Marxism-Leninism on War and Army - Young National states
The basic contradiction of the contemporary epoch has a major influence on the development of the newly–independent states and their armies. Under its impact, and especially under the influence of the world socialist system, the social forces in the young independent states are polarising. Their armies too are developing under this influence. The progressive patriotic forces in the developing countries are realising ever more clearly that only by embarking on socialist construction can they quickly achieve a high development of their productive forces, secure political and economic independence, and a rapid growth of the material welfare and culture of their people. They therefore strive to strengthen the political and economic relations with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries on the basis of sovereignty and mutual advantage. The world socialist system gives the young states that have embarked on progressive development diversified assistance, including assistance in the strengthening of their defensive capacity, and in the development of their armed forces.
The imperialist powers, conversely, strive to turn the young states and their armed forces into instruments of the neo-colonialists. Among the forms used to implement neocolonialist policies are “aid” to the young states by supplying them with weapons and military equipment, the sending of “instructors”, the bribery of officers in their armies, the maintenance of military bases and garrisons on their territories, etc.
Neo-colonialis’t policies are dangerous not only for the people of the countries in which they are pursued, but also for those of other peace-loving countries. The military provocations of the puppet and dependent states may have dangerous consequences for the cause of peace throughout the world.
Armies Born During the Struggle for National Liberation. Specifics of Their Formation
How did the young independent states create their armed forces? In countries which by the end of the Second World War already had revolutionary parties to head the struggle of the working masses for national and social liberation, the armed forces were built up under their leadership. The parties of the working class took charge of the development and education of the army, and of its combat actions. In their turn, the armed forces acted as a major motive force in transforming the national liberation, democratic revolution into a socialist one.
In some countries the Communists formed a united front with other parties waging the national liberation struggle. Directly participating in the armed struggle, the Communists carried on educational work among the military units and the working masses, organised support for combat actions by strikes and working people’s demonstrations. The unfolding national liberation struggle, the anti-imperialist revolution was simultaneously a process of the formation and development of people’s armies. This is how the National People’s Army of Algeria, the Burmese Army and the Army of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam were created.
The strength of the National People’s Army of Algeria, as also that of other people’s revolutionary armies, is founded on its moral-political superiority, the selfless support 212given to it by the Algerian people and the working masses of other Arab countries, and by the world socialist system. At the same time the accelerated process of the demarcation of the class forces and the growth of revolutionary consciousness among the working class and all working people changed the National Liberation Army. The attempts of some bourgeois officers and former leaders of the National Liberation Front to carry out counter-revolutionary coups in 1962–1964 in order to preserve capitalism in the country were foiled by the working masses and the Algerian Army.
The Burmese Army is an active force promoting the development of that country along the non-capitalist road. It was created and developed in the course of the long national .liberation struggle against Japanese and British imperialists waged jointly by revolutionary democrats and Communists. Its soldiers are educated in the spirit of patriotism, constant readiness to defend the people’s gains against internal reactionaries and imperialist aggressors. The officer corps of the Burmese Army consists mainly of representatives of the medium urban layers, the rank–andfile mostly of working peasants. The Burmese Army participates actively in the political and economic life of the country, in realising the “Burma’s Road to Socialism" programme. Reactionary officers, who supported neocolonialist policies, were ousted -from the army in the course of revolutionary reforms. Patriotically-minded officers hold leading posts in all the links of the state apparatus.
The transformation of the national liberation armies into an active force for social reform is a logical modern development. This process proceeds the quicker, the more actively the masses participate in the struggle against colonialism. Convincing proof of this is the development of the armies in countries of Indochina, and also of the armies of several African and Middle East countries.
Rebel armies are born in the course of the armed struggle the peoples of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa are waging against the colonialists, against fascist and racialist regimes. Despite the difficulty of the struggle against the superior forces of the enemy and the splitting tactics of various adventurist 213groups and organisations, the revolutionary armed forces increasingly win the support of the masses and of the progressive forces the world over. Experience demonstrates that the armed struggle imposed upon the working people by the colonialists and corrupt regimes inevitably becomes a school in which the people learn the art of revolution. It convinces them of the need to conduct not only a struggle for national liberation, but also to carry out fundamental social reforms on the liberated territory.
Many colonies have won political independence without a drawn-out armed struggle. The colonialists “granted” them independence in order to be able to place puppet governments at their head and to preserve their economic positions.
In these countries armies were built up either on the basis of the old “national structure”, or were organised anew, in keeping with the social and political nature of the state.
In some countries army units led by progressive officers overthrew the reactionary puppet regimes and as a result these countries have embarked on democratic socio–political reforms. This happened in Egypt in 1952, in Iraq in 1958, in the Yemen in 1962 and in Libya in 1969. In Syria in 1965 army units supported the actions of the working masses headed by the trade unions and progressive political parties. As a result the military dictatorship was overthrown and the road was cleared for the implementation of important socio-economic reforms.
In the young national states the attitude of the army to progressive reforms and its combat efficiency in the antiimperialist struggle depend greatly on the social composition and the political stand of the officer corps.
