the first call for the curious and did have a supportive role in developing friendship diplomacy, answering queries and supplying material on China such as pamphlets and Chinese magazines (and later the Little Red Book) on request. Adverse comments on the implication of Chinese authorities in the functioning of the friendship associations, proved more speculation than evidence about the role of the Chinese Embassy in Switzerland.

In the early 1960s Switzerland had two large Chinese diplomatic establishments – in Berne and Geneva – as well as the offices of Hsinhua (Xinhua News Agency / New China News Agency). The Berne-based staff in the embassy was larger than that in London, and only the Americans and Soviet embassy staffing was larger. Although Knüsel (2020) notes the Chinese staff included its catering and support staff unlike other embassies which used local services. Sections of the Swiss establishment took the view (shared by intelligent agencies) that Switzerland had been selected to play an important role in China’s strategy on the European continent – a position weakened when the Chinese embassy in Paris was established in 1964. By August 1967, as China withdrew its diplomatic staff worldwide, there were only 37 Chinese diplomats and officials left in Switzerland

A domestic factor was the anti-communist hysteria of the time that had shaped Swiss politics reflected in local media comment on the activities of the Chinese embassy. The Zurich weekly, Schweizer Illustrierte alleged

“It is beyond all question that not only is there gross overstaffing in it, but for years subversive and secret service activities have been organised there for a substantial portion of Europe.” (February 17th 1967)

Commenting on the atmosphere of the time, one journalist observed

“Political and cultural life in Switzerland in the 1950s was characterized by a particularly fervent anti-Communism. This position was sustained by Swiss authorities as they promoted “spiritual national defense,” a policy that consisted—in the struggle against Soviet influence—of subsidies for patriotic works of art or essays and the covert prosecution of citizens (in particular, intellectuals and artists) suspected of having Communist sympathies.” [iii]

The “Schweizerische Aufklärungsdienst” (Swiss Enlightenment Service, known by its initials SAD), founded in 1947 as the private successor to a state propaganda organisation, was a key player. SAD members sought to explain the dangers of Communism at lectures and conferences across the country, often with state financing. Only made legal in 1945 the Swiss Labour Party (Partei der Arbeit, or PdA) was mocked as the “Party of Foreigners” (Partei des Auslands) and its members were declared to be the enemy within. Their premises were attacked, several were fired from their jobs, and others were physically assaulted. [iv]

The Berne office of the New China News Agency provided reports, or propaganda as western commentators inevitably described them, for other pro-Chinese publications and interested parties. In 1963 it was commonly referred to as “a centre for the distribution throughout western Europe of Sino-Albanian propaganda”. The local Swiss media would inform its readers:

“This work, which is conducted by international agents for the cause of Mao Tse-Tung, is naturally supplemented in Western Europe by a heavy interlarding of suitable propaganda materials from the translator’s offices of the Chinese missions. But now everybody knows there are only three of them in Western Europe, namely in London, in Brussels, and in Bern.”[v]

The commercial distribution of magazine like Peking Review[vi] lay with local subscriptions agents often associated with the local communist party thus there was some diversification of suppliers to various non-revisionist groups. In Switzerland Nils Andersson, of a small progressive publishing house in Lausanne, played a part in the distribution of Chinese produced pamphlets stating its anti-revisionist case as well as Pekin Information. Andersson had published books censored in France in the midst of the Algerian war, followed by the publication of Mao Tse-tung’s works in French. Accused of subversion, in1967, the Federal Council voted for his expulsion for “endangering the internal and external security of Switzerland”.

The local Swiss media alleged that another group led by Gerard Bulliard had received large subsidies from the Chinese Embassy in Bern for their publication L’Etincelle over a period of fourteen months.[vii] The Zurich weekly Schwezer Illustrierte claimed Bulliard himself had received about £23,800 (286,000 francs), payment ending when he “lost favour” and the Chinese began supporting Nils Andersson.[viii] The Chinese authorities subscribed to hundreds of copies of Andersson’s Octobre publication through the state bookstore for foreign languages. This import of foreign books and periodicals did help to finance the emerging pro-Chinese movement in Switzerland and elsewhere. The Swiss Federal police had intercepted the order from China in its monitoring of the organisation.

Drawing upon Albanian archives Elidor Mehilli made the observation that in the early 1960s

“Albania’s party devised a special hard currency solidarity fund to assist Marxist-Leninists groups around the world. Initially it consisted of 700,000 US dollars. China issued half a million, and the rest came from internal funds. Here was the ruling party of a country that still struggled to feed its inhabitants, projecting itself as a source of revolutionary activism in the Third World and in Western Europe. In 1964, the party Secretariat disbursed money to marginalized Polish Marxist-Leninists; the Belgian Communist Party; the Communist Party of Brazil; the Communist Party of Peru; the Italian Marxist-Leninist paper Nuova Unita; and groups in Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Columbia. Activists in Australia and Ceylon were hired as foreign correspondents for the party daily. Small sums also went to a coterie of Marxist-Leninist characters in Paris and London (the short lived Committee to Defeat Revisionism, for Communist Unity), as well as in Vienna. The United States-based Hammer and Steel received modest contributions as well.”[ix]

The visits of foreign Marxist-Leninist to Albania were noted by the security forces:  approximately one trip to Albania each year by Swiss Maoists in the period of 1964-1970 and 974-77. These contacts, note Cordoba and Liu, aroused the curiosity of the police and led to a lot of speculation about possible subversion and guerrilla and espionage training camps.[x]

By late 1966, Knüsel (2020) calculates about 50 pro-Chinese organisations were thought to exist in Western Europe. The Embassy in Bern was regarded as been the hub for contact with these organisations, and the Swiss government suspected that the Embassy assisted these groups financially. Chinese officials also collected information about left-wing organisations and their publications.[xi]

Swiss media carried red-scare reports that the Swiss police had proved that the Chinese Embassy in Berne had promoted and supported subversive ventures through Europe. Schweizer Illustrierte alleged that 18 pro-Chinese Austrian communists had been on unspecified training course at the embassy and half a dozen pro-Chinese French communist had been given money and material by the Chinese embassy to split the much larger Moscow-orientated Parti Communiste Français, PCF. (February 17th 1967)

Whereas, unlike the courses provided for some by China’s military training at the Nanjing military academy [see Lovell, Maoism: A Global History] , the Swiss activists annual political pilgrimages to Albania mainly coincided with significant  state and party anniversaries and had the character of political tourism with a more familiar itinerary of factories, schools, cultural events and historical monuments. Other visitors, like the Spanish MLs, had a different itinerary and agenda in Albania.

Politicised friendship as expressed in friendship associations saw the creation of pro-regime groupings throughout Europe, often energised by maoist activists but not always controlled by them. Cyril Cordoba and Liu Kaixuan, building upon dissertation work entitled “Beyond the Bamboo Curtain: Sino-Swiss cultural relations and political friendships (1949-1989)”, discusses the implication of Chinese influence in the functioning of the friendship associations, especially the role of the Chinese Embassy in Switzerland. This was never crudely directive rather a more self-correcting mechanism by members seeking “friendship with China”.

The Associations suisses d’amitié avec la Chine in Switzerland which spread “friendship with China”, were unofficial regarded as part of the global Chinese “foreign affairs [waishi]” system that has attracted academic interest in recent years. The friendship associations throughout the world received material from the Chinese export company Guozi Shudian for distribution at generous discounts, if not free and they could use the benefits of the sales and magazines subscriptions as an important source of income. The role of such associations were part of the people-to-people tier of Chinese foreign diplomacy and while reflecting Chinese foreign policy priorities, they were not lobbying or influencers on their local state although occasional strayed into the realm of foreign diplomacy.

An uncritical allegiance to whatever was coming out of China was a characteristic of most of the friendship organisations that reflected the orthodoxy of supportive analysis whether it was from Maoist activists, young radical academics or old cultural friends of China. No Swiss city had a Chinatown or a district with a form of residential concentration, as one can find in Paris or London. Until the 1970s, the Chinese in Switzerland were few and highly qualified, often diplomats, international civil servants or people from wealthy families.

While active and having membership of the wider association, overall their political importance was peripheral – perhaps offering an introduction to the radical left party, and with the debate over three world theory, an audience and outlet for analysis and a substitute for a more overtly political commitment, they were never simply controlled or run by the Maoist organisations.

The Swiss friendship association took on a different character, suffering a severe reduction in membership after the death of Mao due to political disillusionment. Cordoba and Liu (2018) looking at the cooperation and contradictions between local Maoist parties, friendship associations and Chinese authorities conclude that they finally began to depoliticise – although supporting the post-Mao regime – and professionalise themselves from the 1980s , establishing a travel agency in 1983 and engaging in twinning agreements between Swiss  and Chinese cities. The association failed to survive the negative influence of the 1989 Tiananmen Square repressions, and officially dissolved in 1992.


[i] Lovell, Julia (2019) Maoism: A Global History. London:Bodley Head

[ii] Ariane Knüsel (2020) ‘White on the outside but red on the inside’: Switzerland and Chinese intelligence networks during the Cold War, Cold War History, 20:1, 77-94, DOI:10.1080/14682745.2019.1575368

[iii] David Eugster (2019) How the Swiss viewed Communism in the Cold War years swissinfo.ch  October 2, 2019

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/switzerland-and-the-cold-war_anti-communism–fighting-the-devil-from-the-east/45267504

[iv] In fact, the extent to which the secret services and police tried to document and monitor supposed political infiltration only became clear at the end of the Cold War. The so-called Secret Files Scandal of 1989 revealed that notes had been made on the politically suspicious behaviour of almost 700,000 people. The focus was not just on communists but on anyone who criticised mainstream society: those with any sort of left-wing tendencies, Greens, alternative thinkers, Third World activists, or feminists. Eugster (2019) How the Swiss viewed Communism in the Cold War years

[v] The Pro-Chinese Communists in Switzerland. Neue Zuercher Zeitung , Foreign Edition #306 (Zurich) November 7th 1963 p13

[vi] The English edition of Peking Review/ now Beijing Review was launched on March 4, 1958. Bi-weekly editions in French and Spanish began fortnighly in March 1963, then Pekin Informa became a weekly from January 1964. (The Spanish edition was discontinued around 2004.) A weekly German edition (called Peking Rundschau) began on Sept. 22, 1964. English language archive at http://www.massline.org/PekingReview/

[vii] The Swiss organisation was not amongst the Marxist-Leninist groups recorded as having sent greetings to the fifth congress of the Party of Labor of Albania held in Tirana early November 1966, and published in a 212 paged booklet from the <Naim Frasheri> Publishing House.

[viii] Schwezer Illustrierte February 17 1967

[ix]From Stalin to Mao, Albania and the Socialist World”. Cornel University Press 2017 p218. Activity explored when the Albanian archives opened up to western academics such as the aforementioned Elidor Mehilli and see Nicolas Miletitch, ‘Revelations des archives de Tirana’, Cashiers d’histoire sociale #6 (Spring /summer 1996) pp 83-96

[x] Cyril Cordoba and Liu Kaixuan, Unconditional Followers of the PRC? Friendship Associations with China in France and Switzerland, 1950s–1980s in: Europe and China in the Cold War  Exchanges beyond the Bloc Logic and the Sino-Soviet Split. Brill 2018 Series: New Perspectives on the Cold War, Volume: 6  p101

[xi] Ariane Knüsel (2020) ‘White on the outside but red on the inside’: Switzerland and Chinese intelligence networks during the Cold War, Cold War History, 20:1, 77-94


Intrigues amongst the Comrades

The fractious origins of the anti-revisionist movement in Europe was reflected in some of the relationship between comrades ostensibly on the same side of the ideological barricades which led, regardless of the subjective calls for unity,  to complications in attempts to consolidate the anti-revisionists into an effective expression of international co-operation .

There were multitudes of conflicting relations between  ML groups, domestic rivals (as in Switzerland) and internationally as illustrated in July 1975  when Austrian MLs related to the MLPO Marxist-Leninist Party of Austria,  raise public criticism of the KPD / ML regarding the distribution in West Germany of “Selected Programs of Radio Tirana”  a booklet published by the MLSK-Vienna” .It was available in West Berlin at “practically at all ‘left’ book stores, except the ‘Roter Morgen bookstore’ because the KPD / ML leadership “openly boycott the publication despite a shared allegiance to Albania but part of a wider dispute between the groups.

A decade earlier, in March 1965 L’Etincelle of the Swiss Communist Party stoked up an internecine discord amongst anti-revisionist groups aboard when its supplement announced,

“the Revolutionary and Marxist-Leninist Spanish Communist party (PCERML) had been officially created “by demand of several hundreds of Spanish workers throughout Switzerland, Belgium, France and England… and with the accord of Communists in Spain.”

At the time of the formation of the Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist) in the autumn of 1964, the PSC had called “our Spanish comrades” not to adhere to these new groups which pretend to represent them. (L’Etincelle September 1964). The communique issued on behalf of the PCERML stated that the fault lay with Andersson and the Lenin Centre. L’Etincelle (September 1964) warned against “the sweet words and promises of the Centre Lenine.”

“We announced that in October 1964 the soi-disant Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist) was created in Geneva…Unfortunately, yet another time some adventurers with a large number of Asiatic credits wanted to deceive and throw powder in the eyes of those who closely follow the situation in Spain, and attempted in this way to harvest funds, of which the receivers would never be Spanish.”

Allegations continued claiming the first pro-Chinese Spanish communist party had been a dismal failure,

“Fortunately, thanks to the vigilance of true Spanish Marxists, the false politicians have been unmasked and will be judged as is necessary by the world’s revolutionaries. A page is turned on this sad event, and the Grippa group, falling apart and in flight, will not disappear from the scene more pitifully than it would have lived with foreign funds.”

L’Etincelle also suggested that a second Marxist-Leninist grouping had arisen in Belgium to challenge the Jacques Grippa-led Communist party.

“A delegation of the Swiss Communist Party, led by our comrade Gerald Bulliard, secretary general of the party, recently visited Brussels” The March edition of L’Etincelle reported, “In our next issue, we will publish the joint declaration drawn up between the leaders of the MOVEMENT OF PROGRESSIVE WORKERS OF BELIGUM (Marxist-Leninists) and our leaders. This meeting was fruitful and contributed to the reinforcing of the fraternal understanding between Belgium and Swiss Marxist-Leninists”

The Swiss Communist Party led by Gerard Bulliard  reporting on the creation of an International Revolutionary Front that both the Soviet and Chinese Communist Parties were more concerned with “its own national prestige” than defending the world revolution. Expressing sympathy for both Fidel Castro and Enver Hoxha the PSC sought to “join forces with the comrades of several countries and professing different ideologies but sharing identical goals” in the CFIR – Committee for an International Revolutionary Front – founded in Paris in November 1965. [L’Etincelle No,16 January 1966]

There was a swipe at parties who labelled others “as American agents, an expression quite popular these days and the obsession of the gangster Grippa, in Brussels.”

A known incident of infiltration of the anti-revisionist movement concerns Richard Gibson, the Black American journalist, formerly secretary of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in the United States.   Besides being responsible for the English-language edition of Revolution associated with Jacques Vergès, Gibson was active as an informer and spy for the CIA.[i]

Such activity to establish an ideal vehicle of infiltration was repeated after Bulliard’s explusion from the SCP and under the name of the PPS Parti Populaire Suisse, Italian investigators named Bulliard as an informer for the Servizio Informazioni Difesa (SID) Italian Secret Service when investigating right-wing terrorism around the Galido phenomenon in 1996.[ii]

 “GERARD BULLIARD, former secretary of the pro-Chinese Swiss Communist Party, in contact with the SID from March 1967 to July of that same year, he proposed itself to provide the Service with news on the activities of the pro- Chinese parties in Switzerland and in other European countries, with particular reference to ITALY…. had attended the planning meeting for the foundation on 22-10-1967 in TURIN of the Clandestine Marxist Leninist Revolutionary Front.” [iii]

Busky notes that hopes of forming a “Revolutionary International” had resulted in the establishment of the less ambitious Committee for an International Revolutionary Front, with Bulliard as its secretary.[iv]

The ambition of Bulliard to solidify a network of international groups on the basis of factional activity and without the political support of agreement from China was farcical –Bulliard had complained that “the comrades in Peking would think twice before following certain recommendations by their delegates in luxurious European embassies” – the PSC could not expect recognition or publicity to endorse their actions.

Grippa also complained of China’s lack of distinction between authentic and imposter Marxist-Leninist groups, others were also suspicious of their international colleagues. The British-based activist, William Ash (writing in his 1978 published memoirs) raised the thought that one-time leading European Maoist and veteran communist, Jacques Grippa

“ was quite possibly a Russian agent pretending to be Peking-orientated in order both to mislead…and to render an account to the Kremlin of who the main dissidents were.” [v]

The Belgian party led by Grippa was active in interventions in the arguments of other parties, raising criticism of surrounding revisionist parties in the pages of La Voix du Peuple of the Dutch (March 27 1964) and French (April 10 1964). Attention was also given to the emerging ML groups and judgement was unsparing on the Swiss activities, Grippa complaint to the Albanian authorities of the lack of scrutiny for ideological trustworthiness and proper ML credentials.  The Lenin Centre, whose credentials were impressive, countered the slanders from Bulliard published in L’Etincelle (The Spark), dismissing them as:

“..low provocateurs without any liaison either with the Marxist-Leninist International movement or the militant Swiss workers.” [vi]

Building an international network saw pole of attraction move from Brussels, from Switzerland to Paris with the editorial board of the slickly produced pro-Chinese journal, Revolution but eventually falter on the disengagement in such a project from China, Grippa noted ‘in dealing with us, China’s representatives in Europe were not ideological comrades, but bureaucrats, who feared the consequences of contacting with us’. [vii] 

Accusations and mistrust in pro-China anti-revisionism in Britain was also evident with the Marxist-Leninist Organisation of Britain (who eventually came out in support of Liu Shao-chi rather than Mao) explaining events through a conspiracy prism as a result of intrigues against them and in favour of all the elements supposedly seeking to disrupt the developing Marxist-Leninist Organisation. As far as this minor English group were concerned, they saw themselves as the victims of “the Foreign Ministry and diplomatic service of the People’s Republic of China [that] were already dominated by counter-revolutionary agents of the Chinese capitalist class long before the “cultural revolution” began.” [viii]

Visitors would come for badges and copies of Mao’s Quotations – the Little Red Book- and talks with Chinese officials. Gaining “recognition” was a time-consuming vanity project for some activists seduced by the euphoria of revolutionary opposition. Good relationships with the office of the Charge d’Affaires and the Hsinhua News provided access to material, prestige and a reflective political vindication. There was another side to the relationship as Muriel Seltman’s memoirs observed:

Like others in the so-called Anti-Revisionist Movement, we regularly visited the Chinese Legation for talks on the progress of the ‘struggle’ in England. There was an element of competitiveness in this, each small group vying for the honour of ‘recognition.’ Again, we did not realise that the personnel at the legation were using us for their own advancement and their political fortunes and jobs depended upon the degree to which they could convince their superiors they were recruiting support in England for the Chinese Party. They were probably assessing the likeliest “winners” in the stakes for a new Communist Party. Everybody behaved correctly, of course, but at this time we had no idea that claiming support from abroad was part of the power struggle in China.” [ix]

There was no mention made in the ‘publication of recognition’, the daily bulletins of the Hsinhua News Agency, of the Conference of Marxist-Leninist Unity held in September 1967, nor of the Marxist-Leninist Organisation of Britain set up by that Conference! Except on one occasion, no invitations to receptions and film-shows at the Office of the Chinese Charge d’Affaires were extended to leading members of the group, and people who had long been on the official invitation list of the Chinese Charge d’Affaires office were dropped from it as soon as their membership in the M.L.O.B. became known.

