Application Of The Five Principles Of Peaceful Coexistence'S Should Be Extended To State Relations Among All Countries

Date: 1954-10
Source: en:FLP-Diplomacy
APPLICATION OF THE FIVE PRINCIPLES OF
PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE SHOULD BE
EXTENDED TO STATE RELATIONS
AMONG ALL COUNTRIES*
{October 1954)
All Countries in the East Have Been
Bullied by Western Imperialist Powers
{October 19, 1954)
Historically, all of us, peoples of the East, have been bullied by Western
imperialist powers. Though located in the East, Japan was also an imperialist
power that bullied other Eastern countries. Now, however, even Japan is being
bullied. China was bullied by Western imperialist powers for over 100 years.
Your country was bullied even longer, for more than 300 years. Now, the
Japanese people are also being oppressed. Therefore, we, peoples of the East,
have instinctive feelings of solidarity and for protecting ourselves. Ambassador
Raghavan has served in China for a few years, and he surely understands the
Chinese people's patriotism and their feelings for the Indian people and the
people of the other countries in the East. In spite of differences in our
ideologies and social systems, we have an overriding common point, that is,
all of us have to cope with imperialism. Prime Minister Nehru should not think
China has attained complete independence and has no problems. We still face
very big problems. Taiwan is still in the hands of the United States and Chiang
Kai-shek. We have over 30 islands that are only a few kilometers off the coast
of our mainland, and three of them are fairly big. These islands are all occupied
* These are excerpts from Mao Zedong's talks with Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal
Nehru on four occasions.
by the U.S. and Chiang Kai-shek forces, so that our vessels cannot pass
through, nor can foreign vessels. American airplanes fly to the air over our
interior and air-drop special agents. These special agents form groups of seven
to ten persons and are equipped with radio sets. To date, scores of such groups
of special agents have been air-dropped in our interior provinces. In Sichuan
and in parts of Qinghai adjacent to Tibet, American airplanes have air-dropped
not only special agents, but also weapons to aid the bandits there. All this
shows that a small number of people in the U.S. authorities are bent on
harming us whenever they have the opportunity to do so.
Besides, as is known to Prime Minister Nehru, China is not an industrial
ized country, but an agricultural country. The level of our industrial develop
ment is lower than that of India. It will take us another 10 to 20 years' effort
to achieve some tangible results. At present the imperialist powers still look
down upon us. Our two countries are in a similar plight, and this is the
common plight of countries in the East. I have read Prime Minister Nehru's
speech of the 29th of last month, and found the sentiments he expressed
similar to ours.
The welcome shown by the peoples of our countries to the leaders of our
countries on mutual visits illustrates that they place emphasis on our common
point rather than the differences in our ideologies and social systems.
Application of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence should be
extended to the state relations among all countries. As pointed out by Prime
Minister Nehru in his speech of the 29th last month, countries should be
committed to the Five Principles and assume obligations accordingly. If a
country says one thing, but acts otherwise, there is justification to censure that
country, which is in the wrong in the eyes of the people. The problem is that
some big powers refuse to commit themselves or conclude agreements on the
Five Principles, as our countries have done. No one knows what they have in
mind. To my knowledge, the United States and Britain also say that they want
peace and will not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. However,
if we want to issue a statement with them in accordance with the Five
Principles, they are unwilling.
It is inconceivable that any country would march its troops into the
United States. There is alleged U.S. fear of losing the places it has occupied
in various parts of the world. However, I seem to have heard that the United
States is against British and French colonialism. The alleged U.S. fear is
excessive. It has advanced its defense lines to South Korea, Taiwan and
Indochina, which are so far from the United States and so close to us. This
makes our sleep uneasy.
In doing things the United States does not care whether others can tolerate
them. For instance, in rigging up SEATO, it did not bother to consult China
and India. There are many countries in Asia, yet it consulted only three
countries, Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines.
Prime Minister Nehru has said that SEATO is a U.S. reaction to the
Geneva Agreements. This is quite right. The Geneva Conference did some
good, so the United States tried to sabotage it.
Anthony Eden proposed that a Locarno Pact for Asia be concluded.