Though they were well supplied with modern weapons, the armed forces of the UAR suffered a military setback in the war against the Israeli aggressors in June 1967 mainly because a large part of the generals and officers, who were linked with the feudals and hence were reactionary, did not want to defend the progressive changes in the republic. Later they took part in an anti-government plot. Supported by the masses, the UAR government discharged hundreds of such officers and generals from the services in JuneAugust 1967 and advanced representatives of the progressive forces to these posts. The Arab Socialist Union is 214conducting political education in the army and works to weld together its personnel.
The replacement of disloyal officers by representatives of the progressive forces and the intensification of the activity of revolutionary organisations in the army are also underway in some other countries which have embarked on non-capitalist development.
The imperialists attempt to subject the armies of the young national states to their influence. They do this through their “instructors” sent to teach the troops to handle the weapons and equipment bought from the Western powers, by bribing officers, organising coups, etc. In some African countries military coups have put reactionary officers in power. In most cases these coups were inspired by the imperialist states with a view to overthrowing governments that had embarked on non-capitalist development (Ghana, for example) or to prevent the country’s advance towards political and economic independence. The seizure of power in a number of African and Latin American countries by reactionary military juntas naturally cannot resolve the social contradictions in those countries. On the contrary, these contradictions further aggravate under neocolonialist regimes, and the struggle against the rule of domestic and foreign reactionaries takes on the sharpest forms.
The specific features of the contradictions and of the ways for resolving them in individual countries attaining sovereignty were responsible for the specific character and principles underlying the development of their armed forces.
The development of India’s national armed forces proceeded in a very specific way. Britain formed units in India, manned partly by Indians, for the purpose of suppressing the peoples of India and other countries, and also to fight Britain’s competitors. Several armament plants were built in the country. During the Second World War the Indian volunteer army was increased to 2.5 million. Over 75,000 Indian soldiers and NCOs joined the people in the struggle for national independence. After the Second World War, the British colonialists were compelled to grant India independence, but did this on condition that the country would be divided into two states—India and Pakistan. India’s 215armed forces were also divided. The men were divided mainly on the basis of religion.
Having proclaimed a policy of non-alignment with aggressive imperialist blocs, the Indian government discharged British officers from its army. At the same time it began to build a national war industry. The Soviet Union did much to help India maintain her independence. In addition to the regular army, India has territorial troops, a national and auxiliary cadet corps.
Officially no class limitations exist for those wishing to join officer schools. Actually, however, applicants are required to have a school-leaving certificate, a substantial sum of money to buy equipment and also some pocket money. These conditions keep children of the working people out of the schools. The men (sepoys) and NCOs are hired, generally for long terms.
Alongside with the just struggle for the liberation of India from the colonialists, the Indian Army was used to suppress the action of starved peasants against the feudal lords.
The bourgeois governments of some independent states deliberately oppose the democratisation of the officer corps wishing thus to retain the army in their hands and to use it for their reactionary purposes. However, the growing role of the army in social transformations and in the struggle against neo-colonialism, the advance in military equipment, the comprehensive specialisation and growth of the importance of engineering and technical personnel have opened the officer corps also to descendants of the people’s intelligentsia, of the working people. The growing influence of democratic and socialist ideas among young officers and the mass of men is a logical development, especially in the young national states, whose peoples are growing aware that only the development along the non-capitalist road and reliance on the world socialist system will enable their countries to overcome backwardness and dependence.
Armies headed by representatives of the imperialist states pose a serious threat to the independence of their own country and to that of its neighbours. The armies of the young states in the aggressive blocs, of most Latin American and some African countries have to all intents become “foreign legions" of the Western powers—instruments of 216imperialism for the suppression of the national liberation movement in their own and in neighbouring countries.
The rapid growth of the national liberation movement and the class struggle in the young national states will inevitably spur the development of the patriotic forces in the armies of those states, will sharpen the contradiction between the progressive, revolutionary forces and the reactionary, counter-revolutionary forces in them. The heightening of the role and influence of the progressive, revolutionary forces is an objective historical trend, one that asserts itself also in the armies of the young national states.
* * *
Whenever the oppressed classes rose to fight their exploiters, they always tried to set up revolutionary military organisations of their own to oppose the armies of the exploiter states. However, neither the slaves nor the peasant masses fighting their oppressors were sufficiently well organised. They lacked the necessary staunchness and had no clear idea of their revolutionary liberation aims. Also, they lacked reliable political leadership, without which no struggle against the class enemy can be successful. It was only when the proletariat became an independent political power and the world socialist system had formed that the exploited classes of the colonial and dependent countries acquired a reliable leader in their struggle for liberation from all forms of national and social oppression.
The victory in Russia of the first socialist revolution in the world, and the formation of the world socialist system led to the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism, and gave the people who had freed themselves from colonial oppression a real chance to embark on the building of socialism, by-passing the capitalist stage. In their struggle for the non-capitalist road of development and the transition to socialism these peoples rely on the comprehensive assistance of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, including also their help in setting up and developing their national armed forces and in organising the armed defence of their countries against imperialist aggressors. The Soviet Government has repeatedly declared that it has 217always given and continues to give various assistance to peoples fighting against imperialist intervention in their affairs, and will assist victims of imperialist aggression by all, including military, means.
In modern conditions, when the relation of forces in the world continues to change in favour of peace, democracy and socialism, while imperialism intensifies its aggressive ventures, the defensive might of the USSR and other socialist countries, the combat efficiency and readiness of their armed forces are a most important factor in securing historical progress.
* * *
.jpg)