 “It is clearly no accident” claimed the MLOB that an expelled member was closely associated with “the representatives of the People’s Republic of China in London”. Furthermore, “Certain diplomatic representatives of the People’s Republic of China in London went so far as to disseminate verbally slanderous attacks against certain of the leading members of the A.C.M.L.U. and later of the M.L.O.B…. In general, the office of the Charge d’Affaires and the Hsinhua News Agency gave support and publicity respectively to “broad organisations” of friendship with China, such as the “Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding, Ltd.” and the “Friends of China”…. an organisation of friendship with China as one to foster support for the faction headed by Mao Tse-tung; it functions, therefore, as a propaganda arm of the Chinese capitalist class in Britain, and also, through its “leftist”, “revolutionary” pronouncements, as a net to catch anti-revisionists and divert them from the developing Marxist-Leninist Organisation of Britain.” [x]

These feuds and clashes attributed to the rough-and-tumble of politics were, setting aside the conspiracy prism, understandable phenomena but in Switzerland (and as disclosed years later, in the case of the Marxistisch-Leninistische Partij Nederland or MLPN) there were more sinister aspects to the intrigue.


[i] https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/switzerland/notes-revolution.pdf

[ii] Daniele Ganser (2004) NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe. London: Routledge

[iii] SPECIAL CARABINIERI OPERATIONAL GROUPING Criminal proceedings against Rognoni Giancarlo and others. Rome, July 23, 1996

[iv] Busky (2002) Communism in History and Theory: the European experience. Westport: Praeger Publishers. A report by Italian Special Carabinieri Operational Grouping notes the planning meeting for “the foundation of the Clandestine Marxist Leninist Revolutionary Front” on October 22nd1967 in Turin. At the meeting was also present the Swiss Maoist, and source for SID Italian intelligence service, Gerard Bulliard.

[v].Ash, W (1978) A Red Square. London: Howard Baker.

[vi] State spying on dissident groups have a long recorded history, see note xx[vi]

[vii] Marku, Yibel (2017) Sino-Albanian relations during the Cold War, 1949-1978: An Albanian perspective (Doctor’s thesis, Lingnan University, Hong Kong). Retrieved from http://commons.ln.edu.hk/his_etd/11/

[viii] See: Report of the Central Committee of the M.L.O.B. On the Situation in the People’s Republic of China. London: Red Front Special edition, January 1968

[ix] Seltman, Muriel (2010)  What’s Left? What’s Right?  Dorrance Publishing Company, Inc.

[x] MLOB – Red Front, January 1968


Provocations & Infiltration

‘Red China’s Far Right Friends’ makes for an eye-catching headline, peppered with references to interference from its secretive embassies sponsoring far left activities and you have a classic conspiracy scenario.

The attempt to infiltrate the movement in those moments of factional fighting within it during the earlier stages of its history were real, and in perspective, temporarily successful in the case of the use of the PSC.  The argument becomes unstainable, over-extended when construct an interlocking network of relationships to taint a single movement with extensive speculation. There is a picture painted of Far Right infiltration, citing their own publications and using a few examples of actual attempts, as if the exception was the rule.

Flirting with the Left is treated at face value rather than taken as the attempted intoxication and manipulation it tactically represents for the far right activists. A flirtation assumed to be reciprocal, and accepts as factual the Far Right testimony offered, without challenging their printed analysis as an actual reflection of what was happening. As if the ideas expressed by these neo-fascist provocateurs and infiltrators were not questioned, challenged and rejected by the Maoist left at the time. The mainstream interpretations of the relations between Maoists and the Western far right was one of hostile opposition, anti-fascism being one of the active platforms that Maoist militants throughout Europe were engaged evident in any reading of the publications of the time.

An objective presentation of the existing documents and materials, based on the testimonies of the participants and secondary sources is seldom achieved when exploring such topics. A review of the literature has the few examples overstated and repeatedly drawn upon the same source material with a journalistic approach that conditions the narrative.

There is a narrative of a supposed marriage of convenience that side-lines important considerations, and builds upon exceptional incidents to draw a broad conclusion resting on the filmiest of accounts, decontextualized selectivity of the evidence, and subjective desires, their own version of the truth which is not compatible with the others. Compelling evidence is absent, and given the furtive nature of subject unlikely to found.

The use of PSC & the enigma of Bulliard

Gérard Bulliard, expelled from the PvD, as secretary general was the public face of the Swiss Communist Party – PCS created in September 1963.

He had a militant background in Vevey of the Workers Party and Popular Vaudois, section of the Swiss Labor Party, PvD. He had visited Albania in the summer of 1963 before breaking away to establish the PCS. Bulliard had a chequer career in the anti-revisionist movement. Within three months of its founding former members were establishing an alternative, and more successful grouping in the Lenin centre publishing Octobre, and a few months after that Bulliard adopts anti-Chinese positions (whilst remaining anti- CPSU) because of Chinese support for that alternative grouping around the journal Octobre. Described as “Megalomaniac and mythomaniac”, Gérard Bulliard never succeeded in developing his small group, from which he was himself expelled by an “Extraordinary Congress” on May 29, 1967.

The temperamental Bulliard most constant factor, according to the CIA-funded Radio Free Europe, was “a visceral anti-Semitism” speculating which may have eased infiltration by fascists agents. [i]

The subsequent behaviour and politics of Bulliard would suggest a rapid move to the right after his expulsion from the PCS.   He therefore continued his activities, from September 9, 1967, in a group called Parti Populaire Suisse – PPS, led by Marc Chantre, and, under the influence of a former French SS, Robert Leroy, will make the PPS an anti-Semitic organization serving as a cover to far-right that would last until media exposure at the end of August 1969.

The PPS publication retained the name of that founded by Gérard Bulliard who had published 29 issues of l’Etincelle, and of which this new number was presented as the continuator.  An editorial by Bulliard, which specifies that his new party remains pro-Chinese but that “the most concrete example for us as regards the creation of our socialist society is the German Democratic Republic” where Bulliard has just made, in August, a study trip. This stance should raise questions about his anti-revisionist credentials. The paper also publishes several articles, in particular on” the Angolan revolution “, by Jean-Marie Laurent, presented as an” excellent comrade “and who was in fact a former member of the OAS, working with Robert Leroy in Africa then in Italy.

What was disclosed by research following the 1974 Carnation Revolution was that a Lisbon-based “news agency” Aginter Presse had initiated a series of operations aimed at weakening and destroying guerrilla groups fighting for national liberation in Portuguese Africa. These activities were undertaken at the behest and with the direct assistance of the PIDE/DGS which began in 1966. It was argued that “the infiltration of pro-Chinese [Maoist] organizations and the use of this [leftist] cover was one of the great specialties of Aginter”.[ii]

 Aginter Presse correspondents reported

“Pro-Chinese circles, characterised by their own impatience and zeal, are right for infiltration. Our activity must be to destroy the structure of the democratic State under the cover of communist and pro-Chinese activities; we have already infiltrated some of our people into these groups.”[iii]

Aginter found the vehicle to use, an ostensibly Maoist organization headed by Gerard Bulliard. The Aginter man responsible for arranging this was Robert Leroy. It is alleged that with support from the Chinese embassy in Berne, which was believed to be the Chinese overseas intelligence agency’s main headquarters in Europe, Bulliard was persuaded to hire Robert Leroy and other Aginter personnel as correspondents for L ’Etincelle.

Armed with these credentials, Leroy and Jean-Marie Laurent were able to penetrate “liberated territory”in Angola, Guinea-Bissau, and Mozambique in order to “interview” several African guerrilla leaders. After doing so, they engaged in intoxication operations to provoke dissension within the resistance movements, and Robert Leroy later exercised his talents in Italy.

An article in the Italian weekly news magazine ‘L’Europeo’ (November 1974) on the activities of Aginter Press noted that in Africa it planted people inside the national liberation movements. There is a lengthy document, in the records accessed at Caxias prison, setting out the attempt to spring from a Kinshasa jail one Aginter-Press agent arrested “for Maoist propaganda”. [iv]

Laurent, suggests that in addition to their African ventures, Aginter “correspondents” also infiltrated the Portuguese opposition in Western Europe by posing as Maoist journalists. [v]

The work [vi] of Jeffrey Bale challenges what is a complex narrative which, in one line, is that Bulliard’s party was a genuine Maoist organization which was manipulated by Leroy into providing Aginter operatives with legitimate left-wing credentials. This is what Bulliard himself claimed after the activities of Aginter were exposed in revelations after the Carnation Revolution of 1974.[vii]

However American academic Dr Bale disagrees and suggested that Bulliard was himself a neo-fascist provocateur who had consciously established a phony Maoist party which could be used as a cover by the far right.[viii]

That would raise questions about Bulliard’s previous involvement and commitment in the PvdA: was the PSC an existing agent moving into a potentially more radical stream rather than a duped, and increasingly reactionary personality alien to the maoist movement? Is Bale wrong in his assessment?

Bales draws upon a Swiss source to add to the charge with evidence that Bulliard was working as a paid informant for Marc-Edmond Chantre’s virulently anti-Communist Aktion freier Staatsburger organization in 1964, the very same year he formed the PCS.[ix]  Chantre, a former member of the Action Nationale, and his post-war group, (like the Economic League in Britain) compiled a large archive of files on suspected leftists in Switzerland prior to its dissolution. [x]

Furthermore, Bulliard was said to be in contact with Manuel Coelho da Silva (alias “Manuel Rios”), a PIDE/DGS informant within the major anti-Salazarist opposition group, the Comite Portugal Libre in Paris. Adding to the prosecution’s case was that Italian investigators named Bulliard as an informer for the Servizio Informazioni Difesa (SID) Italian Secret Service when investigating right-wing terrorism around the Galido phenomenon in 1996.[xi]

 In other words, Bulliard was undoubtedly for Bale a “player” rather than a dupe. At the time the question of whether Bulliard was a deceived naive or an agent of the extreme right from 1963 was not settled.  Is this web of connections strong enough to support a judgement either way? The argument that there is evidence that as leader of the PCS, Gérard Bulliard, was in fact a neofascist provocateur, and his party a phony organization brings forth a Scottish judgement of unproven. It may well be that Bulliard was reflecting in his eclectic political practice a cultural legacy of the predominate imperialist social democratic ideology of Swiss society.


[i] Kevin Devlin, ‘New Left’ opposition to Swiss CP. Radio Free Europe Release 0317 October 7, 1969

[ii] Laurent, Frederick (1978) L ‘ Orchestre Noir  Paris: Stock. p148. (Unseen)

[iii] Quoted in many accounts including Stuart Christie (1984) Stefano Dell Chiale: portrait of a black terrorist. Refract publication

[iv] https://christiebooks.co.uk/2019/03/aginter-press-and-the-strategy-of-tension-translated-by-paul-sharkey/

[v] Laurent, Frederick (1978) L ‘ Orchestre Noir  Paris: Stock, pp. 148-9, 151

[vi] Bale, J.M. (1994)   The “Black” Terrorist International: Neo-Fascist Paramilitary Networks and the “Strategy of Tension” in Italy, 1968-1974. Doctorate Thesis University of California at Berkeley

[vii] See his letter to the post-coup Portuguese authorities in Laurent, Orchestre noir, pp. 148-51; Bale recommends that for the Bulliard affair, see the 11 April 1975 letter from the SDCI investigators at Caxias to the Portuguese consulate in Paris, plus appended documents in Laurent pp. 148-51.

[viii] See Jeffrey M. Bale, “Right-Wing Terrorists and the Extraparliamentary Left in Post-World War II Europe: Collusion or Manipulation?”. Lobster #18 October 1982:2-18 note 108.

[ix] Citing Claude Cantini, Les ultras: Extreme droite et droite extreme en Suisse. Les mouvements et la presse de 1921 a 1991 (Lausanne: En Bas, 1992), p. 161, note 136. (unseen)

[x] ibid, pp. 89-91;

[xi]   Daniele Ganser (2004) NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe. London: Routledge


Aginter Press

The tangled web of accusation and conspiracy around the exposed intrigue of fascist infiltration and manipulation to achieve their goals in Switzerland that centres on the activities of Aginter Press are based on facts. Aginter Press did attempt to successfully infiltrate via the Parti Communiste Suisse, which was subject to monitoring by Swiss domestic state services. Was the CIA and KGB twiddling their thumbs? Willy Wottreng, a former leading member of the KPS/ML, informed Ariane Knüsel (2020) that when China opened an embassy in Rome, the Swiss Marxist-Leninist Party (KPS/ML) suspected that the Chinese missions in Switzerland were under surveillance and usually travelled to Rome instead of Bern or Geneva whenever they wanted to meet Chinese diplomats.)

Aginter Press (aka “Central Order and Tradition”) was a pseudo press agency set up in Lisbon, Portugal in September 1966, under Salazar’s dictatorship (so-called Estado Novo). Directed by Captain Yves Guérin-Sérac, a Catholic anti-communist activist who had taken part in the foundation of the OAS in Madrid, a far-right terrorist group which struggled for “French Algeria” during the Algerian War (1954-1962), Aginter Press was in reality an anti-communist mercenary organisation. The news agency, simply a cover to allow Aginter’s operatives to travel freely. Besides its journalistic cover, it trained its members in covert action techniques amounting to terrorism, including bombings, silent assassinations, subversion techniques, clandestine communication and infiltration and counter-insurgency.

An internal document summed up Aginter’s key beliefs:

The first phase of political activity ought to be to create the conditions favoring the installation of chaos. [ . . . ] In our view, the first move we should make is to destroy the structure of the democratic state under the cover of communist and pro-Chinese activities. [ . . . ] Moreover, we have people who have infiltrated these groups and obviously we will have to tailor our actions to the ethos of the milieu—propaganda and action of a sort which will seem to have emanated from our communist adversaries.

After 1969, Aginter shifted its focus from Africa to Europe. In this second phase, which lasted from 1969 until Aginter’s formal dissolution in 1974, agency personnel offered their specialized guerre revolutionaries training to a number of authoritarian regimes in Latin America, and were in fact hired to provide it in Guatemala and post-Allende Chile.


For Aginter Press, Robert Leroy was responsible for this “collaboration” who specialized in obtaining information on the left acting on the cover of journalism.  Robert Leroy, imprisoned in France for collaboration from 1945 to 1955, worked for an alleged press agency, Aginter Press, created to promote the infiltration of pro-Chinese organizations in order to use them as cover to approach and liquidate guerrilla leaders in the Portuguese colonies in Africa, installing provocateurs there, creating false resistance groups and infiltrating the Portuguese opposition in exile.

From 1968 to 1970, according to his own admission, Leroy collaborated with Guillou at Aginter until his left-wing cover was “burned” by various journalists and he lost his ability to continue conducting “infiltration and intoxication” operations although disputed sources raise implications in assassination – no proof in the normal corridor of mirrors that speculation leads you down.

 The narrative moves to Italy

The exposure of the contamination in Switzerland is followed up by looking at the activity of Aginter Press elsewhere, specifically its activists in Italy. Here again what came to light followed investigation and exposure of a vast conspiracy by the right wing, in concert with state actors, to use the Left.

The conspiracy narrative ties in the action of Aginter Press and others with the wider existence of the anti-communist Gladio project[i] the Western European network of equipped and trained resistance “Stay Behind” groups to fight a Soviet invasion disclosed in November 1990. Supposedly to thwart future Soviet invasions or influence in Italy and Western Europe, in fact, implicated in a strategy of tension, a campaign of false flag bombings and attempted coup d’état organised by the Italian neo-fascists with support from Masonic Lodge Propaganda Due (P2) and Gladio, NATO’s stay-behind anti-communist networks during the Cold War. The objective of this ‘strategy of tension” was to ensure that leftists and Communists could not come to power in Italy by creating a psychosis of fear of the left among ordinary Italians and a desire for strong, authoritarian government.

The “Strategy of Tension” itself was outlined in a document which came to light in October 1974. Dated November 1969 it was one of a number of dispatches sent to Lisbon by Aginter’s Italian correspondents. The document is entitled “Our Political Activity” which it explains thus:[ii]

“Our belief is that the first phase of political activity ought to be to create the conditions favouring the installation of chaos in all of the regime’s structures. This should necessarily begin with the undermining of the state economy so as to arrive at confusion throughout the whole legal apparatus. This leads on to a situation of strong political tension, fear in the world of industry and hostility towards the government and the political parties… In our view the first move we should make is to destroy the structure of the democratic state, under the cover of communist and pro-Chinese activities. Moreover, we have people who have infiltrated these groups and obviously we will have to tailor our actions to the ethos of the milieu – propaganda and action of a sort which will seem to have emanated from our communist adversaries and pressure brought to bear on people in whom power is invested at every level. That will create a feeling of hostility towards those who threaten the peace of each and every nation, and at the same time we must raise up a defender of the citizenry [sic] against the disintegration brought about by terrorism and subversion… “

The report goes on to describe the political situation in Italy and the emergence of the extra-parliamentary left: “Outside the present contingencies these people are possessed of a new enthusiasm and huge impatience. This fact should be carefully considered. The introduction of provocateur elements into the circles of the revolutionary left is merely a reflection of the wish to push this unstable situation to breaking point and create a climate of chaos…” The unknown author concludes: “Pro-Chinese circles, characterised by their own impatience and zeal, are right for infiltration… Our activity must be to destroy the structure of the democratic State under the cover of communist and pro- Chinese activities; we have already infiltrated some of our people into these groups…”

 According to the Italian Senate report on Gladio and on the strategy of tension, headed by Senator Giovanni Pellegrino, the CIA has supported Aginter Press in Portugal. The Commission stated that:

“Aginter Press was in reality, according to the last obtained documents acquired by the criminal investigation, an information centre directly linked to the CIA and the Portuguese secret service that specialized in provocative operations.”

In the televised testimony of unrepentant neo-fascist bomber Vincent Vinciguerra, he described the international co-ordination by European and American intelligences agencies – referred to as the Berne Club – which had been active during the Cold war period in the internal Italian political battles because of the initial fear of possible PCI involvement in national government.[iii]

Italian magistrate Guido Salvini, in charge of the investigations concerning the 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing, explained to the Italian senators that:

“In these investigations data has emerged which confirmed the links between Aginter Press, Ordine Nuovo and Avanguardia Nazionale… It has emerged that Guido Giannettini [one of the neo-fascist responsible of the bombing] had contacts with Guérin-Sérac in Portugal ever since 1964. It has emerged that instructors of Aginter Press. .. came to Rome between 1967 and 1968 and instructed the militant members of Avanguardia Nazionale in the use of explosives.”