Later on, however, he gave up the idea and accepted SEATO instead. Such a
big power should not have been so timid. Our two countries are not afraid.
When the United States invited India to the Manila Conference, India had the
courage to stay away. On the question of restoration of China's status in the
United Nations, India has the courage to cast an affirmative vote, while big
powers like Britain and France are so timid. Let us propose that they hand
over their big-power status to us. All right?
Britain often asserts that it is China that does not recognize Britain, but
we have told them that it is Britain that does not recognize China. We have
advised Britain to follow the example of India, and if that is done, Britain can
establish formal diplomatic relations with China. Some Scandinavian coun
tries, for example Norway, also had the courage to vote for restoration of
China's status in the United Nations; we have therefore established formal
diplomatic relations with Norway.
Australia has expressed fear of us, alleging that Communists will commit
aggression against it. But we do not even have the ships—how can we reach
there? In joining the Manila Pact, Australia asserted it was for defense
purposes. However, when we proposed to that country an agreement on the
Five Principles, on mutual nonaggression and noninterference, Australia dec
lined.
I have two points of doubt:
First, the United States is shouting anti-communist slogans, and it is in
fact opposed to the Communist Parties. But is it really afraid of the Chinese
Communist Party? China has only a few worn-out guns; what we have are
only people, farming and handicrafts. As I see it, the United States is not really
afraid of the Chinese Communist Party, but is using this as a pretext for
ulterior purposes.
Second, why is it that countries like Britain, France and Australia follow
the United States, while India, Indonesia, Burma and some Scandinavian
countries do not necessarily follow the United States? I think this is because
countries like Britain, France and Australia have tied their interests to the

American locomotive, and they have to obey when the United States issues an
order, whereas India, Indonesia, Burma and some Scandinavian countries have
not tied their interests to the American locomotive, or have only loose ties, so
these countries do not have to follow the United States.
Cooperation Between Countries
Must Be Mutually Beneficial
{October 21, 1954)
On the question of cooperation, experience has shown us that coopera
tion, whether between persons, political parties or countries, has to be mutually
beneficial and should not be detrimental to any party. If any party's interests
are hurt, cooperation cannot be sustained. That is why one of our Five
Principles is equality and mutual benefit.
Mencius, one of the sages of ancient China, said, "Uniformity is the
nature of things." That is to say, diversity is the reality of the world.
Marxism also recognizes diversity, which differs from the view of metaphysics.
Countries, especially friendly countries, should not guard against each
other. The mutual vigilance between China and the United States is not a good
thing.
We Should Work Together to Prevent
War and Win a Lasting Peace
{October 23, 1954)
We do not agree with the past allegations of Hitlerite Germany. One of
the allegations of Hitlerite Germany and Japan was that they were "have-not"
countries; and they wanted to snatch things from the "have" countries. Japan
was truly the "yellow peril" in the past, ten years ago.
We in China need peace, a peace of at least several decades, to develop
our national production and improve the people's standard of living. We do
not want war. It would be very good if such an environment of peace were
created. We can cooperate with anyone who supports the goal of peace.
Undoubtedly, India supports it, and so do Indonesia and Burma.
I think Thailand does not believe that China would launch a massive
attack against it. We want to have good relations with it, but the Thai
government seems rather strange, paying no heed to us.
The Philippines says it is afraid of our aggression, yet when we expressed
our wish to build good relations with it, it declined. We have indicated that
since there is fear of aggression, we should make friends, and issue a statement
on mutual nonaggression, as China and India have done. Again it has declined
and refuses to recognize the existence of China. We cannot comprehend why
this is so. The only reason is that it heeds the United States and follows its
tracks—it does whatever the United States says.
Regarding the United States, there is a question we did not finish
discussing last time, and that is the question of war. Prime Minister Nehru has
said that the United States wants war, that it wants to reap greater benefits by
means of war. Whether war can bring benefits is a question that merits study.
We can examine which countries benefited from the two world wars. It can
be said that the two world wars brought benefits to three categories of countries
and were harmful to all other countries.
In the first category is U.S. imperialism, which benefited from the two
world wars and grew.
The second category encompasses countries established after the world
wars and led by the Communist Parties and working class.
