Is the “protracted conflict” a conflict between systems or between ways of life? It is of course both, but it is well to remind ourselves from time to time that if the system on the other side were not predicated on the Leninist proposition that it is the duty of those who run it to extend it to the entire world, the conflict would be static and void of danger.
Thus the static theocracy of Tibet, at the times when the Han Chinese left it alone, was in no sense a danger to the rest of the world. Thus again, it would be hard to maintain that the inwardlooking way of life dubbed “Burmese socialism” by General Ne Win and others constitutes a threat to Burma’s Southeast Asian neighbors; whereas the outward-driving Leninist regime of Vietnam quite clearly does.




Comments