[i] Ganser, Daniele (2004) NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe. London:Routledge

[ii] https://christiebooks.co.uk/2019/03/aginter-press-and-the-strategy-of-tension-translated-by-paul-sharkey/

[iii] Quoted in BBC2 TV three-part Time Watch documentary on Gladio – available on YouTube – broadcast June 1992.


False Flag Operations

This has been built upon and widen to encompass the involvement of far-right terrorist actions in Italy, and Aginter Press played an important role in implementing its “tension strategy” in Italy, and some researchers of the deep state have constructed what they characterise as a  “Nazi-Maoist” operation. This ideological incoherent position is built upon reasoning that it would be in the interest of the CIA to deepen the communist fracture of the Sino-Soviet split therefore its agents strengthen and develop the “Maoist Left”, a senario where, specifically, CIA agents were responsible for encouraging the spread of that ideology (Maoism).

There are example of a phoney left being used to disrupt and disintegrate groups by Dutch and American security forces [i] that saw disruption of a small number of activists, far from the scope of the Western “tension” strategists, and there is nothing novel to suggest that the state infiltrated agents to spy on radical and progressive campaigns but seriously to develop a left, especially Maoist, in opposition to pro-Soviet communism.

It is easy to stray from a focus on the limited extent the Far Right did actually infiltrate Left wing, specifically maoist groups in the 1960s and 1970s into the intoxicating intrigues and manoeuvres that occurred during the covert Cold war period. The extent of material available on the internet is phenomenal as the dimpliest search would demonstrate . Most conspiracy theories (apart from David Ickes and his Alien Reptilian Legacy) tend to be a mixture of facts and imagination. Historical facts provide some scaffolding for other speculations, sometimes plausible with amusing leaps of speculation raising a large number of interesting possibilities, and chiselled details which supports the unfolding narrative included. The narrative such work creates offers the untold account through assertion, assumption and alternatives of evidently undiscovered connections underpinned by deductive reconstruction.

 Like a series of interlocking wheels constructing an intricate mechanism that when critically engaged there are sharply differing assessments by readers. Believability in the story-teller can create the spell of confidence and conviction that purports to provide a sensational account of history, however carefully crafted, but goes against every known piece of public information and revelations from the archives, but still finds ideological partisan support for the conspiracy paradigm.

False flag operations now familiar tools of counter-insurgency strategy, undertaken by the state and its NGO allies, succeeded to discredit, disrupt and destroy progressive and radicals’ movements. Even the accusations raised can have a disproportionate effect as with the characterisation of nazi-maoist stream, in Italy the neo-fascist terrorism associated with Franco Freda. One of the representatives of the sematic oxymoron nazi-maoism was Enzo Maria Dantini, one of the many neo-fascists who were “recruited” in the Gladio network, whose motivation was neither based on materialist doctrines nor to serve the people. 

Not so much as infiltration as contamination was the strategy behind the so-called “nazi-maoist” Franco Freda and Giovanni Ventura, responsible for the bomb attacks at the Milan Trade fair and railway station in April 1969 and Plaza Fontana, Milan on December 12 1969, with blame deflected onto anarchist circles by the far right. Over 150 Italian anarchists were brought in for questioning by Inspector Luigi Calabresi, acting head of the Milan political police squad. One of these anarchists, Giuseppe Pinelli, was thrown from Calabresi’s fourth floor office window to his death in the yard below, or perhaps he was dead prior to the fall.

The fascist movement Avanguardia Nazionale, the organization of the terrorists Stefano delle Chiaie and Mario Merlino, was used for this. Avanguardia neo-fascists “disguised” themselves as “Maoists” promoting the use of Maoist propaganda with posters throughout Italy.  They were never accepted as part of the vibrant Maoist movement in Italy or able to infiltrate and direct the politics of the Maoists regardless of the language they tried to use. There was never a dialogue with the left.

The campaign occurred in 1972 the far right AN “were given the task of putting up maoist posters. This was, in effect, an attempt to create an ‘ultra-left’ even more extreme that the [PCI] communist party” drawing militant support away from them. [ii]

This strategy was seen in operation in Italy where in 1968 a young Italian fascist, Mario Merlino , member of the Avanguardia Nationale (AN)  made attempts to approach Maoist groups boasting of having contacts with the Swiss journal, L’Etincelle. After rebutted after approaching Avanguardia Proletaria, Merlino tried Linea Rossa where he was unknown but exposed when his name appeared in the press in connection with a fascist attack on the PCI headquarters in Rome. He re-emerged in May 1969 when Merlino approached a militant of the Unione del Communisti Italiani (which he tried to join) to hold some material for him. It was fuse wire and detonators. This was shortly after the Palace of Justice had been bombed. A police raid on the militants’ home two days later found nothing, he had previously disposed of the material and Merlino was finished trying to use Italian Maoists.

When the Italy-China Friendship Society was established in Ferrara in 1972 as a vehicle to infiltrate the ML environment, the official Italy-China Society denounced its activities as provocateurs. The exposure and rejection of such approaches from known Far Right activists was the common response from the pro-China groups. Other identified right-wing infiltrators include Domenico Poili (of Ordine Nuovo) and Alfredo Sestili (of AN) who joined the PCI/ML and created confusion before being identified as provocateur. Claudio Mutti, an Italian protégé of Thiriat and associate of the terrorist Stefano delle Chiaie, adopted the name Lotta di Popolo for his involvement with the Italian-Libyan Friendship Society and a pro-Chinese student group.

Relationships of Thieuart

While some on the right advocated working in left groups, the idea that an ideological alliance between such groups never had any traction in the Marxist-Leninist movement. Research into far right conspiracies has unveiled real actual attempts to manipulated and divert groups in Italy but when the likes of Freda, and the Belgian Jean-Francois Thiriart loom large in the narrative of right wing infiltration, they are not surprisingly on the margins of post 1945  mainstream European fascism, and of zero influence on the Left. Immersion in the intricacies of that covert political world and a critique of its methodology and with a critical appreciation of its findings narrows the perspective. The right’s flirting in a one-sided courtship of the Left is taken at face value rather than treated as the attempted intoxication and manipulation it tactically represents for the far right activists.

Among those recycled as evidence is the activity of Jeune Europe a far-right organization on the margin of the fringe Right, it was never engaged with left-wing parties of any political allegiance. It was a failed enterprise. The claim it “sought a rapprochement with Maoist China in order to oust the Americans from Europe” says nothing about Chinese intentions and actions with regard to the group.[iii] Thiriart attempted in vain to obtain Chinese support for Jeune Europe reflects more upon his geo-political ideas, expressed in Empire de 400 million, than a cultivation by the Chinese. Paeans to communist China appeared with increasing frequency in the pages of JE’s publications. See, for example, die 15 October 1964 issue of Jeune Europe: Organisation Europeenne pour la Formation d’un Cadre Politique—the internal bulletin of JE which was sent exclusively to the organization’s militants—which attacked the idea of an “Atlantic Europe” and argued that Europe had to support Chinese imperialism against Russian and American imperialism. In the 27 October 1964 issue of the same bulletin, he went so far as to praise the development of an atomic bomb by China, presumably as a counterweight to the nuclear monopoly of the United States and the Soviet Union.

Pan Europeanism on the far right had been promoted post-war by marginal failures, the likes of the wash-up British fascist, Oswald Mosley and by Jean Thiriart in Belgium. In October 1965, Thiriart dissolved JE and incorporated the rest of his loyal followers into a new organization, the Parti Communautaire Europeen (PCE). Its’ cocktail of conflicting ideological positions and appearance reflected an eclectic and self-declared “national communism” on the artificial construct of racist-based European identity.

Thiriart had planned strategy on a globe: his 1964 blueprint, Europe – An Empire of 400 Million Men’ saw China as a tactical ally as a means of unsettling the Soviet Union. He Argues that neo-Nazis had a “China Option”, the fantasy sketched out by Thiriat is of Chinese financial assistance so that he could organise anti-American attacks in Europe, with China providing finance and sanctuary for his “guerrilla bands”.  However after setting up this straw man argument, adopted the slogan “Neither Moscow nor Washington” calling for a united European homeland: “The Fourth Reich will be Europe, the Reich of the people from Brest to Bucharest”.

Thiriart had said to develop a relationship with Ceausescu’s Romania, being an admirer of its “national communism”.

His attempted cooperation was at a ‘strategic level’ rather than an approach to the domestic anti-Soviet left. Such musings would have been lost and forgotten if were not for a story repeated by commentators on the extreme right.

MEETING CHOU EN-LAI IN BURCHAREST?

“In its initial phase,” Thiriart recounted, “my conversation with Chou En Lai was but an exchange of anecdotes and memories. At this stage all went well. Chou En-Lai was interested in my studies in Chinese writing and I in his stay in France, which represented for him an enjoyable time of his youth. The conversation then moved to popular armies — a subject that interested both of us. Things started to go downhill when we got to concrete issues. I had to sit through a true Marxist-Leninist catechism class. Chou followed with an inventory of the serious psychological errors committed by the Soviet Union.”

Thiriart tried to persuade Chou En-lai that Europe could be an important partner in a united struggle waged by all the world’s anti-American forces, but he made little headway. He then asked the Chinese foreign minister for financial assistance so that he could establish a revolutionary army to carry out anti-American attacks in Europe. An elite military apparatus of this sort also needed a base outside Europe, and Thiriart hoped that China would provide sanctuary for his guerrilla brigades. A sceptical Chou referred Thiriart to contacts in the Chinese secret service, but these never bore fruit.[iv]

The Russian author Anton Shekhovtsov, in Russia and the Western Far Right: Tango Noir, retells the tale of Thiriart that “despite the rupture with the Chinese” – but his previous sentence says “the collaboration with the Chinese apparently never materialised”, so what was the rupture , a non-existent relationship ? But ignore this contradiction because –  the author asserts , “the PCE and European branches of Jeune Europe collaborated with the Maoists at the end of the 1960s.”  [v]

“Thiriart acted as a liaison between the Chinese Embassy, the Parti communiste Suisse/marxiste-leniniste (Swiss Communist Party/ Marxist-Leninist (PSC/ML)) and the Portugal-based Aginter Press.”

However Bulliard’s organisation was the PSC, its newspaper L’Etincelle; he continued publishing it, from September 9, 1967, under the imprint of Parti Populaire Suisse – PPS. It was not until 1972 that the organisation associated with Nils Andersson, the Organization of Communists of Switzerland, adopted the title Parti Communiste Suisse/Marxistes-Léninistes. (Something is a wry)

Returning to the subject of alleged Chinese assignation with the outer fringes of European neo-fascism, Bale asserts that,

 “In 1966, after making contact with the Beijing government through the intermediary of the Rumanian Departmentul de Informatii Externe (DIE: External Intelligence Department), Thiriart traveled to Bucharest to meet with Zhou Enlai. Shortly thereafter, he allegedly began exchanging information about the Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe (SHARPE), and NATO installations in Belgium with Yang Xiaonong, chief of the Parisian bureau of the Xinhua news agency, and Wang Yujiang in Brussels, both of whom were operatives of the Chinese secret service”

Note the use of the adjective: “he allegedly”.  [vi]  In 1962, Yang Xiaonong had became the official Xinhua correspondent in Geneva, causing him to often travel between Paris, Geneva, and Bern, thereby identified as the conduit between the missions in Switzerland and the Embassy in Paris after diplomatic relations between France and China were established in 1964.

Shekhovtsov’s account[vii]  has Thiriart breaking off the collaboration.

The story gets repeated[viii] but no researcher on the Far Right has evidence that tangible cooperation was established; what they have is a story that originates with Thiriat himself,  quoted in De Jeune Europe aux Brigades rouges: anti-americanisme et logique de l’engagement revolutionnaire (Nantes: Ars, 1986 and other editions).

How reliable a creditable witness is he in the absence of collaborating evidence or verifiable details? We know Chou Enlai was on a state visit to Bucharest in 1966 but the rest is speculation and supposition.

In late 1968 the PCE was officially dissolved, after which Thiriart seems to have withdrawn from politics altogether for a number of years, resurfacing with another “ideological transformation” (?) in the 1980s praising the Soviet Union right up to his death in late 1992.

To present the existence of some kind of Thirirat “maoist” movement is gross disinformation and deception. While Thiriart would say  Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were heroes neither Castro nor Che themselves should be blamed : The Left bears no responsibility for the misinterpretations and presentations from the political right as with Franco Freda and other neo-fascist activists in Italy during the late 1960s and the early 1970s of their politics whereas the so-called “nazi-maoists”—assuming that they were not mere provocateurs attempting to disrupt and discredit genuine Maoists with slogans such as “Hitler and Mao united in the struggle”— appropriated symbols and slogans from the radical left, appreciated Mao for what they called his advocacy of an alleged “ascetic warrior mystique”.

There is neither the scope nor focus to delve into the interminable doctrinal disputes amongst, what passes for, fascist intellectuals, advocating an operational alliance. In reality the right-wing activists FAILED to exert any significant influence on the ideas or behaviour of left-wing revolutionaries.[ix]


[i] eg BVD ran the phony Marxist-Leninist Party of the Netherlands, its own newspaper, De Kommunist, written and edited by the secret service. To add authenticity, the party let a handful of other true believers join its otherwise non-existent ranks, telling them that they were part of a network of underground cells. Chinese diplomats in Holland invited the man they knew as Chris Petersen to their mission in The Hague and gave money to help finance a Maoist newspaper secretly edited by the BVD. He was invited for visits to Beijing.

There are US examples: the Ad-Hoc Committee for a Marxist-Leninist Party, the work in Heavy Radicals: The FBI’s Secret War on America’s Maoists (Zero Books, 2015), and A Threat of the First Magnitude—FBI Counterintelligence & Infiltration: From the Communist Party to the Revolutionary Union—1962-1974 (Repeater Books, UK, January 2018). And in Britain, Donal O’Driscoll of the Undercover Research Group writes of the Police Infiltrated of the anti-revisionist Irish National Liberation Solidarity Front (INLSF).

[ii] BBC2 TV three-part TimeWatch documentary on Operation Gladio , part of a post-World War II “Stay Behind” program set up by the CIA and NATO.

[iii] If , or when, access to the relevant Chinese archives are available that judgement could be subject to modification, but in practice there is very little evidence of such intentions (or capabilities) at the time.

[iv] Shekhovtsov (2018) Russia and the Western Far Right: Tango Noir. Abingdon:  Routledge p28

[v]  Ibid Shekhovtsov (2018)

[vi] Bale J.M. (2017) The Darkest Sides of Politics, I : Postwar Fascism, Covert Operations and Terrorism. London: Routledge.

[vii] Sourced to Patrice Chairoff, Dossier néo-nazisme (Paris: Ramsay, 1977), p. 445. (Unseen)

[viii] i.e. Anton Shekhovtsov (2018) Russia and the Western Far Right: Tango Noir. Abingdon:  Routledge and Martin Lee (1997) The Beast Reawakens: Fascism’s Resurgence from Hitler’s Spymasters to Today’s Neo-Nazi Groups and Right-Wing Extremists. London: Little, Brown and Company pp.168- 175.

 In his retelling of the tale, The Beast Reawakens, investigative journalist Martin A. Lee also sources “Right-wing view on foreign affairs,” Patterns of Prejudice, May-June 1967 and C. C. Aronsfeld, “Right-wing flirtation with a Chinese alliance,” Patterns of Prejudice, July-August 1969; “Right-wing over the East,” Patterns of Prejudice. September-October 1968. (Unseen)

[ix] The very opposite consequences occurred with the political defection to the left casually the impression of a web of influence and causality in the connections is created. So referring to Claudio Mutti, a leading figure in Giovane Europa, the Italian branch of the Jeune Europe, as a member of the ‘nazi-maoist’ Organizzazione Lotta di Popolo (Organisation of People’s Struggle) established in 1969 by Serafina Di Luia, a member of the Avanguardia Nazionale connected to the Aginter Press and influenced by Thiriart’s ideas, tries to build an alliance of collaboration in the mind of the reader.

Whereas the consequences was that for some individuals there may have been transformation in their thinking; this in 1971 a founding member of Giovane Europa, Claudio Orsoni would create the Centre for the Study and Application of Maoist Thought. Was that part of the deception? Fascist journalist, Pino Bolzano went onto lead the daily paper of the extreme Left group Lotta Continua. Former associate of Thiriart would join the Marxist-Leninist Italian Communist Party before going on to found the Red Brigades radical leftist organization which was active in the 70s and 80s in Italy. The forementioned Claudio Mutti would form the Italian-Libyan Friendship Organization after Muammar Gaddafi took power in Libya, and later meet Russian demagogue Aleksandr Dugin in the1990s before arranging for Thiriart to visit Russia.


Main Readings

Main sources drawn upon the French-language work of Laurent Frederick (1978) L ‘ Orchestre Noir Paris: Stock. Work based primarily on documents discovered at PIDE and AP headquarters by leftist officers of the MFA Movimento des Forcas Armadas and the Aginter-Press archives then held in Caxias prison.

Bale J.M. (1994) The “Black” Terrorist International: Neo-Fascist Paramilitary Networks and the “Strategy of Tension” in Italy, 1968-1974. Thesis University of California at Berkeley

Bale J.M. (1989) Right-wing terrorists and the Extraparliamentary Left in post-world war Two Europe: Collusion or manipulation. Lobster #18 October 1982:2-18

Christie, Stuart (1984) Stefano Dell Chiale: portrait of a black terrorist. Refract Publication

Ganser, Daniele (2004) NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe. London: Routledge

Lovell, Julia (2019) Maoism: A Global History. London: Bodley Head

Lee, Martin (1997) The Beast Reawakens: Fascism’s Resurgence from Hitler’s Spymasters to Today’s Neo-Nazi Groups and Right-Wing Extremists. London: Little, Brown and Company

Richards, Sam (n.d.) Against Lies, Provocations & Infiltration. Unpublished MS

Shekhovtsov, Anton (2018) Russia and the Western Far Right: Tango Noir. London: Routledge

Special Carabinieri Operational Grouping – Eversion Department

Criminal proceedings against Rognoni Giancarlo and others . Annotation on psychological and unorthodox warfare activities,(psychological and low density warfare ) carried out in Italy between 1969 and 1974 through the “AGINTER PRESSE” . Rome: July 23, 1996.

[Original : RAGGRUPPAMENTO OPERATIVO SPECIALE CARABINIERI – Reparto Eversione –

Procedimento penale nei confronti di ROGNONI Giancarlo ed altri.

Procedimento penale sulla Strage di Piazza della Loggia – Nuovo Rito.

Annotazione sulle attività di guerra psicologica e non ortodossa, (psychological and low density warfare) compiute in Italia tra il 1969 e il 1974 attraverso l’ “AGINTER PRESSE”.