The third category encompasses oppressed nations and countries that are
not led by Communist Parties, but by patriotic organizations or parties.
Countries such as India, Indonesia, Burma, Syria and Egypt belong to this
category.
To go in for war, one has to mobilize the people, subject them to tension,
and teach them how to fight. But when the people are banded together,
revolution occurs. That was the case with the Chinese revolution, and that was
also the case with the Indian revolution. The independence of both our
countries is an outcome of World War II. Had it not been for World War II,
it would have been very difficult to win independence.
Other countries have been weakened by the war, for instance, Germany,
Italy and Japan. Though among the winning countries, Britain and France
have also been weakened. In China, as Japan and Chiang Kai-shek were both
weakened, we were able to stand up. Moreover, with the weakening of Britain,
countries such as India, Burma and Egypt have stood up. With the weakening

of France, Vietnam and Syria have stood up. And with the weakening of the
Netherlands, Indonesia has stood up.
If another war is to be waged, it is not yet known what exactly is in the
minds of the U.S. military clique. Their past experience is that they benefited
and grew from the two world wars, and they may hope to have even greater
benefit and growth from another war. This line of thinking is based on their
experience, but this is only one aspect of past experience. The other aspect is
that a number of countries were founded after the two world wars—countries
led by Communist Parties or patriotic parties. If a new world war is launched,
I do not think the United States can necessarily benefit, and problems may
emerge in the United States itself. If another world war is fought, the bulk or
whole of West Asia and Africa and the whole of Latin America will shake off
imperialism.
The people's revolutionary forces emerge only when the time is oppor
tune. If an opportunity had not been provided for the Bolsheviks by World
War I, the Russian October Revolution would have encountered difficulties.
In China we had fought for 22 years, yet not until the final few years did we
win victory. Not until the end of World War II did we have the opportunity
to stand up. These are cases of countries led by Communist Parties.
As for countries led by patriotic parties, we can see instances in Southeast
and West Asia. People tend to hold differing views. But to my mind, it will
not pay for the United States to fight another big war, as that will plunge the
whole world or the greater part of the world into a state of revolution. It is
not alarmist talk when I say so; it is based on the actual state of affairs
following the two world wars. If another world war is unleashed, I don't think
the United States can gain any benefits; war can only diminish the areas under
U.S. domination.
With respect to weaponry, the United States thinks that since it has atom
bombs, heavy artillery and a strong navy and air force, it can rely on these.
In my view, though there have been changes in weaponry, apart from
inflicting more casualties there is no fundamental difference. In ancient times,
cold weapons, such as swords and spears, were used. Then hot weapons, such
as rifles, machine-guns, artillery, etc., were used. Now atom bombs have been
added. The basic difference is that cold weapons inflicted fewer casualties, hot
weapons more, and atom bombs still more. There has been no difference
except in the number of casualties. In the past, both belligerent parties had
cold and hot weapons in their possession, and now both the Soviet Union and
the United States have atom bombs. The changes in weaponry can inflict
greater numbers of casualties—that is all.
If a third world war is fought, the number of casualties will be not tens
of millions, but hundreds of millions. China so far has no atom bombs, and
I do not know whether India has them. We have begun research in this
connection, yet atom bombs require financial input. We may not have one
for some time to come.
If a third world war is fought, casualties will be inflicted on both sides.
That will strike a balance. The ultimate factor deciding the outcome of a war
will still be men—who handle the weapons, what the combatants wielding the
weapons regard as most advantageous, and who are better at fighting. The first
two elements are of primary importance. As regards the quantity of weapons,
both the Congress Party of India and the Communist Party of China had no
weapons at the very beginning, but now both of us have them.
Another point comes from experience. In both world wars the defenders
succeeded and the attackers were defeated. In World War I the German armed
forces advanced to Paris in the west and approached Petrograd in the east. But
in the end the invaders failed. In World War II the invaders, Germany, Italy
and Japan, were all defeated, and the defensive side won victory, though some
countries on the side of defense, such as Britain and France, were weakened
by the war.
We can thus draw the conclusion that another world war should not be
fought, and lasting peace should be maintained. The outcome of another world
war will not be in the interest of the aggressors.
