Workers World, Vol. 4 No. 12
Only time will tell whether the settlement in Laos has any but momentary significance. At any rate, it is too early for a definitive assessment.
But already it has in it some very instructive lessons in the history of our times. The key issue in dispute over the settlement of the coalition government has been the question of control over the Ministries of Army and Police.
This shows that both sides in the struggle understand the fundamental teaching of Lenin’s “State and Revolution” – each from their own class point of view.
If it was otherwise, they would have been arguing about the apportionment of seats in the new parliament – or about the administrative machinery for setting up a new election, and not about who will control the army and police.
The control of these two arms of the state apparatus, according to “State and Revolution,” will decide who controls the state, and also, ultimately, the class character of the state.
If it should turn out that the Pathet Lao liberation army, which has the overwhelming support of the Laotian people, will not only retain full sway over its own military and police forces, but also obtain indirect control over the merged forces of the Ministries of Defense and Police, then it can be confidently said that Laos will be completely liberated, not only from imperialism, but from the Boun Oum-Nosavan feudal-military clique of U.S. paid hirelings.
But as matters stand now, the agreement is somewhat vague and cloudy. It provides that the Ministry of Defense and Interior shall go to the neutralists – i.e., Prince Souvanna Phouma’s appointees.
Where Phouma will stand tomorrow is conjectured. But it is not left up to Souvanna Phouma alone, so far as anyone can tell from a mere reading of the dispatches, because the agreement further provides that each of the three factions may veto any important action taken by the other two. Decisions must be unanimous.
Thus Prince Souphanouvong, the representative of the Pathet Lao liberation army, holds a veto power as to how the armies and police of both sides will be integrated into a unified, national force.
The manner in which this issue is disposed of is crucial. It will decide whether Laos will really be liberated or whether the present agreement was merely a lull in the struggle.
In this connection, it is instructive to remember that when the late General Marshall undertook his now famous peace mission to “reconcile” the Chinese Red Army with the Chiang Kai-shek forces, Washington hoped that he would achieve the kind of integration into a unified national force which would subordinate the Red Army under the overall command of Chiang Kai-shek!
The refusal of the Chinese Communist leaders to submit to Washington’s dictate constituted a turning point in the direction of what proved to be the second greatest revolution in history.
---
Another instructive lesson lies in the role of small nations in today’s world. The fact that the Laos agreement will require the signatures of no less than 14 other nations is in itself a commentary on the role of small states.
Not the smallest or even the greatest powers enjoy complete independence. We are living in an epoch of struggle between two diametrically opposed world social systems. Until this struggle is finally and completely resolved in favor of socialism, there cannot be any real, full independence for any of the nations. The nature of the struggle requires mutual dependence and interdependence within each camp.
The ferocious pressure of world imperialism, the monstrous growth of its military might, its insatiable appetite for the spoils of super-exploitation, constrict the efforts of the socialist countries and the emerging Asian and African nations.
The development of the imperialist Common Market as a new weapon to obstruct the economic growth of all anti-imperialist countries, makes it all the more difficult for small and weak nations to develop and utilize all channels of the world market. Thus the support of the USSR, China and North Vietnam is vital in the defense of the Laotian liberation struggle.
---
The third lesson is also in the nature of a warning. The Laos Agreement, if it should become a viable fact of history, should under no circumstances become a new source of illusions regarding the war-like character of imperialism. This, perhaps, is the most important lesson.
Premier Khrushchev stated on the occasion of the Laotian Agreement:
“The results achieved in the settlement of the Laotian problem strengthen the conviction that success in solving other international problems which now divide states and create tension in the world, can be achieved in the same way.”
It is noteworthy that the New York Times interpreted Kennedy’s remarks on Laos as “more restrained.”
It is necessary to view Khrushchev’s remarks in the nature of a diplomatic note rather than as a guide to the world labor and liberation movement.
To make a thesis for peaceful coexistence out of the Laotian settlement is to fly in the face of the most obvious reality. Even the most reactionary section of the U.S. imperialist press has had to openly admit that it was the heavy defeat – really a complete rout – inflicted by the heroic Pathet Lao liberation army upon Boun Oum’s mercenary army and his U.S. supporters, which proved decisive in forcing the U.S. to finally push through the agreement.
To lose sign of this fact is to confuse the working class theoretically and disarm it politically.
Last updated: 11 May 2026