As reported by the American alternative news service,  LIBERATION News Service (#677) February 12, 1975

The Formation of Aginter Press

But the Portuguese documents tell a different story. According to them, Aginter was formed in 1962 largely by former members of the German Gestapo and the French Secret Army Organization (OAS). With strong links to PIDE, Aginter quickly offered its agents courses in sabotage, espionage and terrorism. These “skills” were learned primarily from their experience in the OAS during the war for Algerian independence in the late fifties and early sixties.

After 1965, with the help of PIDE funding, the agency began a coordinated effort to infiltrate European left and extreme left movements.

At the time, their activities were concentrated in Italy, France, Switzerland and Germany.

According to the archives in Lisbon, Aginter also developed into a recruitment and training program for rightist terrorists and mercenaries operating throughout the world. The documents say Aginter provided lessons in sabotage and counterinsurgency programs, as well as a manual of instructions on how to resist interrogation.

Aginter was involved, as well, in counterrevolutionary activities in the 1960s in many African countries such as Guinea-Bissau, the Congo (now independent Zaire), Gabon, Senegal and Angola.

The documents also link the former press agency to a network of European neo-Nazi organizations currently active throughout Europe such as Europe Action, the Black Order (an Italian organization with suspected involvement in a recent conspiracy for an ultra-rightist takeover of the Italian government), and the New European Order.

And the archives are said to name several high ranking political figures in France and Germany as involved in these organizations.

In the most recent development, dozens of rightists met in Lyons, France, December 27, 28 and 29, 1974, at a quiet congress of the “New European Order.” They represented fascist organizations in France, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Denmark and Latin America. The meeting also included Czechoslovakian and Yugoslavian exiles, according to the New York Times report.

Among the participants was Yves Guillou, former director of Aginter Press.

“New European Order” was founded in 1951 by former Nazis who escaped execution at the end of World War II. Its founders still head the organization. They are Gaston Amaudruz, former Gestapo agent now living in Lausanne, Switzerland, a Swedish Nazi named Per Engdahl, and Maurice Bardeche from France.

A declaration issued after the congress demanded the immediate release of Nazi war criminal Rudolf Hess, still in jail in West Germany. The Order says Hess has been “imprisoned for more than thirty years for having wanted to re-establish peace, along with numerous comrades who fought for Europe.”

Among others mentioned by the Order’s declaration was Jacques Vasseur who, according to Le Monde, was well known to the French resistance as a collaborator with the Gestapo in France.

Following the conference came a report from Italian magistrates revealing a heavy arms traffic from Marseille to Africa, controlled by “MGM,” an Italy-based import-export agency, controlled by European fascists.

Formed in the early ’70s, its alleged purpose is “the acquistion and sale of all commercial products,” but the organization, it has been revealed, is mainly involved in buying heavy military equipment including tanks, bomber planes, missiles and submachine guns. The Italian investigation has linked several Italian participants at the fascist congress in Lyons with MGM.

MGM apparently buys arms from French, Swiss and Belgian manufacturers, through two middlemen, Gilbert Lapeyrie, a former Gestapo agent, and Cesar Dauwe. The arms, then, have been primarily sold in Africa. Dauwe was arrested and temporarily freed when his involvement with an arms shipment bound for Ghana was discovered.

“What is particularly disturbing in this affair,” wrote the French paper, Liberation, recently, “is that fascists can control a flow of arms of such importance and particularly to Africa. You can count those who are capable of selling these kinds of weapons on the fingers of one hand. And when you understand the French and American interests in this area, it’s clear that this traffic couldn’t take place without their knowledge.”


Ian Greig (1924-1995)

Died aged 70 at Chichester, West Sussex on October 12, 1995.

Long gone, Gerald Ian Greig has faded in the consciousness of many but he played his part in maintaining an obsessive rabid anti-communism that poisoned political life in Britain. A sympathetic obituary noted, “Greig was identified by those unsympathetic to his views as a fully paid up member of the ”reds under the bed” school of thought.”  His professional life ending as Deputy Director of the Foreign Affairs Research Institute, a right-wing “think tank” policy group that focused on the communist threat, and his written output would only substantiate that characterisation.

Born in West London, October 26, 1924, he travelled the route of public school, army, and political journalism familiar in many upper middle class life stories. [i]

In 1942, upon leaving the incubator of Chandos House at Stowe independent school in Buckingham, Greig was commissioned at the age of 18 in a cavalry regiment seeing service in Holland after the D-Day landings. He remained in the Army after the war and time spent in Palestine was said to have stimulated “his lifelong fascination with terrorism and its methods.”

 After a spell as a Conservative constituency, he went into journalism. His informal political contacts were on the right of Britain’s political right. Much of his written output under the name ‘Ian Greig’ had sources  drawn from a reading of public documents and statements published by communists, what is described as “official reports of western Governments” (including the briefing reports of the  small circulation newsletters) and “the statements of defectors who actually took part in the events described”.

In 1961 he was a founding organiser of the Monday Club, a hard right pressure group, separate organisational from the Conservative Party but populated with its members, and others from the Far Right. The thirty-six year old Greig served as Membership Secretary until 1969.

The Monday Club was a reaction (and reactionary), dubious about the rapid decolonisation of Africa foreshadowed in Macmillan’s ”wind of change” speech to the South African Parliament, which illiberal Tories saw as the last straw. The club stated that Macmillan had “turned the Party Left” and attracted Conservatives who looked for leadership to the Marquis of Salisbury.

 They were in that racist colonialist way disparaging about the former colonies’ ability to rule themselves satisfactorily and worried about the opportunities this offered the communists to further their strategic aims.  Ian Greig’s Monday club opposed what it described as the “premature” independence of Kenya, and the breakup of the Central African Federation, which was the subject of its first major public meeting in September 1961. It was fundamentally opposed to decolonisation, and defended white minority rule in South Africa and Rhodesia. Or as the obit in the Glasgow Herald politely put it: The group published papers on South Africa and Rhodesia and remained well disposed to the Smith regime after it declared UDI in 1965.

The soft-pedalling of Greig’s opinions continued with a reference that:

Certainly he shared the views of those like retired General Sir Frank Kitson that more should be done to prepare the armed forces to cope with terrorism.

In fact Ian Greig was a former Senior Executive of the Institute for the Study of Conflict,[ii]  a right-wing propaganda group established by Brian Crozier in 1970. It ran until 1989 and produced a series of reports on terrorism, guerrilla war, union activism and other topics. Institute offered professional and authoritative-sounding analyses, both for the general public and for more specialised audiences of academics, policy makers, police officials, and military commanders. It provided respectability to right-wing and repressive policies, primarily through its dissemination of academic presented studies.[iii] It also developed connections with other right-wing organisations and offered training on ‘subversives’ to police and the military.

 His life was spent around the networks of power, lobbying, public relations and the communications activities that operate as keyboard warriors in the shadows, away from accountability the various “think tanks” of AIMS and Common Cause and others were outlets for his work. Greig’s prolific published themes reflected the anxieties of a section of the western political class as seen in an incomplete bibliography of books and briefings compiled from Foreign Affairs Publishing – postal address one-time above the shops at Arrow house, 27-31 Whitehall, SW1A 2BY. These were reviewed in foreign affairs journals, bought by the university’s libraries (see Trinity College Library Dublin) and included on undergraduate reading lists even today, and of course, digitalised.

The first to gain attention was The Assault on The West published in 1968 / 14 editions published between 1968 and 1974 in English and Chinese (Taipei: Youth Cultural Enterprise (1974))

Greig’s book The Assault on the West (1968) spelled out the dangers which he believed insufficiently alert western democracies faced from expansionist Communism aided by those engaged on internal subversion. It carried an approving preface by a close friend of Sir Alec Douglas-Home who shared his political views on the dangers of Communist expansion.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home (1903 -1995), served as Foreign Secretary then Prime Minister from October 1963 to October 1964. Narrowly defeated in the 1964 UK general election, Douglas-Home resigned the party leadership in July 1965. Noted for his forcefully expressed anti-communist beliefs, Home’s description of it as “a careful and detailed analysis of the multifarious ways in which they deal in subversion” reflects the cold war mentality that there was only one side as the problem. The focus on a grand narrative of expansion and subversion discounted western policies, the rhetoric of roll back and containment, and actions that created conditions for international mistrust and tension. The imperialist self-interest in his anti-communist crusading was subtly acknowledged:

The advertised aim of this “study of communist political warfare techniques [was] to present a general survey of the strategy and tactics employed by International Communism in its bid for world domination…..The main thrust of the communist offensive is now being centred upon attempts to gain control or influence over the developing countries of Asia, Africa and South America in which areas of the world the West’s vital sources of raw material lie.”

Work that followed reflected the angst of the age when resistance and liberation at home and abroad threatened the status quo, when linking arms and running down the Strand was an act of sedition.


Today’s Revolutionaries: a study of some prominent revolutionary movements and methods of sedition in Europe and the United States

14 editions published between 1970 and 1971 in 3 languages

Subversion: Propaganda, Agitation and the Spread of People’s War (1973)

5 editions published in 1973 

The Communist Challenge to Africa: an Analysis of Contemporary Soviet, Chinese and Cuban Policies (1977) Foreign Affairs Publishing now Richmond, Surrey based. 26 editions published in 1977 

Lord Chalfont’s endorsement in the book reflects part of the nexus of interlocking like=minded people and groups on the anti-communist landscape that sought to bolster and underpin the ideological authority that defended the West by attacking the East. He agrees that “many Western observers have come to the conclusion, reached some time ago by Chinese foreign policy experts, that the Soviet Union is engaged upon a programme of global expansion – that the Russians are, in effect, the new imperialists.” [A topic for a different posting]

According to the distorted and selective worldview  of people like Greig, the West’s rush to decolonize left an open door for the world’s new colonizing super-power – Russia. When Russia and, to a lesser extent China, moved through that door, the stage was set for the chaos and bloodshed that has become part and parcel of life on the continent. Written to make it plain that “foreign Communism is using the “liberation” of Africa as a stepping stone to its self-proclaimed goal of world domination.” South Africa, South West Africa and Rhodesia are clearly obstacles on the way to this goal – obstacles that Moscow would very much like removed – which was why, in the face of the national liberation armed struggle such racist white minority rule was defended by so many in Greig’s Monday Club and beyond.

Greig’s dire warning continued in numerous articles, through the Foreign Affairs Research Institute newsletter and in East-West Digest, of the threat to the West. Throughout 1977 churning out

  • East-West Digest: ‘Some recent developments affecting the defence of the Cape route’
  • Foreign Affairs Research Institute paper: ‘Moscow’s control over Mozambique and Angola’.
  • Foreign Affairs Research Institute paper: ‘Barbarism and communist intervention in the Horn of Africa’ by Ian Greig.
  • Foreign Affairs Research Institute paper and East-West Digest: ‘The need to safeguard NATO’s strategic raw materials from Africa’.
  • Foreign Affairs Research Institute paper: ‘The escalating Soviet and Cuban involvement in Africa’ by Ian Greig.

Africa: Soviet Action and Western Inaction (1978)

Iran and the lengthening Soviet shadow (1978)

The Ultra-Left Offensive Against Multinational Companies: Moscow’s Call for World Trade Union Unity (1979) 9 editions published between 1978 and 1980

The continuing crisis in Iran (1979) with James Philips

The security of Gulf oil (1980)

The need to respond to Soviet military pressure in the Third World (1980)

Soviet bloc activities in Africa (1980)

The emerging nature of the Soviet grand design (1980)

A new shadow falls on the Gulf (1981)

They mean what they say : a compilation of Soviet statements on ideology, foreign policy and the use of military force (1981) 7 editions published in 1981 

East Germany’s continuing offensive in the third world (1982)

The extent of Soviet support for African “liberation movements” revealed: report to the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 1982.

Soviet global power projection at the third world (1982)

The police under attack (1986) published by AIMs for Industry , an anti-trade union group , associated with Michael Ivens, in defence of free enterprise and freedom, publishers of the red scare material like  Reds under the Bed, Aims of Industry (January 1974)

Terrorism: a brief survey of the extent and nature of the threat from terrorist groups in Europe [and] in the Middle East (1987) published by Common Cause

The Second World War and Northern Ireland (1990)  published by Friends of the Union founded in 1986 by 16 Tory MPs and eight peers to maintain the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The organisation was wound up in 2006

Greig’s career across the gamut of right-wing causes marks him out as yesteryear’s shadow warrior upholding the Unionist cause, he wrote several pamphlets on Northern Ireland, some dealing with the influence of ultra-left groups.


[i] ) Ian Greig (Obituary), Glasgow Herald 4 November 1995. 

[ii]) Its history and operations quite exposed, and studied eg Michaels, J. H. (2014). The Heyday of Britain’s Cold War Think Tank: Brian Crozier and the Institute for the Study of Conflict, 1970–79. In Transnational Anti-Communism and the Cold War (pp. 146-160). Palgrave Macmillan

iii)  Including Bertil Haggman’s 1975, Sweden’s Maoist “subversives”: a case study. Conflict studies, no. 58

45. Guilty to the charge of promoting revolution

The struggle of all the people in the world against American imperialism will be victorious! 1965

but exporting revolution?  


The revolutionary internationalist orientation that defined Chinese foreign policy during the 1960s occurred against the background of the struggle against modern revisionism within the international communist movement. The polemics assisted many revolutionaries in breaking away from the old, reformist politics that had long dominated communist parties in many countries. Revolutionaries built new anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organizations and parties. A great many activists and organisations uncritically adopted the positions of the Communist Party of China led by Mao, looking towards Beijing as much as previous communists had looked to the Soviet Union for inspiration and guidance. The importance of Maoist China offering a genuine alternative to USSR communism, providing intellectual and practical support to rebels and revolutionaries throughout the world, had a receptive audience of foreign friends of China. There is deservedly a whole library of writing and discussion on China’s foreign policies, this post focuses narrowly on one idea that was once levelled against the People’s Republic under Mao Zedong.

China was a model in the struggle for national liberation. Chinese leaders expressed the belief that China’s experience was directly applicable to the circumstances in many other countries. As the self-styled leader of newly independent and developing nations, termed the Third World, China supported many struggles in Asia, Africa and Latin America. These struggles were seen as part of a global movement in which “the countryside” (i.e., the peripheral states of the Global south) would rise against and conquer “the cities” (the countries of the developed and industrialized Second and First Worlds). The similarities with the CCP’s own struggles during the Yan’an era were obvious.

What developed was the theoretical understanding that the experience in China had a universalist and historic ramifications for the communist project. Samir Amin succinctly highlights the importance of Mao’s analysis contained in his On New Democracy report:

“This thesis held that for the majority of the peoples of the planet the long road to socialism could only be opened by a “national, popular, democratic, anti-feudal and anti-imperialist revolution, run by communists.” The underlying message was that other socialist advances were not on the agenda elsewhere, that is, in the imperialist centres. Such revolutions could not possibly take shape until after the peoples of the peripheries had inflicted substantial damage on imperialism.”[i]

revolutionary struggles

Militancy and support for worldwide revolution peaked during the Cultural Revolution, when China’s outlook on liberation struggles seemed to take its cue from Lin Biao’s famous 1965 presentation “Long Live the Victory of People’s War!” This speech predicted that the underdeveloped countries of the world would surround and overpower the industrial nations and create a new communist world order. While Lin’s statement focused exclusively on the U.S. as the target of revolutionary struggle, to the exclusion of the other Western imperialist powers, and downplayed the possibilities for revolutionary struggle in the imperialist countries, it had a powerful revolutionary thrust.

Ironically what is well documented is U.S. efforts to destabilize and eventually utilizing the CIA in place of the Pentagon, and creating instability and chaos to topple governments that defied Washington. Fermenting counter-revolution and armed intervention has been an open element in US foreign policy. While China supplied revolutionary groups with rhetorical and, in some cases, material support, the ideological crusade that came from China stressed the importance of revolutionaries in each country working to their own conditions. Given China’s own level of development, support for the friendly nations and political/revolutionary parties in Asia, Africa and Latin America, was demonstrated, symbolically in its publishing programme and, in various posters.[ii] Less public material aid was supplied but seldom advertised.

The culture and politics of Maoist China permeated global radicalism in the sixties often that impact through enthusiasm for Maoism driven by what non-Chinese understood the revolutionary line of Chairman Mao to be. Whilst militant diplomacy[iii] would expressed full sympathy and support for the heroic struggle, thanks for profound friendship and that the just struggles of the peoples of various countries in the world support each other, the expectations, and advice, was that:

It is imperative to adhere to the policy of self-reliance, rely on the strength of the masses in one’s own country, and prepare to carry on the fight independently even when all material aid from the outside is cut off. If one does not operate by one’s own efforts, does not independently ponder and solve the problems of the revolution in one’s own country…but leans on foreign aid—even though this be aid from socialist countries which persist in revolution—no victory can be won, or be consolidated if it is won.”[iv]

protest

Revolutionary Self-Reliance


 From the Chinese side there was no attempt to instigate a political culture of uncritically accepting the authority of the Communist Party of China or form a Comintern that would try to marshal parties around the world into line. The relationship with the CPC illustrates that, regardless of what pro-China communists might desire, the Communist Party of China did not seek to reproduce the ‘Socialist camp’ as it had existed with an unquestioned “leading” party. Instead an anti-revisionist trend arose from the Sixties that were not consolidated on an organisational basis. There was no “Beijing centre” to rebuild and lead component sections of a “Maoist International”. China’s communist party rejected the patriarchal party model of the Comintern and had no intention of mirco-managing a Maoist tendency or elevation peoples’ war as a criteria of acceptance. At one point in the late Sixties (as discussed below), Indian supporters influenced by Lin Biao, sought to promote Mao and China’s path as their own. This was swiftly criticised by the CPC. The liberation of a nation from imperialism, and of an oppressed people from its ruling class, could be the work only of the oppressed people themselves. From its own experience the Chinese Communist Party has learnt the importance of self-reliance.

With the dissolution of the Comintern during World War Two, Mao argued that it was “not necessary, at the present time, to have an international leading centre”, indeed, it was impractical as the internal situation are more complex and change more speedily and Mao argued, correct leadership must therefore stem from a most careful study of these circumstances.

Comrade Mao Tse-tung further pointed out: ‘Revolutionary movements can be neither exported nor imported. Although there has been help from the Communist International, the creation and development of the Chinese Communist Party were a result of the fact that there is a conscious working class in China itself. The Chinese working class had itself created its own party.[v]

In its practice and pronouncements, the Communist Party of China offered no encouragement to the resurrection of a Comintern like structure to its foreign supporters. There had been a mushrooming of parties with several organisations vying for political dominance within each country. There were exceptions with sole recognition given to parties such as the Communist Party of Australia (ML) led by Ted Hill and the Wilcock-led Communist Party of New Zealand established early fraternal relations with the Chinese Party, as did those parties engaged in armed insurrection in the Maoist stronghold of South East Asia (Philippines, Malaya, Thailand and Burma).

Elsewhere, Italy provides a typical European example whereby the Chinese-recognised Communist Party of Italy (Marxist-Leninist) -PCI (ML) – having at least seven rival ML groups and factions claiming a Maoist allegiance throughout the early seventies. In Germany, students “went about forming any number of brand new Marxist-Leninist parties-a new party in every city, it sometimes seemed. That became a big tendency in West Germany, bigger than in France and the other countries of the West.”[vi] By early seventies the number of ML groups numbered some 152 alone for Germany [vii]

Selecting one organisation amidst that fragmentation would have been very difficult. When Mao died in 1976 over a hundred Maoist organisations telegrammed their sorrow at the lost of the Great Helmsman. Understandably, there was the general expression for Marxist-Leninists to ‘unite’, from the CPC.

China’s relations with ideologically sympathetic organisations were to be characterised by self-reliance and an equality of status between organizations: not the relationship of a patriarchal father party and son party and the corollary of non-interference in party relationships   A well-publicised exception was Chinese relations with the Japanese communist parties. There was a breakdown in relations initiated by Mao Zedong in 1966 and subsequent CPC efforts to splinter the Japanese party by encouraging pro-Chinese Japanese communists.[viii]

China’s ideological allies, lacking the multi-lateral structures that would co-ordinate political line, could not comprise an organised international bloc; bilateral relationships were more suited to the argument for equality and non-interference in other parties’ affairs. Commenting on CPC-Comintern relations, in a 1960 speech, Zhou Enlai, said the Comintern failed in its general calls with the realities of different countries and it gave specific instructions to individual Parties instead of providing them with guidance in principles, thus interfering in their internal affairs and hindering them from acting independently and bringing their own initiative and creativity into play.[ix]

In the Seventies CPC had retained relations with parties that did not fully agree with its analysis. Thus while the AKP (ML) shared the CPC’s concerns about Soviet intentions it sharply differed with the Chinese admiration of European Unity, publically criticising the Chinese ambassador in 1972 for his favourable remarks regarding European co-operation and were prominent in the ‘No Campaign’ in the referendum against Norway becoming part of the European Community.[x]

Chou En-Lai’s comments to a 1970 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) delegation were that the Communist Party of China was not leading struggles outside of China and that regardless of his international prestige as a revolutionary, Chairman Mao led no other party other than the Chinese Party.[xi] In the published notes[xii] of discussions with Chou Enlai and Indian revolutionary, Soren Bose, the point was repeatedly and emphatically made by the Premier,

The revolution of each country has its own characteristic. Therefore, I tell you, Comrade Bose, that a fraternal party is after all a fraternal party. This is not the same party; because in each country, it has different historical background, environment, and different historical development so to win revolution in   that   particular country, we must integrate Marxism-Leninism with the concrete condition of that country, and on that basis formulate a correct Marxist-Leninist line.

Comrade Chou reinforced this basic line throughout his encounters with foreign Marxist-Leninists, “By seeking truth from facts, we mean, the Indian revolution should rely upon the Indian Leftist comrades through their revolution to work out their own correct political line and also through their revolutionary practice, train and steel their own leadership and in this regard no other party can do instead of them.”

hammer

In reply to Soren Bose comment that “In the present International Communist Movement, Chairman Mao has his authority.” Chou En-lai argued, “To respect the – great Marxist-Leninist leader of the world is one thing and to take him as the leader of another party is quite another.”

After Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, in the present day, Chairman Mao has persisted in truth of Marxism-Leninism and persisted in the principle to the highest degree and persisted in fighting against imperialism, revisionism, and world reaction and in big country like China, consisting of 1/4 of total population of the world, pursued the revolution of the proletariat This has made world people happy and also look forward to China”.   He added,” if we copy many of the instructions made by Chairman Mao to   the Chinese party and to the Chinese revolution, transplant all this to the Indian revolution that will not be correct. As comrades-in-arm and students of Chairman Mao …. it is not possible for us to offer you any information which is better than what you decide. So this is unnecessary and also impossible.

Indian Maoists was seen as drawing on an extrapolation of the Chinese experience expressed in Long Live the Victory of People’s War published in 1965[xiii] and mechanically applying “China’s Road” in India. The slogan that “China’s Chairman is Our Chairman”, for Indian Maoists, both opposed Indian chauvinism and signalled agreement with Chinese views on ‘modern revisionism’. However, in rejecting the significant of patriotism and nationalism, it ignored important elements inherent in the Chinese revolutionary experience.

…. Therefore, we ask the CPI (M·L) to consider. If you say CPC is a party of leadership and Chairman Mao leader of your party this is not proper. To be frank, this is not in correspondence with Mao’s thought and this is what Chairman Mao has constantly opposed. In 1957, at Moscow conference held by fraternal parties, Chairman Mao said that we opposed the patriarchal party. So saying, this not only referred to Khrushchev but also to Stalin. In his life time Stalin, in some of his information given by him to Chinese revolution, was wrong. Of course, Stalin was a great international communist and his merit outnumbered his demerits. On the question of opposing patriarchal parties some of fraternal parties agree with us, but some disagree. But those persons like Khrushchev disagreed. Nowadays the Soviet revisionist renegade clique still uses this tactics to direct those parties under the dictatorship. But their baton is less and less effective now.

……..

In view of the historical lessons in the present struggle against modern revisionism, it is duty of our party and your party as well as other fraternal parties fighting against modern revisionism to exchange information and help each other. But if we want to set up with reluctance an international organization, there will be mistakes. Now the situation is quite different from those during the days of the October Revolution. Now the situation has become more and more complicated…. the world is so vast that it is not possible for a party to know the conditions in different countries. And each party has its own historical conditions. Each country’s revolution is in different stages and also it is different in nature. It is only possible for the revolutionary party of a certain country to integrate the universal   truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete condition of that country..

 Chairman Mao said, when – the leftist parties come to contact with us, we should receive them and exchange views with them But it is improper for some party to try to set up an international organization and treat our party as a party of leadership just as some parties did to the CPSU. This is not proper. There are so many historical lessons in this field. By doing so, we cannot help the fraternal parties their ability of being independent and having initiative in their hand. On the contrary, to rely upon the opinions of a big party is very dangerous and it is bound for us to commit mistakes. It is so dangerous that when we do not know the conditions well, but we try to give opinions to direct certain parties. Therefore, our fraternal parties should keep in touch with each other on an equal footing and all the fraternal parties should have independence and initiative in deciding things; and this is question on which the success and failure of the revolution depend

….Now the world is divided into different nations and different countries. Though the pro-nationalism is the common thing for all of our parties but in making revolution, we should start from the specific conditions of our own country. So, in making revolution we must take into full account our national characteristic. If we regard the leader who is directing the revolution in another country as our own leader, this is not good because this will hurt the national feelings of that country and the working class of that certain country does not think it welt. So, we say, this is not proper in the fields of theory as well as practice.

Mao’s own attitude was evident in comments written on a memorandum submitted by the Liaison Office of the Party Centre, in December 1970:

Concerning certain foreigners, one should not seek their recognition of Chinese thinking. One should only expect their recognition of the contribution of the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the practice of their own national revolution. This is a fundamental principle. I have said this many times before. As for their thinking, if in addition to Marxism-Leninism, there is some unhealthy ideology, they have to sort it out themselves. We should not consider this as a serious problem and talk with our foreign comrades about it.[xiv]

However, Marxism-Leninism knows no national boundaries and is the property of the people of the world. Thus China actively, especially through the foreign language printing program, promoted the study of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tsetung Thought throughout the world. Utilising radio broadcast, media and individual relations with foreign friends, they did advocate that , in the title of an editorial later published as a pamphlet, Mao Tsetung Thought was described as the “COMPASS FOR THE VICTORY OF THE REVOLUTIONARY PEOPLE OF ALL COUNTRIES[xv] However the core message remained unchanged, as explained in Rennin Ribao editorial, September 18, 1968: “The Japanese revolution will undoubtedly be victorious, provided the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism is really integrated with the concrete practice of the Japanese revolution.” This was said to be of extremely important and far-reaching significance not only for the revolutionary cause of the Japanese people – you can substitute any people here – because it was also for the revolutionary cause of the people of all other countries.

It was not a new proposition having been a basic position: Integration of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution in the various countries is the most fundamental guarantee for the peoples to triumph in their revolutionary cause worked out by the working class and its conscious elements in each country. In Mao’s time, China reached out to the world beyond conventional diplomatic channels with officially micromanaged foreign visitors and their choreographed visit to a model commune, school, farmer or temple designed to create a favourable impression and create a public opinion that strove to spread Chinese cultural and political influence. Likewise a network of foreign-language broadcast and print media such as Peking Radio and periodicals including Peking Review and China Reconstructs, were part of an ‘external propaganda’ machinery that saw engagement with Maoist political theory and practice outside China.[xvi] The boxes of Red Books that brought socialism and Mao Zedong Thought to revolutionaries and anti-imperialists in dozens of countries; how the Cultural Revolution, the unprecedented political movement that Mao led to keep China on the socialist road, promoted support for world revolution: pc-pc001-08

Grasping Marxism-Leninism and integrating it closely with the concrete practice of the revolution in their own lands, the oppressed nations and the oppressed peoples will be able to win emancipation through their own struggle.’ i.e. don’t expect the Peoples Liberation Army to do the job.    If revolutionaries throughout the world do the hard work like their Chinese comrades did, one could, in the rhetoric of the day, be “confident that so long as the people of all countries integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution in their own lands, struggle heroically, defy difficulties and advance wave upon wave, their revolution will undoubtedly be victorious. Chairman Mao’s wise statement will certainly be transformed into glorious reality”

STATE-PEOPLE-PARTY

The Chinese Party conceive of relations as operating on three distinct levels; state to state; people to people; and party to party. Since the Communist Party is the leading centre in the Chinese state, a ruling political party, the distinction that the establishment of diplomatic and trade relations with a particular government in no way signifies China’s support or endorsement for that country’s social system or governmental leaders proved a bit difficult to untangle from criticism of foreign policy actions.

In a 1946 statement about the international situation, Mao indicated that in the aftermath of World War 2, the Soviet Union might make various agreements and compromises with the imperialist countries.

Such compromise does not require the people in the countries of the capitalist world to follow suit and make compromises at home. The people in those countries will continue to wage different struggles in accordance with their different conditions.[xvii]

During the Polemic the Chinese position remain constant that

It is necessary for the socialist countries to engage in Negotiations of one kind or another with the imperialist countries. It is possible to reach certain agreements through negotiations by Relying on the correct policies of the socialist countries. But necessary compromises between the socialist countries and the Imperialist countries’ do not require the oppressed peoples and nations to follow suit and comprise with imperialism and its lackeys. No one should ever demand in the name of peaceful coexistence that the oppressed peoples and nations should give up their revolutionary struggles. ” [xviii]

US Marxist, Clark Kissinger discussed the issue of the “contradiction” between normal state relations and support for revolutionary movements He would no longer agree with the sentiments, expressed in 1976, that “”Situations change, new tactics are called forth, but the basis of China’s role in world events – proletarian internationalism – remains fixed like the North Star.”[xix]

Organizations abroad which the Chinese Communist Party accepts as fraternal parties, were revolutionary in theory and, in many instances, revolutionary in their immediate practice. Without exception they openly declare their ultimate aim to be the overthrow of the established ruling class in the various nations with whom China had, or sought to have, state to state relations. Some were engaged in armed struggle, as in Thailand or the Philippines. An interesting and sole example was Poland, where China had normal state relations with the Polish government but party relations with the underground Polish Communist Party – Komunistyczna Partia Polski founded 1965 – not the governing, Polish United Workers’ Party (PUWP) regarded as revisionist

‘no saviours from on high deliver’


Visits to China, as a guest of the International Liaison Department of the Communist Party of China, were for the purpose of political discussions and exchange. Any briefings were explanation of policy not instructions. As Canadian communist Jack Scott, observed,

When representatives of these fraternal parties visit China, they do so for the purpose of conducting political discussions on problems of mutual concern. They are invariably the guests of the Party’s International Liaison Department and seldom, if ever, experience any contact with state officials or representatives of the friendship association. While I cannot vouch for how others respond to the situation, personal experience leads me to believe that the Chinese make every effort to maintain a basis of full equality throughout all discussions, however numerically insignificant the visiting delegation may be, and are quick to respond to any suggestions for improvement.”[xx]

Australian communist leader, Ted Hill recalled,

The Chinese Communists in all my discussions have always developed this universal truth of each Party and people solving their own problems. They steadfastly refused to give advice on internal problems of struggle, for example, in Australia. And I am certain this is correct. Some may expect and hope as we did of the Soviet Union, that someone, in this case, the Chinese Party will come along and solve all your problems. It won’t happen. And the attempt once pursued, but never by the Chinese Party, resulted in very great harm[xxi].

And there were different levels of support given to organisations. Along with other parties in South East Asia, there was substantial, direct financing of the Communist Party of Malaya from 1961-1989 that included exiled headquarter and clandestine radio broadcasting facilities. The clandestine radio station cease operations from China by 1981. By then Chinese foreign policy priorities had altered: Deng, when visiting Kuala Lumpar in November 1978 had said that China regarded her relationship with the Communist Party of Malaya “as a fact of history – something that should be left behind”[xxii]

With regard to Western Europe, there is, as with earlier press speculation, no documentary evidence of direct financial and material as were given to other Maoists from the Third World. [xxiii]Financial support for European parties may have taken on a separate commercial character with bulk annual subscriptions to periodicals – often a useful, not significant, injection of funds. Separate from the political organizational relations, but politically useful would have been commercially favoured trading pc-pc001-03arrangements to supply material and books from Foreign Language Press to disseminate Marxist writings, party pronouncements and favourable publications. Chinese interest in the European Marxist-Leninists saw support for them manifest itself in a number of standard approaches. Political recognition took the form of quoting exchanges of greetings (sent to the CPC) and organization views by the official Chinese Xinhua news agency and in the political weekly (then Peking) ‘Beijing Review’ from pro-China groups.

There were occasional discreet “embassy” contacts for discussions that had the character of information exchange. A subsidized visit to Beijing for Party discussions, with the financial costs borne by the host, of visiting fraternal party delegations, was a sign of some regard, but no CPC Congress invitation. In contrast, the Albanian Party Congress always featured foreign guests that allowed for bi-lateral contacts and discussions.

MILITARY AID


In July 1967, at the height of the Cultural Revolution, some remarks by Mao on China’s role in the world were pasted on the walls of Beijing streets in the form of big character posters. They were disseminated around the country as pamphlets and handbills two months later. In “China Must Become the Arsenal of the World Revolution,” Mao stated:

“A lot of places are anti-China at the moment, which makes it look as though we are isolated. In fact, they are anti-China because they are afraid of the influence of China, of the thought of Mao Tse-tung, and of the great Cultural Revolution. They oppose China to keep the people in their own countries down and to divert popular dissatisfaction with their rule. This opposition to China is jointly planned by U.S. imperialism and Soviet revisionism. This shows not that we are isolated, but that our influence throughout the world has greatly increased. The more they oppose China, the more they spur on popular revolution; the people of these countries realize that the Chinese road is the road to liberation. China should not only be the political center of the world revolution. It must also become the military and technical center of the world revolution”[xxiv]

 The words attributed to Mao were an exception to the standard emphasis in policy announcements that stressed, even at the zenith of the Cultural Revolution, less rhetorical references to “exporting revolution” and more oratory about the need for revolutionaries to take the responsibility for the necessary struggle in each nation. The CPC repeatedly stated the equality of all parties and rejected the idea that one national party can be the “centre” of the international working class movement.

The notion that ‘revolution could not be exported’ did not preclude support for fellow revolutionaries throughout the world. Behind the rhetoric there was material support with training visits by would be Third world revolutionaries and those engaged in national liberation struggles[xxv] Although Chen Ping remarks that the Chinese comrades sought to avoid involvement in “internal party affairs” and that even though to varying degrees reliant on Chinese largess “fraternal parties had the freedom to work independently of Peking’s directions…”[xxvi]

In the 1970s China’s military assistance to the peoples of Indochina was well known. Not as public was the military aid and training given to others: In 1971, a leading Chinese party member told a delegation of members of the Revolutionary Union from the U.S.: “We give all military aid free, and we only give it to people resisting aggression and fighting imperialism. If they are resisting aggression and fighting imperialism, why charge them? If they are not resisting aggression and fighting imperialism, why give it to them?”

China sent military aid to the peoples of Angola and Mozambique in their struggle against the Portuguese, to the Palestinians in their struggle, and many others. During the 1960s, the Chinese gave substantial support to liberation movements in the Middle East. Beginning in 1965, China provided light arms, mortars, explosives and medical supplies to the PLO, which was operating out of bases in Jordan and Lebanon. Contingents of PLO youth travelled to China for military training. Large quantities of Chinese weapons flowed into Lebanon’s “Fatah land” during the 1970s, and leaders of the PLO and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) visited China.

During this period the Chinese also supplied military aid to the People’s Front for the Liberation of Oman and the Arabian Gulf (PFLOAG) in the Dhofar province of Oman, and to Marxist-Leninist forces in southern Yemen. In North Africa, the Chinese gave military and economic assistance to the Eritrean liberation forces and to Algerian anti-imperialist forces before and after victory over French colonialism.[xxvii]

The CPC  supported the Malaysian revolutionaries with weapons, training and, important propaganda facilities, particularly the Voice of the Malaysian People radio station, which broadcasts from southern China.

Communist Party of the Philippines members visited and received training in China, and in 1971, the Chinese provided 1,400M-14 rifles and 8,000 rounds of ammunition in a ship sent from the Philippines by the CPP-led New People’s Army. [xxviii]

In Africa, China gave military aid and training to revolutionary movements afrian friendsthroughout the continent. In camps in Tanzania and Algeria, the Chinese armed and trained guerillas from FRELIMO in Mozambique, the PAIGC in Guinea-Bissau, ZANU in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and the Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania and the ANC in South Africa.

In 1963, the Chinese sent military supplies from Tanzania and Congo-Brazzaville to guerillas in the eastern Congo led by a former education minister in Lumumba’s cabinet. Also, in a secret military camp in Ghana, Chinese military instructors trained cadre for revolutionary movements in French neo-colonies such as Dahomey (Benin), Ivory Coast, Cameroon and Mali.[xxix]

An essential part of Chinese military aid was political training of the officers and soldiers of the revolutionary armed forces. Chinese instructors stressed that outside military aid, while important, was secondary, and that self-reliant revolutionary struggle was of primary importance.

The Peruvian communist leader, ‘Chairman Gonzalo’, (party name of Abimael Guzmán) recalled receiving political and military training, on strategy and tactics, ambushes and demolition in China in the Sixties: “They were masterful lessons given by proven and highly competent revolutionaries, great teachers. Among them I can remember the teacher who taught us about open and secret work, a man who had devoted his whole life to the Party, and only to the Party, over the course of many years–a living example and an extraordinary teacher. …. For me it is an unforgettable example and experience, an important lesson, and a big step in my development–to have been trained in the highest school of Marxism the world has ever seen.” [xxx]

Consideration was given to what constituted a genuine anti-Liberation struggle – one led by a member of the feudal monarchy (e.g. Prince Sihanouk)- and whether a particular movement represents a struggle against external colonialism or aggression, or whether it is a strictly internal matter of a given country can only be resolved by the people of that country themselves. Where a national liberation movement, was led by a single, popularly supported organization or front, China established formal diplomatic relations with it (examples: the NLF of southern Vietnam, the PLO). Otherwise where several organisations are engaged in a particular struggle, China’s policy was to give assistance to all and to urge the unity of all against the common enemy (as in Angola, for example).

meng-zhaorui-photography-of-china

Under Mao, China sought to develop a worldwide united struggle against imperialism, colonialism, and superpower hegemony. This means that China was constantly seeking to unite all who can be united against the main enemy, and judges specific events in the light of the overall world situation. While there were more than diplomatic niceties in China’s criticism to the raising in India of the slogan “China’s Chairman is our Chairman, China’s Path is Our Path”, raised in the context of the Naxalite insurrection, the diplomatic imperatives for China to disassociate itself was evident: the 1962 border war between India and China was still fresh in political memory and the impression that the CPI (ML) was fighting for China, and not the liberation of the Indian masses, was to be avoided.

1970s – Changing priorities


From the 1960s to the 1980s, China made several foreign policy adjustments, and the core motive of all these was national security. “The question was to decide from which direction the main threat to China was coming[xxxi] observed Li Fenglin, a veteran Chinese diplomat of 40 years who served in the Chinese Embassy of Russia and East European countries, as well as in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The fundamental basis of Chinese foreign policy became the view that the Soviet Union now represents the main danger of war in the contempoarary period, it came to be expressed in what was (post-Mao codified in) the “Three Worlds theory”. This analysis, i.e., China’s assessment of Soviet degeneration into an imperialist power, contain the key to understanding China’s foreign policy.[xxxii] The effect on party-to-party relations was devasting for the international communist movement.

A process begun under Mao, whereby the relationship established by the CPC between parties began to change – formerly Party to party relations are founded on a philosophical concept quite different from those which determine the relations with all other groups. Where contacts in most areas are based upon a wide area of mutual advantage, and a shared desire for friendship and understanding, party to party relations were of a different nature, based on political and social outlooks held in common between political parties with common objectives, i.e., the abolition of capitalist social relations and the building of a socialist society. The definition of what constituted a fraternal party began to change as increasingly party to party relations were established with what were considered revisionists parties in the pursuit of the foreign policy goals of the Chinese state. (Here the identification of the party with the fate of the nation highlights the unresolved complexities of the different roles and responsibilities in building a socialist state. The attempt to separate deteriorating party relations from the affairs of state had failed miserably throughout the polemical exchanges in the early 1960s).

If China was said to have “friends all over the world”, the nature of those ‘friends’ were changing throughout the 1970s .A textual analysis undertaken by O’Leary suggests a downgrading of the Marxist-Leninist parties within the capitalist countries by the Chinese. A comparison of the reports given in 1969 (by Lin Biao) and (by Zhou Enlai) at 1973 Congress reflects the change:

Lin talked of uniting ‘to fight together with them’, in their capacity as ‘advanced elements of the proletariat’ while Chou merely sought unity with them in the context of carrying on ‘the struggle against modern revisionism’.[xxxiii]

China’s foreign policy saw the Chinese government seemingly supporting the government side in struggles in Ceylon, Bangladesh and Sudan. It appears that most of the leadership agreed on the emphasis and direction of policy. Defence minister Lin Biao may have been an exception. There were covert contact between the US and China with the first talks held in 1969. US secretary of state Henry Kissinger visited China in 1971, preparing the ground for Nixon’s visit the following year. This was the beginning of U.S.-China-Soviet triangular diplomacy whereby the common concerns over the Soviet threat saw each side aspired to utilize the other to balance that threat.

After 1973, there were parades of statesmen were honoured in Beijing for their contributions to the struggle against Soviet hegemony. Visits by fraternal organisations were easily out-numbered by the visits of bourgeois political personalities [the disgraced Richard Nixon and former Prime Minister Edward Heath to name but two] who were given greater official prominence in China’s media.

In the Middle East, China’s prior support for revolutionary movements was curtailed. Chinese aid to revolutionary forces in the Gulf States ended with diplomatic ties with Oman. Another sign of this reversal of Chinese foreign policy was a speech by Foreign Minister Qiao Guanhua in 1975 in which he said that China was reconciled to the existence of Israel as a “fait accompli.” In 1975, the Chinese government were largely perceived as supporting the U.S. and South African-backed UNITA in the Angolan civil war—in the name of defeating the Soviet Union’s attempts to gain a strategic foothold in Africa through its support for the MPLA.

Within a few years of Mao’s death in September 1976, the anti-revisionist trend had fragmented along discernible ideological lines partly as a result of a concerted intervention by the PLA designed to bring organisations into its exclusive political orbit. [See Albania builds an international] and those politically opposed to the direction in post-Mao China. The changes in the foreign policy priorities of the Chinese state did have an effect on the nascent Maoist movement.

The developments in Chinese foreign policy in the mid-1970s were a direct outgrowth of the Three Worlds Theory. Albanian criticism of the direction of China’s foreign policy engender a break in their party and state relations. [xxxiv]

This threw many Maoist parties and organizations around the world, who rely on Peking Review for finding its compass on international events, into a tailspin, from which most never recovered.[xxxv] China’s attitude towards the international movement was clarified in the aftermath of the Albanian intervention. The CCP had began to mend fences with alleged independent minded revisionists such as the visit by the PCE led Santiago Carrillo as early as 1971. The re-establishment of relations between the CPC and the ‘Eurocommunist’ parties increasingly raised concerns on the demarcation with modern revisionism that had been drawn in the sixties. This fundamentally question the purpose of the new Marxist-Leninist parties. It was not until after Mao’s death that an article in Renmin Ribao [People’s Daily April 2 1980] repudiated the ‘Nine Commentaries’ which had defined CPC ideological differences with the CPSU in 1963-64.

Retaining the form of its previous position, the CPC gutted its ideological judgments in the restoration of formal party-to-party relations after a lapse of nearly two decades that saw rapprochement on the basis of the acceptance of differences and of agreement that every party should “formulate its policies independently and develop relations with other parties on the basis of equality”. The ideological sting was taken out of these relationships as a wave of normalisation followed the visit to Beijing in April 1980 of General Secretary Enrico Berlinguer. The concept of modern revisionism was quietly buried under the rubric of acceptance of unspecified differences on some questions. A succession of revisionist parties sent delegations to China: the leaders of the Spanish CP (November 1980), the “interior” Greek CP (December 1980), the Communist Party of the Netherlands’ (June 1982) and the French CP (October 1982), the Swedish VKP, Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Belgian CP were feted and fed like the anti-revisionists before them.

So the 1980s began with fundamental questions for those who adhered to Three Worlds Theory and those whose allegiance remained with the CPC led by initially by Hua Guofeng and eventual dominated by Deng Xiaoping. Although most of the Maoist forces had not arisen out of the anti-revisionist Polemic of the PLA and CPC against the CPSU, the argumentation and line of the Polemic that went public in 1960 was regarded as their theoretical foundations. The majority of the new Marxist-Leninist organizations in Europe had arisen out of the radicalized student movement and counter culture of the late Sixties but regarded them as part of their ideological legacy. Despite the reputation for genuflecting at whatever decisions and changes occur in what was regarded as the leading socialist countries (as part of the internationalist duty to support existing socialism and revolution), the Maoist Left was not as servile as occasionally portrayed. The movement had been partly inspired by the Cultural Revolution in China, and when the legacy of that experience was being questioned in China what was the consequences for the international movement that grew out of that experience now repudiated by the Chinese communists and regarded by them as a discredited period?


POSTSCRIPT: How times have changed.

 Chinese UN troops

Pictured are Chinese troops on patrol in Juba, the capital of South Sudan in August 2016. Yet in numerous statements official Chinese policy has been, since 1954, that China has practices a foreign policy of non-interventionism, in accordance with its “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence”: mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity; mutual non-aggression; non-interference in each other’s internal affairs; equality and mutual benefit; and, peaceful coexistence.

Twenty-First century China now has selective foreign intervention: set aside its presence through aid contributions in the form of infrastructure construction and joint economic enterprise, there is the construction of the first overseas Chinese military base on a 90-acre plot in Djibouti.

As one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council China’s human peacekeeping contributions have roughly quadrupled in size since 2004:

Accounting for over 10 per cent of the entire budget, China is now the second-largest provider of financial contributions to UN peacekeeping operations.

China’s human peacekeeping contributions to 2,567 personnel, more than all four other permanent Security Council members put together. The Chinese state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation is the largest oil investor in war-torn South Sudan, where the majority of its peacekeepers are stationed.

In April 2006, Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told a regular news briefing in Beijing that China did not provide help to Nepal’s Maoists, who take their inspiration from late Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong. “They call themselves Maoists, but they have nothing to do with any organization or person domestically in China”.

When asked by an Indian journalist whether or not China would support Indian Maoist rebels in their struggle against the Indian government the Deputy Director of the International Department of the CPC Central Committee, Ai Ping said that the Chinese government “does not engage with illegitimate or extreme political parties“.[xxxvi]


 

ENDNOTES

[i] Amin (2016) Russia and the Long Transition from Capitalism to Socialism. Monthly Review Press p74. In the same vein stimulating treatment came be found in Biel, R. (2015) Eurocentrism and the Communist Movement. Kersplebedeb Publishing and J. Moufawad-Paul (2016) Continuity and Rupture; Philosophy in the Maoist Terrain Zero Books.

[ii] . SEE http://chineseposters.net/themes/foreign-friends.php

[iii] An extensive source of pamphlets, speeches, government statements and press articles which relate to foreign affairs: The Maoist Era in China — Relations with Foreign Countries. http://bannedthought.net/China/MaoEra/Foreign-General/index.htm

[iv] www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lin-biao/1965/09/peoples_war/index.htm

[v] Gelder, Stuart (1946) The Chinese Communists. London: Victor Gollancz p170

[vi] The Passion of Joschka Fisher. www.thenewrepublic.com/082701/berman082701.htm

[vii] Engel, Stefan (2002) “I Have Been Fighting All My Life” Speech at the MLPD Rally at the 10th Anniversary of the Death of Willi Dickhut May 9th, 2002. Wuppertal http://www.mlpd.de/wd/redemage.htm

[viii] See: Berton, Peter (2004) “The Chinese and Japanese communist parties: three decades of discord and reconciliation, 1966-1998” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 37 (2004) 361-372

[ix] ‘The Communist International and The Chinese Communist Party” Selected Works of Zhou Enlai. (Volume 2) Beijing: Foreign Language Press. http://www.marx2mao.org/Other/CI60.htm

[x]  The Chinese Communists must have valued their relationship with the AKP (ML) as a charge against the imprisoned Gang of Four, that they “slandered support for European unity as trying by hook or by crook to get into Europe and have good terms with European bourgeoisie”. How Our Party Smashed the Gang of Four (1978). Presentation by Comrade Chu to visiting delegation from the RCLB. Typescript notes. Personal Archive.

[xi]  Experiences of Chinese Revolution: Some Unpublished Notes

Asia News & Information Service. Montreal: 1980

[xii] Frontier, November 4th 1972

[xiii] Lin Biao (1965) Long Live the Victory of People’s War! In Commemoration of the 20th Anniversary of Victory in the Chinese People’s War of Resistance against Japan. Peking: Foreign Languages Press

[xiv] Barnouin, Barbara (1998) & Yu Changgen. Chinese Foreign Policy during the Cultural Revolution. London: Kegan Paul International pp150-151

[xv] Foreign Language Press (Peking) 1968

[xvi] Alexander Cook ed., Mao’s Little Red Book: A Global History (Cambridge, 2014) provides an illuminating selection of national case-studies describing the international reception of Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung a thematic selection from Mao’s speeches and writings.

[xvii] http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/PIS46.html. “Some Points in Appraisal of the Present International Situation,” April 1946, Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Foreign Languages Press, 1969.

[xviii] SEE “Apologists of Neo-colonialism” (FLP 1963) written in response to the Soviet Union’s betrayal of anti-colonial struggle

[xix] C. Kissinger, China’s Foreign Policy – an outline. China Books & Periodicals 1976

[xx] Jack Scott, Discussion with Chinese Comrades (Notes on Chinese Foreign Policy. Red Star Collective: October 1977. The discussions on which this report is based were held in April/May 1976

[xxi] Hill, E.F. (1977) Class Struggle Within the Communist Parties, defeat of the Gang of Four Great Victory for World Proletariat. Australia: A Communist (Marxist-Leninist) Publication p43

[xxii] Chen Ping, My Side of History Singapore: Media Masters p436

[xxiii]  There were unsubstantiated claims that the Dutch Secret Service run MLPN received financial support from China. http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/features/dutchhorizons/weeklyfeature/041020dh  

[xxiv] Jean Daubier, A History of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, 1971, p. 313. Daubier writes that the posters he saw suggested that Mao was addressing a foreign delegation when he made these remarks.

[xxv] Explored in various studies e.g. Van Ness, Peter (1970) Revolution and Chinese Foreign Policy: Peking’s support for wars of National Liberation. Berkerley: University of California Press, and Hutchinson, Alan (1975) China’s African Revolution. London: Hutchinson).

[xxvi] Chen Ping 2003 p:471 . Statements contradicted by Deng Xiaoping personal insistence that the clandestine radio station cease operations from China by 1981 (Chen Ping 2003:458). By then Chinese foreign policy priorities had altered: Deng, when visiting Kuala Lumpar in November 1978 had said that China regarded her relationship with the Communist Party of Malaya “as a fact of history – something that should be left behind” (Chen Ping2003: 483)

[xxvii] Lillian Harris, “The PRC and the Arab Middle East,” in China and Israel, 1948-1998, ed. Goldstein,1999. China and Israel finally established official diplomatic relations in 1992.

[xxviii] Noted in Chinese Foreign Policy during the Maoist Era and its Lessons for Today by the MLM Revolutionary Study Group in the U.S. (January 2007)

[xxix] See: lan Hutchinson, China’s African Revolution, 1975

[xxx] Interview With Chairman Gonzalo. http://www.redsun.org/pcp_doc/pcp_0788.htm

[xxxi] Xiaoyuan Liu (2004) & Vojtech Mastny (eds).

China and Eastern Europe, 1960s-1980s Proceedings of the International Symposium: Reviewing the History of Chinese-East European Relations from the 1960s to the 1980s. Beijing, 24-26 March 2004. Zurcher Beitrage zur Sicherheitspolitik und Konfliktforschung Nr.72 p 32

[xxxii] The Anglo-Chinese Education Institute (1979) China’s World View (Modern China Series No. 10). This volume explores the foreign policy prior to, and after the death of Mao, and focuses especially on the “Three Worlds Theory”.

http://www.bannedthought.net/China/MaoEra/ContemporaryCommentary/Anglo-ChineseEdInst/Pubs/China’sWorldView-MC-10-1979.pdf

[xxxiii] Brugger, Bill (1978) China: the impact of the Cultural Revolution. London, Croom Helm p241

[xxxiv] Greg O’Leary, “Chinese Foreign Policy under Attack: Has China Abandoned Revolution?” The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs, No. 1 (Jan., 1979), pp. 49-67

Theory and Practice of the Revolution   Zëri i Popullit; July 7, 1977

“Chairman Mao’s Theory of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds is a Major Contribution to Marxism-Leninism,” People’s Daily, November 1, 1977.

Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution (1978)

[xxxv] See: U.S. Marxist-Leninists Take Sides: the “Theory of Three Worlds” https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/index.htm#3worlds

[xxxvi] http://www.china.org.cn/china/CPC_90_anniversary/2011-06/11/content_22760204.htm

Oppose hegemonism, uphold world peace - maintain a foreign policy of independence and own initiative, 1983

1983 poster : Oppose hegemonism, uphold world peace – maintain a foreign policy of independence and own initative.


 

 

 

20. Communists under Revisionist Rule

The acrimonious Sino-Soviet split did have ramifications for Eastern European parties however the dimensions or the organizational strength of the opposition to the official line interpretation “in accordance with the new historical conditions” laid down by the CPSU, should not  be overestimated amidst the stress and tension within the individual parties. This posting provides an introductory survey to little known occurrence of East European Communist dissidents, these episodes, looking at the appearance of anti-revisionist groupings,  reflect a sporadic , and often individual response against the dominant power structure and ideological hegemony in Eastern Europe.

There is not much evidence that China went to work trying to foster pro-China faction within the East European countries; in the only example of another anti-revisionist party created out of the existing ruling party it was the Albanian support that was decisive. The Chinese informed the Party of Labour that “it knew nothing” about the formation of the KPP/  Communist Party of Poland, that :

It had not been informed by the Polish Marxist comrades, but also that it did not maintain secret links with them and did not help them apart from the open stand in its press about the struggle against revisionism.”     Enver Hoxha, Reflections On China I (1962—1972) The «8 Nentori» Publishing House1979 p218

Norwegian Maoist, one-time International Secretary of the AKP (ML), Tron Øgrim (1947 – 2007) recalled, on the subject of illegal Marxist-Leninist parties in the revisionist “Eastern Bloc”, that “in ALL the former eastern states (as well as the western) there were Chinese supporters in the “old parties” down to the “individual, personal” ones. We met such people round in Norway when we expanded the AKP(m-l) everywhere during the 60s – people who had just dropped out on an individual basis in sympathy to the Chinese line during the early 60s.”

It was true that only one party recognised and publicised by both Albanian and Chinese parties was the CPP of Mijhal, although Tron Øgrim internet gossiping said: “In Romania I heard about a secret “Maoist” faction existing for some time inside the Ceausescu party, never heard any name for it.” (Internet posting June 8, 2005)

The SOVIET UNION

Opposition to Khrushchev within the Communist Party was clearly evident through the purge of leading members and throughout the party. However the extent this was then manifest in organised political opposition adopting a strategy to challenge revisionist rule was difficult to gauge. The most widespread of political statements purports to have originated in the Soviet Union was the “Programmatic proclamation of the Soviet Revolutionary Communists (Bolsheviks)”. Various language editions of this pamphlet was produced and circulated within the Maoist movement, and it represented an anti-revisionist platform attacking the revisionist ruling clique.

READ MORE  The SOVIET UNION

 

POLAND

The best known of Eastern Europe’s dissident “Chinese Faction” was Kazimierz Mijal (1910- 2010) founder-leader of the Polish opposition group calling itself the Communist Party of Poland. This brief treatment is a marker for a more extensive documented exploration of anti-revisionism in Poland, which can be found at https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/poland/index.htm providing party articles and autobiographical material on Mijal’s long political career.

Kazimierz Mijal illegally left Poland holding an Albanian passport and then onto exile in Tirana. The oppositionist underground Komunistyczna Partia Polski / Communist Party of Poland was the most publicised of the Marxist-Leninist forces operating in the revisionist countries, supported clandestine by Albanian aid in production and distribution of its printed journal Red Flag and via the Polish language broadcasts of Radio Tirana.  Mijal went to China, where he was well received. In 1966, the leader of that party, Kazimierz Mijal was received in Beijing by Chairman Mao on December 21, 1966. He went there twice. The second time he was there was 1975; again there was a picture in Remin Ribao received by Kang Sheng and Geng Biao and some other leaders. During the Albanian China split, Mijal sided with China. So in 1978 he fled to China under threats to his life from Hoxha (according to himself). He went from China and illegally entered Poland, where he was arrested during the 80s after living there illegally for some time. The Communist Party of Poland had faded from the political scene however in the 1980s the organization Polish Association of the Defense of the Proletariat / Stowarzyszenie Obrony Proletariatu was considered to be supporters of ideas of Kazimierz Mijal. The Polish Party of the Working Class – Initiative Group/ Polska Partia Klasy Robotniczej – Grupa Inicjatywna posted some of Mijal’s articles on their website.

 

DDR: German Democratic Republic

For some East Germans, the Chinese example reflected back their own state’s digression from the path of both independence and communist tradition. There was respect for China’s independent-mindedness but political sympathy for the Chinese was especially strong among the group known as the ‘old comrades’ (alte Genossen), that is, people who had joined the German Communist Party (KPD) in the 1920s.  A series of East Germans were expelled from the SED around the time of the Sino–Soviet Split in 1963 for siding with the Chinese against the Soviets.

READ MORE DDR

 

HUNGARY

Outside of Albania obvious signs sympathetic to the anti-revisionist line were often only oblique observed :  in Hungary  the indication of dissent was evident  when the ruling Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party journal “Tarsadalmi Szemle” accused some Hungarian Communists of being unable to understand that in the present era “war is not fatally inevitable, that the forces of socialism are capable of preventing the outbreak of a world war and local wars and that on the international level the struggle against imperialism is the main front of the class struggle.”

READ MORE  HUNGARY

 

A Maoist Coup in Bulgaria

Rumours would occasional surface in western press accounts as that of the mysterious unsubstantiated “pro-Chinese faction” in Bulgaria. The faction was exposed by the Bulgarian counter-intelligence service and between 28 March and 12 April 1965 most of the plotters were arrested under an operation called “Fools” (Duraci – from the Russian).

READ MORE A Maoist Coup in Bulgaria

Czechoslovakia (as then was)

The more frequent evidence of sympathy with the anti-revisionist position were individual expressions of general political support  so a regular feature on Albanian’s state broadcaster was news from parties supporting the international and domestic line of the Party of Labor of Albania, and letters from listeners were also broadcast as evidence of international wide support for anti-revisionist communism. Even the slimmest evidence of support would be used to bolster the analysis of seething unrest in the revisionist-ruled east European states. So on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the proclamation of the People’s Republic of Albania, greetings from MARXIST – LENINISTS IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA was broadcast on Radio Tirana [January 16, 1976] that proclaimed:

“The Czechoslovakian people welcome the achievements of the Albanian people, welcome the construction of its beautiful socialist father-land. The Czechoslovakian Marxist-Leninists, the genuine friends of the Albanian people and the Czechoslovakian working class, look at Albania respectfully, at this banner of freedom and socialism in Europe, this banner of struggle against imperialism, social-imperialism and reaction.”

In a re-broadcast letter, which the Czechoslovakian listeners sent to Radio Tirana, there were expressions of solidarity and sympathy: a suggestion of both support for the anti-revisionist line and reassurance that they were not alone listening to the radio.

“We must admire the revolutionary resoluteness and the efforts of the work, with which the Albanian people started working for the construction in Albania – with the aim to develop and strengthen the future socialist society.”

 

NEXT TIME >>>>>> The Communist Resistance in East Germany

 

When the Albanian state media trumpeted the formation of the GDR Section of the Communist Party of Germany/ Marxist-Leninist: Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands/Marxisten-Leninisten, Albania Today declared, it “a victory for the German working class”

We know more about the clandestine activity of the German Maoist KPD / ML under the revisionist regime of the DDR as the most documented episode because of the publicity given to it by the KPD/ML led by Ernst Aust upon its formation in Roter Morgen , the memoir of Herbert Polifka , a member of the DDR Section of the KPD / ML who  published a book on the subject entitled “Die unbekannte Opposition in der DDR. Zur Geschichte der illegalen Sektion DDR der Kommunistischen Partei Deutschlands” [The unknown opposition in the GDR. The history of illegal section in the GDR the Communist Party of Germany], and the research by Tobias Wunschik, “The KPD / ML Maoists and the destruction of their section in the GDR by the Ministry of State Security.”

New Lies & Grey Wolf

woodsmoke

Occasionally reading slips into some very grey areas of conspiracy yarns, it is mostly harmless stuff sometimes plausible and entertaining, more likely bonkers and amusing leaps of speculation and chiselled details. The narrative such work creates offers the untold account through assertion, assumption and alternatives of evidently undiscovered connections underpinned by deductive reconstruction. Only that which supports the unfolding narrative is included in what is pseudo-history and faction.  Two excellent examples of such “guilty indulgences” have had different impact. “Grey Wolf” is an implausible account of the escape of Adolf Hitler to live his life unmolested in Argentina.

Such a scenario has been the subject of post-war rumours and speculation, and escaped Nazis settled in South America have featured in many movies because that is what did happen. “Grey Wolf” details the arrival of U boat 518 in July 28th 1945 and purports to be offering a history that contradicts all known documented accounts. There is the DVD (same name) by Gerald Williams as a companion to the book.

It is not surprising that when critically engaged there are sharply differing assessments by readers. Those believing they are genuinely seeking the truth, see “Grey Wolf” as raising a large number of interesting possibilities. The background collaboration between western industrialists and Nazi hierarchy that are historical facts provide some scaffolding for other speculations. However Hitler living until his death in 1962 in a German enclave in Argentina –  come on, never to give a public speech, to forsake all the drama and power he conjured with, a man not driven by hateful revenge against the rest of humanity. If Hitler had escaped, it wouldn’t take decades to prove it. “Grey Wolf” is well written and proves that anything can get published.  The narrative on offer could be given a film treatment, but it fails despite all the smoke and mirrors it employs because it was unbelievable. Suicide in 1945 is a less prosaic ending.

Believability in the story-teller can create the spell of confidence and conviction and this was the impact of Anatoliy Golitsyn on sections of the American intelligence community. “New Lies for Old: the Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation” came out years after his defection from the Soviet Union in December 1961. Again he purports to provide a sensational account of history of Soviet intelligence activity in that he claims that the Sino-Soviet split was a charade to deceive the West. It was clearly staged, the ideological divisions within the international communism movement, and later he argued (in The Perestroika Deception Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency) the “fall” of the USSR was a deception. All this was a carefully crafted ruse to lull the West into complacency. Golitsyn’s perspective on this deception is fantastically constructed and completely wrong. He goes against every known piece of public information and revelations from the archives but still finds ideological partisan support for his conspiracy paradigm.

Golitsyn’s book had had its real impact when his debriefing convinced the paranoid  James Jesus Angleton, CIA counter-intelligence director of his thesis that change in the “Soviet Bloc” was all part of a strategic master plan to mislead the Western authorities. There were other damaging assertions such as Golitsyn claim that Harold Wilson (Labour Party leader and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) was a KGB informer and an agent of influence. This claim was taken serious by a section of British intelligence that included Peter Wright (who plotted to overthrow Wilson’s government) and later best-seller author of Spycatcher. In all Golitsyn work shares the same characteristics as “grey Wolf”, and if you are entertained by the genre of the unfolding narrative of what is pseudo-history and faction, then indulge yourself; otherwise choose some better fiction to read.

 

Chinese defence of Stalin – what’s that about?

n_aCAIXFBEC

It is complicated, and a far from comprehensive treatment of the broad issue that follows looks at some aspects of the anti-revisionist responses that were intertwined with consideration of the dominant leader in the era of building socialism in the Soviet Union.

Khrushchev’s evaluation of the Soviet era, broadly contained in reports to the 20th and 22nd Congress of the CPSU, contained a mixture of contemporary strategic considerations and historic judgements. The contentious question of Stalin, discussed under the rubric of “Cult of personality” evoke a variety of responses throughout the international movement.

As the struggle unfolded in the different arenas following the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956, it became clearer that the lines of demarcation drawn by the parties in the international communist movement were not simply disagreements or the case of different perspectives based on divergent national experiences; within the Soviet leadership, nurtured under Stalin, there was a body of ideas and policies that formed an assault on what had gone before.  A critical engagement with the Soviet past became politically impossible given the nature of judgements unleashed by Khrushchev’s relentless condemnation of his dead leader.  A blanket defence, without relinquishing points to one’s opponents, saw sharp polemic lines emerge in both the arguments around de-stalinisation and the course of the international communist parties.  The tensions simmered within the movement, and the eventual split that emerged around 1963 marked an ideological watershed that subsequently is treated inconsequently, simply as a matter of history, ………………

 

[1] 1956

Made without warning or consultation with other parties, Khrushchev’s attack on Stalin in secret session, saw a  well documented Albanian and Chinese opposition emerge. [1]

READ MORE

 

[2] 1963

When the Chinese leadership published a  Second Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU,  although it repeated some previous positions, there were less nuances in the best known editorials of Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag), of September 13, 1963, On The Question of Stalin.

READ MORE

[3] Some Quotations   moscow 1957

Below are two quotes from Mao on Stalin, the first one at latter’s 60th birthday and the second one after the commencement of the 20th CPSU Party Congress.

These two quotes illustrates why context is always important in the use of quotes, and why a case built on selective quotation is hardly a rigours manner to construct a defence.

READ MORE

 

[4] Different Roads

In contrast to the creative engagement of the Chinese leadership with the issues unleashed by the 20th Congress of the CPSU, the Russian leadership seem to be denying there were any lessons to be learnt from the Stalin era, others within the international camp – and not just the Chinese – were asking how much of the Soviet experience and of the Soviet model was universally valid and how much was a historical peculiarity that need not be repeated elsewhere?frauentag_jugoslawien_3

READ MORE

 

[5] Still Defending Stalin

Stalin’s service to the cause is actually well documented by his modern day defenders and in some case proves to be an obsessive attempt to prove every besmirch allegation upon him a falsehood. Their balanced assessment always seems to come down in his favour.  A local example is when, in London, in 1991, the Stalin Society-UK was formed as an organization whose stated goal was to refute anti- communist and anti-Stalin libels and slanders through rigorous scholarly research and vigorous debate.

 

READ MORE

[1] https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/china/index.htm and  https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/albania/index.htm

 

Friendship Publishing

Foreign Language Press, Novosti Press Agency, 8 Nentori Publishing House, Foreign Language Publishing House Hanoi, and Progress Publishers were all , dare one suggest once familiar, state publishing imprints that provided alternative and contending information and interpretation.  They were presented as propaganda outlets by western media network, no less partisan and working to a status quo agenda than their ideological counter-parts.

In a print-screen digital age other sources of information are out there if one searches. The old enduring print on paper was reliant on sympathetic distribution networks ranging from direct subscription (and what was always assumed) subsidised commercial arrangements, the radical book scene and informal channels through friendship or political groups circulating material. Circulation of foreign-language material, competing in a well established domestic media market, was always going to be a difficult and fringe activity. These state publishing houses produced material to promote their country, state policies and views and establish a voice that promted documents of records as well as those of persuasion.

The mass market potential to register a questioning view point was/is a herculean task at the best of times, and even given the new internet platforms available, the question would remain how to attract a reading audience. To build a relationship of trust with one’s readership was an endeavour shared across all Medias, that desire to communicate; a common feature on all Progress books is their “request to readers,” which reads: “Progress Publishers would be glad to have your opinion of this book, its translation and design and any suggestions you may have for future publications. Please send all your comments to 21, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, U.S.S.R.”

Progress Publishers was a Moscow-based publisher founded in 1931.Just in case you want to collect First editions published by Progress Publishers they have “First Edition (year)” printed on the copyright page with no additional printings listed. They were noted for its English-language editions of books on Marxism-Leninism such as the (now complete 50) hardbound volumes of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

Progress Publishers took over the role of the Foreign Languages Publishing House  the state-run publisher of Russian literature, novels, propaganda, and books about the USSR in foreign languages in 1963 , occupying the premises  of the offices of the Foreign Languages Publishing House situated at the Zubovsky Boulevard. Their logo had the Sputnik satellite on one side, and on the other is the Russian letter ∏, for Progress.

The Co-Operative Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in the U.S.S.R., Moscow – whose large album on the History of the Civil War in the USSR was one-time ubiquitous upon leftist bookshelves – had shared the offices throughout the cold war era. The FLPH was created to centralize all works bound for non Soviet readers.  They published in all subjects, but specialized in politics and literature, the classic Russian authors alongside the contemporary output that faded from memory.

Progress Publishers  concentrated its activities inthe late 1970s/early 1980s by hiving off specialise publishing areas to other publishing houses.

  1.  publishing literature was given to a new imprint, Raduga.  Again   Raduga published many of the classics of Russian Literature, and few contemporary novels. There was also a large selection of  children’s books were published under the Raduga imprint.
  2. Mir Publishers took  on the sciences.  Mir published technical and scientific titles, as well as children’s science books.  MIR Publishers which handled the publishing of scientific and technical books in the Soviet Union, including translations into foreign languages, still exists, although they apparently only publish in Russian now. Although titles from the Soviet era can be found at http://mirtitles.org/

The other best known purveyors of English languages books and booklets from the Soviet Union was that of Novosti Press Agency / APN  created in 1961.

The task of Novosti Press Agency / APN – Novosti means News in Russian was  “to contribute to mutual understanding, trust and friendship among peoples in every possible way by broadly publishing accurate information about the USSR abroad and familiarizing the Soviet public with the life of the peoples of foreign countries.”

APN’s motto was “Information for Peace, for the Friendship of Nations”. It was a major international operation with APN bureaus in over 120 countries, publishing 60 illustrated newspapers – including Moscow news – and magazines in 45 languages, and as a Publishing House put out over 200 books and booklets.

novosti press agency 19870002novosti press agency 1987000571032

scannennovember2013ev0107scannennovember2013ev0211novosti press agency 19870006

According to Yuri Bezmenov a “journalist” for Novosti Press Agency, it was a disinformation and propaganda agency controlled by the Soviet non-military intelligence agency (commonly known as the KGB), and  the biggest propaganda and ideological subversion organization of the U.S.S.R.

He wouldn’t be the first co-opted “journalist” to spread disinformation in the Western world. In the field of Cold war studies there is a growing body of studies on the British state’s own contribution to what Susan Carruthers’ calls Winning Hearts and Minds in her examination of propaganda and media manipulation.  Philip Taylor’s survey British Propaganda in the Twentieth Century: Selling Democracy, Paul Lashmar and James Oliver’s Britain’s Secret Propaganda War unearths lurid ‘dirty tricks’ based on Public Record Office releases from the FO’s Information Research Department (IRD) while Andrew Defty’s Britain, America and Anti-Communist Propaganda 1945–53 closely examines the IRD and its relationship to the Americans, while an overview is explored in John Jenks’ British Propaganda and News Media in the Cold War.  But no-one would believe that the anti-communist narratives of the fifties and the media manipulation techniques faded away, just ask Colin Wallace.

With the collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union the former state publishing companies no longer operate as they once did. Elsewhere the FLPH of Vietnam was transformed, now Thế Giới Publishers (World Publishers) is Vietnam’s official foreign language publishing house. It was established in 1957 “to introduce readers around the world to Vietnam” through publications in English, French and other foreign languages. It publishes Vietnam Cultural Window an English language bi-monthly illustrated magazine, as well as a quarterly academic journal, Vietnamese StudFLP Coversies.

China’s Foreign Languages Press (FLP) established in 1952, has published, in 43 languages, over 30,000 book titles, including the works of Party and State leaders, records of party Congresses and books providing information and commentary on China, totalling over 400 million printed copies. Beijing Review is still available on subscription with content reflective of the rising superpower that China has become. However you will not be able to order Mao Zedong’s “little red book” of Quotations, or those buff coloured paperbacks of Marxist classics that sustained western radical leftists in days gone by.

 

Some Progress Publishers Pdf editions

Books from Vietnam   http://www.thegioipublishers.vn/en/home/

Books from China        www.flp.com.cn

 

 

4. Cold War Typewriter Warrior

woodsmoke

During the Cold War there were marginal beneficiaries to the struggle in the form of those financially supported to “fight the good fight” be it the proliferation of magazines, Study Institutes or radio stations, and spy thrillers based on communist plots. Vanity publishing is not a new phenomenon and throughout the latter half of the Twentieth Century there regular appeared cold war typewriter warriors, you could say the “politically correct” and an arms-length away propagandists for the Western cause.

Amongst the Brian Crozier, Forum World Features, Institute for the Study of Conflict, Robert Moss and Le Cercle grouping was a minor figure of J. Bernard Hutton. His was a varied career: journalist (as so many spies seem to be); foreign news editor in Moscow; press and cultural attaché Czechoslovak Embassy, London; free-lance journalist, lecturer, broadcaster, diplomatic and special correspondent, and psychic researcher.

Born July 1911 in Bohemia, J. Bernard Hutton (the pseudonym adopted by Joseph Heisler) author of books on spies and communist Soviet Russia, his bibliography claims Heisler as a graduate of Berlin University, a Czech journalist on a communist newspaper on Prague and of the Russian daily newspaper Vechernyaya Moskva. There are claims of attending the Lenin School in 1934 before Heisler fled to London 1939, anglicised his name, and served as a press attaché in Jan Masaryk’s Czech government in exile.

J (for Joseph) Bernard Hutton career as an ex-communist was that of an author of lurid tales that focussed on alleged Soviet subversive activities. He was such a prolific author of the early 1960s that J.Bernard Hutton was an incorporated company established May 1963 [Company number 00759961] earning from UK sales and beside various American editions, his work was distributed in translated editions (mainly French, German and Spanish). His early publishers were Neville Spearman Publishers, established in 1955 by Neville Armstrong, described in his obituary as “one of the last of the gentlemen publishers who produced books mirroring their own whims and tastes in a form of cottage industry”. He had been in the Intelligence Corps in India.

  1. Bernard Hutton (pseudonym for Joseph Heisler) made his name with FROGMAN EXTRAORDINARY and DANGER FROM MOSCOW, warning of the “Soviet Threat” (London: Spearman, Neville 1960.)

Lionel known as “Buster” Crabb was a British Royal Navy frogman and MI6 diver who vanished during a reconnaissance mission around a Soviet cruiser berthed at Portsmouth Dockyard in 1956. Peter Wright in his book Spycatcher (1987), argued that Crabb was sent to investigate the Ordzhonikidze’s propeller — a new design that Naval Intelligence wanted to examine. Various theories have emerged over the years as to Crabb’s ultimate fate.

Hutton, in FROGMAN EXTRAORDINARY and a follow-up book ‘Commander Crabb is Alive’ (1968) proposed that he was captured and was taken to Russia where he became Captain Lev Lvovich Korablov in the Soviet Navy.

Hutton’s work raised eyebrows, even the CIA in-house reviewer said beware; in a review of Hutton’s books and “Without taking into account “Hutton’s” own murky Communist past–Heisler belonged to the Czech Party”, he thought :

      “……Hutton’s” efforts may be merely a pecuniary speculation by an exile fabrication mill, or they may be something more sophisticated, a product of Moscow’s cold warriors; a case can be made for either view. It is necessary in any event to call attention to the fraud and its perils.”

  …..   The story, like most such fabrications, contains no provable facts not made public in the news coverage during and since the Crabb affair. Whether or not the dossier was fed to “Hutton” by Soviet agents, with or without his knowledge, the Soviets clearly stand to gain from its publication. Soviet intelligence is shown as omniscient. It is alleged to have known the details of the Crabb operation before it was carried out. At one point there is a serious reference to the “brilliant brains of the Soviet security officers.” It is also depicted as humane: after immobilizing, capturing, and conveying Crabb to the USSR, it “rehabilitated” the frogman instead of shooting him……

Danger from Moscow is based on the device of “secret instructions,” a standard fabrication come-on throughout the existence of the Cominform which still appears in intelligence frauds. It is the classic mixture of fabrication and previously published fact…..
…. the piece consists entirely of retold news stories superimposed on “secret Cominform instructions” by which overt developments in the U.K., the United States, West Germany, and the rest of the world are attributed to “hidden Communist activists.” In a final chapter, “On the Home Front,” Hutton develops the provocatory thesis that Russia is constantly on the verge of a popular revolt against the Communist regime. …. The book  contains no real or reliable knowledge of the workings of the Communist conspiracy in the U.K., the United States, or West Germany which would be beyond the resources of the periodical room of a good library.2

CAVEAT LECTOR : Review of FROGMAN EXTRAORDINARY and DANGER FROM MOSCOW. By J. Bernard Hutton (pseudonym for Joseph Heisler).  (London: Spearman, Neville; and Toronto: Burns & MacEachern. 1960.)
6479828-M 15683769515 9780025578708-us 9780870001697-us

Indeed, Hutton continue to churn out material attacking supposed Soviet duplicity or other aspects on Soviet history including a biography entitled “Stalin , the miraculous Georgian.”

1961   School for Spies: The ABC of How Russia’s Secret Service Operates. London : Neville Spearman

1961 Stalin, the miraculous Georgian. Prefaced by Robert Bruce Lockhart.

Neville  Spearman

1962 Jack Fishman & J. Bernard Hutton .The private life of Josif Stalin. W.H.Allen

1963 The Traitor Trade The documented story of illegal trade in strategic materials with  the Communist bloc. Neville Spearman (W. Averell Harriman, Epilogue) [ 223 pages 17 photographic illustrations] The front cover of the dust-jacket: “The first ever inside story of the greatest smuggling traffic the world has ever known. The story – with fully documented cases – of the men who endanger the free world’s security by selling strategic goods to Communist countries, and of the fifteen nation war against them.”

1969     Struggle in the Dark: how Russian and other Iron Curtain spies operate. Harrap

1970   The Fake Defector. Howard Baker Ltd [A return to Crabb]

1970   Hess: The Man and His Mission. 1970 262 pages David Bruce & Watson Publisher

 1972 The Subverters: Former Czech Communist Official Reveals the Communist Plot to Subvert the West-and Spells Out, for the First Time, the Actual Techniques Being Used Right Now. New York: Arlington House Publishers

     1972     Women in espionage (1972) Macmillian (1st US edition)
 According to another writer specialising in the Cold War arts,
 “Hutton not only invented most of the case histories to which he
 referred in School for Spies, but he adopted the same approach with
 Women Spies, published ten years later, which was a catalog 
of female spies”
Nigel West, (AKA Rupert Alison, former Tory MP] in 
The A – Z to Sexpionage. Scarecrow Press 2009 p.324

J. Bernard Hutton, later became a ‘paranormal investigator and lecturer’. But Robert Moss, once a journalist and right-wing activist who specialized in anti-communist writing, turned to be a ‘shamanic counsellor’, and ‘dream teacher’ (so perhaps no change there!)

On the Other Side of Reality [Howard Baker 1970] and The Healing Power:
The Extraordinary Spiritual Healing of Mrs Leah Doctors and ‘Dr Chang’, Her Spirit Guide written with Michael Fredric Kirkman (Frewin 1975).

The description from the blurb reads:

The amazing true story of a Spirit Doctor. This strange account of a spirit doctor tells how J. Bernard Hutton, a journalist threatened with blindness, met the Medium George Chapman. A former Aylesbury fireman, Chapman claimed to be controlled by the spirit of a long dead surgeon, William Lang, a claim that Hutton viewed with scepticism and contempt. Yet when he visited the medium, a miracle happened. Cured of his ailment, Hutton investigated further. What he learned makes an astonishing and spellbinding story.

Almost believable as his tale of FROGMAN EXTRAORDINARY.

DECLASSIFIED: organized political warfare

IN 2007, when the Central Intelligence Agency – CIA – released declassified files known as the ‘Family Jewels’, the 693 pages, were mostly drawn from the memories of active CIA officers in 1973 on assassination plots, secret drug testing and spying on Americans. It attracted the media spotlight, it was details from two decades of some of its most infamous and illegal operations. However, accompanying that release, and getting less publicity were an additional over 11,000 pages of declassified material, the product of the agency’s analytical branch comprising of documents from the CAESAR, ESAU, and POLO series.

These reports represented the CIA’s efforts from the 1950s to pursue in-depth research on Soviet and Chinese internal politics and Sino-Soviet relations. There were 147 documents in this collection representing the attempt to understand their Cold War opponents. They were the product of men successful in the intelligence career and of some academic achievement engaged to wage “organized political warfare”.

Assigning a few analysts in the Office of Current Intelligence in CIA’S Directorate of Intelligence to establish Project CAESAR in 1952 represented its first in-depth research endeavour.

 Sino-Soviet Studies Group

In September 1956, Ray S. Cline, then-Director of Office of Current Intelligence, decided to establish a small new research staff designated as the Sino-Soviet Studies Group (SSSG). Ray S. Cline’s agency career included service in covert operations overseas, notably as a station chief in Taiwan from 1958 to 1962 — his official title was chief, United States Naval Auxiliary Communications Center — and from 1966 to 1969 as chief of station in Bonn. He believed passionately in the cause of the Chinese Nationalists, and in retirement served as head of the Taiwan Committee for a Free China.

The Sino-Soviet Studies Group he authorised was to continue the CAESAR project while initiating two new research endeavours: POLO, instituted in 1956 to study the Chinese Communist hierarchy, and ESAU, launched in 1959 to examine the Sino-Soviet relationship. They should always be read with a scepticism especially where the research resembles little more than speculation. The politics of such work demands the elasticity of qualification and the vague assertion that employs possibility rather than certainty. But overall the impression is creating the substance of a conclusion. As chief of the agency’s staff on the Sino-Soviet bloc from 1953 to 1957, Cline’s team of analysts accurately predicted that Beijing and Moscow would go their separate ways. In his judgement;

This staff [Office of Current Intelligence’s the Sino-Soviet Studies Group] compiled the data that permitted CIA to lead the way-against furious opposition elsewhere-in charting the strategic conflict between Soviet and Chinese styles of dictatorship and doctrine that was basic to the definitive split in 1960.”

Ray S. Cline, Secrets, Spies, and Scholars: Blueprint of the Essential CIA
(Washington, DC. Acropolis Books, 1976). p. 151.

The “furious opposition” was the dominant (erroneous) judgements of CIA’s counter intelligence head, James Angleton convinced of the opinions of Soviet defector, Anatoly Golitzyn. Golitsyn was a Russian KGB Major who defected from the Soviet Union to the West in 1961. It wasn’t until 1984 with the publication of his first book, New Lies for Old, that Anatoliy Golitsyn became known to the public. He told Angleton that the public disagreement between the Soviet Union and China, and any liberalization of the Soviet Bloc were a strategic deception, part of a KGB masterplan.
There was an equally disturbing paradigm with regards to China that was held by critics of US foreign policy; it suggested a “friendly attitude towards Communism on the part of many prominent officials in the Roosevelt-Truman administrations” had contributed to the coming of power of Mao Zedong. [SEE: Antony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949 (London: Intercontex Publishers 1971)] That erupted in McCarthyism, the anticommunist witch hunt of the late 1940s and 1950s in the US, with dire consequences as many were stigmatized and attacked by their political enemies as ‘subversive’ and ‘Un-American’ whether actual communists or not, thereby effectively removed from public discourse.

The research-based rebuttal of Golitsyn’s views was recalled (and celebrated) in fellow spook, Harold P. Ford’s study “The CIA and Double-Demonology: Calling the Sino-Soviet Split”. The staff analysts had provided evidence of the reality of Sino-Soviet dispute against “furious” opposition elsewhere in CIA and the intelligence community and despite great scepticism among policymakers. As early as 1953, Bingham, Cohen and Leonard Jaffe had signalled latent tension in the relations between the Soviet and Chinese leadership, underlining the divergent regarding theoretical matters.

That report was later placed in the public domain in the form of an amended article years later under the title, Mao’s Road and Sino-Soviet Relations: A view from Washington, 1953. [China Quarterly Oct-Dec 1972: 670-698.]

This research effort was led by Walter P. (Bud) Southard, a senior intelligence officer who had had unique experience stationed in China 1945-1948 as a naval intelligence officer dealing with senior Chinese Communist liaison.

In its first years, the staff was quite small, comprising three or four senior specialists on China and the Soviet Union. While Southard, was the acting coordinator of the group, Philip L. Bridgham developed the Chinese positions and Donald S. Zagoria, before his entry into a successful academic career, developed the Soviet positions.

After 1961, the core group became Southard, Bridgham, Harry Gelman, who moved on to Senior Staff Member at The Rand Corporation, and Arthur A. Cohen.

Each paper would acknowledge the group input and solicit “written or oral comment”: The writer, Philip L. Bridgham, has had the benefit of an intensive review of his paper by two of his colleagues Arthur A. Cohen and Charles F. Steffens, and of discussions with them and with several other colleagues.

Walter P. Southard (1920-1999)

Born February 18, 1920 in Cleveland, Ohio, after graduating from Kenyon College (Garbier, Ohio) Bud enlisted in the Navy and was sent to the Navy Language School in Boulder, Colorado. He then served in the Aleutians and in China.
In 1948 Bud joined the Central Intelligence Agency where he worked for 30 years as a political analyst on problems associated with Sino-Soviet relations and the Chinese Communist Party. His work was so highly regarded that in work on US – China relations he was referred to as “the legendary analyst.”

 Harry Gelman

Author of The Conflict_a survey Problems of Communism (March-April 1963). He was described as “an American student of Indian affairs” Gelman had his study, “The Indian CP Between Moscow and Peking” published in Problems of Communism (November-December 1962),“Indian Communism in Turmoil” (May-June 1963) and
Mao and the permanent purge (November 1966). There was a return to its pages with “Outlook for Sino-Soviet Relations” (September 1979) and a change in focus with “The Rise and fall of détente “(March 1985). Other Soviet titles included Brezhnev Politburo and the Decline of Detente (1984), East Europe and Soviet leadership contention: Implications for the West (The EAI papers)1985 and Gorbachev’s Policies Toward Western Europe: a Balance Sheet : Executive Summary (A Project Air Force report) 1987.

 

 Arthur Cohen

Cohen contributed to What is Maoism? A Symposium (Problems of Communism, September 1966)  that saw him opposing Stuart Schram’s views. Cohen‘s ‘HOW ORGINAL IS Maoism had appeared in Problems of Communism Nov-Dec 1961 a propaganda journal published throughout the Cold War published by the United States Information Agency in Washington, D.C. from 1952 to 1992.Its author was studying at Stanford University, on leave from his day job as in-house CIA intellectual contributing intelligence staff studies and briefing papers produced by the China Division of the Sino-Soviet Bloc Area. Arthur Cohen, promoted co-ordinator of the Sino-Soviet Studies Group, went on to publish his 210 paged study, The Communism of Mao Tse-Tung with Chicago University Press in 1964.
Philip L. Bridgham (1921-2003)

a member of the Sino-Soviet Studies Group in the period 1959-1961, before he joined the Department of Defense late in 1961. Product of the US Navy Japanese / Oriental Language School, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1942-1946. During WWII, he was a Japanese Language officer in the Navy and saw service in Japan, Australia, New Guinea and the Philippines. He taught at the University of Hawaii for two years before becoming assistant professor of political science at Dickinson college, Carlisle, Penna. 1951, he was awarded the degree of doctor of philosophy by the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Harvard University for his Ph.D. dissertation, “American Policy toward Korean Independence, 1866-1910”. He joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1952. He learned Chinese and became a China specialist. He has published articles concerning China’s domestic politics and Sino-Soviet relations and was the first to appear in print publicly as a CIA analyst. After 32 years of working for the CIA, he retired in September 1984.

China Quarterly, a respectable academic outlet for studies undertaken by the intelligence research departments published Bridgham’s views on China’s National People’s Congress in 1965 [The China Quarterly 05/1965; 22:62 – 74.]

Bridgham contributed a chapter on The international impact of Maoist ideology at 5th conference sponsored by the Subcommittee on Chinese Government and Politics of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council, held at Santa Fe, N.M., Aug. 2-6, 1971. Produced as Conference papers, Ideology and politics in Contemporary China (1971)

In a practice not restricted to American academia, the cross fertilisation between the academic experts and intelligence communities has been well documented with a nexus of discreet meetings and briefings for their mutual benefit. The CIA was providing long-term covert financial assistance to radio stations and publications as well as the intellectual support network for the cold war propaganda placed in what were seen as neutral academic journals.
For a number of years, the Special Research Staff was CIA’S primary representative interacting with the academic world, often taking sabbatical year to write (at favourable colleges like St. Anthony’s College, Oxford). Some members or former members of the Staff (Zagoria, Bridgham, Cohen, and Gelman) published books or articles in academic journals on matters concerning the Chinese and Soviet leaderships. The very public and prolific publishing career of Donald S Zagoria partly illustrates those interactions and dependencies that comprise the intellectual hegemony that sustained the security concerns in the Cold War era.

Donald S Zagoria

The author of “seminal work” The Sino-Soviet Conflict, 1956-1961 published in 1962 by Princeton University Press when a member of the Social Science Division of the Rand Corporation, then a major policy think tank in the industrial-military complex.

By 1965 Donald S. Zagoria, was teaching government at Columbia University while a Fellow of its Research Institute in Communist Affairs. Outside interests include membership of the influential policy think-tank the Council on Foreign Relations; his article, “Communism in Asia,” appeared in the February issue of Commentary was the one of more than 200 articles. In a flourish academic career, Donald S. Zagoria serves as a Trustee of the National Committee on American Foreign Policy. He went onto writing and lecturing for thirty-five years on international politics with a particular focus on relations among the major powers in the Asia-Pacific region: the United States, Russia, China, and Japan. In addition to five books on this subject, he is the author of which have appeared in Foreign Affairs, Asian Survey, The American Political Science Review, Current History, International Security, The New York Times Sunday Magazine, and The American Journal of Sociology.

Books:
The Sino-Soviet Conflict (Princeton, 1962)
Vietnam Triangle (Pegasus, 1968)
Soviet Policy in East Asia, ed. (Yale, 1982)
U.S.-Japan Relations in Multilateral Organizations, co-ed. (Bunche Institute on the United Nations, City University of New York, 1994)
Breaking the China-Taiwan Impasse, ed. (Praeger, 2003)
 William E. Griffiths (1920-1998)

Another Cold war scholar working elsewhere in the CIA media network was William E. Griffiths also engaged in the analyst business based in Munich, providing reports and interpretation through reports from Radio Free Europe.

William E. Griffith born on February 19, 1920 in Remsen, NY, received the BA in liberal arts from Hamilton College in 1940 and the MA in history from Harvard in 1941. His international career began as a US Army officer in France and Germany during World War II, after which he served as the chief of the Denazification Branch of the US Military Government for Bavaria from 1947-48. After his tour of duty in Bavaria, he returned to the United States to complete work on his PhD in German history at Harvard. In 1950 Griffith joined the staff of the Free Europe Committee in New York. The Committee had been established the previous year as an anti- Communist campaign group under the chairmanship of Joseph Grew. Ostensibly a private foundation, the bulk of its funds came from the CIA. The Committee oversaw Radio Free Europe, which beamed news, encouragement and propaganda into the Communist-run countries of Eastern Europe from its studios in Munich. Griffith moved back to Germany as the chief political adviser at Radio Free Europe in Munich when it was still operated by the Central Intelligence Agency from 1950 to 1958, the height of the Cold War.*
He came to MIT in 1959 as a senior research associate at the Center for International Studies and Director of the International Communism Project at M.I.T. (which received some CIA support) and had published ‘‘Albania and the Sino-Soviet Rift” (1963). There was also a two volume study edited by Griffith Communism in Europe: continuity, change and the Sino-Soviet Dispute published 1964 by Massachusetts Institute of Technology & Pergamon Press. While at MIT, he wrote and/or edited 11 books and numerous articles; the publications he contributed to range from the Atlantic Monthly to the Boston Globe to the Reader’s Digest.
He became a professor of political science in 1966 and was appointed the Ford International Professor of Political Science in 1972. He had served as an adviser to the State Department from 1967 and, as a professor, had taught students who went on to careers as senior government officials and experts in the field. He was one of many American professors to cross the line between academe and government. Griffith would commute to Washington once a week from his home in Lexington, Massachusetts when he returned to government in 1979 as an advisor to President Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a longtime colleague. Professor Griffith assumed emeritus status at MIT in 1990. After retirement from MIT in 1990 he moved to Germany for four years.
Described in his obituary by the New York Times as “a historian and political scientist who was an authority on Communism, the cold war and Central and Eastern Europe” died on Sept. 28th 1998.

A friend said, ”Bill Griffith was a very dedicated anti-Communist”.

Like the other Cold War scholars.

 


 

*Selected Bibliography
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/free-europe-to-free-poland-free-europe-committee-the-cold-war
Collins, Larry D. “The Free Europe Committee: An American Weapon of the Cold War.” PhD dissertation, Carleton University, 1973.
Cummings, Richard H. Cold War Radio: The Dangerous History of American Broadcasting in Europe, 1950-1989. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2009.
Kádár-Lynn, Katalin, ed. The Inauguration of “Organized Political Warfare”: The Cold War Organizations sponsored by the National Committee for a Free Europe/Free Europe Committee. Saint Helena, CA: Helena History Press, 2013.
Puddington, Arch. Broadcasting Freedom: The Cold War Triumph of Radio Free Europe. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2000.
Wilford, Hugh. The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.