Your analysis and mine, though similar in some areas and different in
others, have reached an identical conclusion. In analyzing the United States,
Prime Minister Nehru has said that, on the one hand, the United States has
benefited from the war, but, on the other hand, it has encountered difficulties.
This is a very good analysis. As for the implements of warfare, we can roughly
identify three stages, namely, arrows and spears, then artillery, and then atom
bombs. Prime Minister Nehru says that these weapons differ in quality. That
is true. When I talked about weaponry just now, I was only referring to the
outcome of wars.
Whatever weapons are used, in whatever period of time a war is fought,
and no matter whether it is local or global in scale, the outcome of wars is
always one side destroying the other. Of course, there are also wars that end
in a draw and a kind of peace, such as the wars relating to the 38th Parallel
and the 17th Parallel. In these wars no party fundamentally defeated another
party. In the majority of cases, however, there are invariably a winning side
and a losing side, with the latter's strength destroyed to a greater extent. By
strength is meant not only effective strength, but also material strength.

Therefore, in the final analysis, victory is determined by the extent to which
the overall strength has been destroyed.
Of course, here I am referring to the final outcome of wars. The outcome
of World War II was that all the German armed forces were annihilated, while
the armed forces of the Soviet Union, instead of being destroyed, fought on
to Berlin. All the forces of Germany, Italy and Japan were disarmed. Prime
Minister Nehru's perception is that a third world war would plunge the whole
world into a period of chaos. That is possible. Atom bombs will bring
destruction not only to humans, but also to material things. Will many
countries be devoid of governments? I do not think so. As long as humans
survive, there will be governments. When one government is destroyed,
another will come into being. Human beings invariably find a way out, and
those who survive will try to live on. It has also to be taken into account that
people today have changed a great deal from those of the past, that their
consciousness for winning liberation and independence has been enhanced
enormously. This is the case with all countries, including the United States.
In a word, it is best that no war be fought. If we could act as chiefs-of-staff for Eisenhower, he would listen to us instead of being besieged by his
advisers. Prime Minister Nehru is in a better position than we to do this work.
If we did it, Eisenhower would say that we were frightening him with
revolution and that he was not afraid of revolution. I think that, not only war,
even a tense situation will benefit and at the same time harm those who create
tension. I wish to ask: Which is more advantageous—to let people feel safe,
or to make people live in tension every day? A tense situation would awaken
the people and make them prepare to resist pressure. That is conducive to
revolution.
Evidently, there is no tension between China and India. Our two countries
do not wage psychological warfare, nor are we on the alert against each other
—unlike the state of affairs between China and the United States and between
the Soviet Union and the United States.
Having been in China for a few days already, Prime Minister Nehru must
be aware of our situation. We are now implementing the Five-Year Plan, and
our socialist transformation has just begun. If a war should break out, our
entire plan would be upset. Our funds have all been put in reconstruction. If
a war should break out, our economic and cultural plans would have to halt,
and a war plan would have to be drawn up to cope with the war. That would
delay the process of China's industrialization. However, it would be difficult
to destroy China completely or to sink China to the ocean floor by bombing.
The Chinese people will live on forever. The same would be true of India.
Tens of million years ago there was a giant animal, namely, the dinosaur,
which became extinct in the glacial epoch. Later, however, other animals
emerged, and finally the human race came into being, though relics of the
glacial epoch can be seen in China even now.
In short, we should make joint efforts to prevent war and to preserve a
lasting peace.
All Issues Between Countries That Can Cause
Suspicion or Hamper Cooperation Should Be Resolved
{October 26, 1954)
About 2,000 years ago the Chinese poet Qu Yuan wrote these two verses:
"A great sorrow it is to bid adieu; / A great joy it is to make friends new."
I remember telling Prime Minister Nehru at a dinner party about our
feelings toward India, saying that China and India do not need to be on the
alert against each other. "We have no apprehension that India would harm us.
I asked whether our countries' Prime Ministers and concurrent Foreign
Ministers could correct themselves if they had a slip of the tongue. I think
they can correct themselves, but this applies only to our two countries and not
to some other countries, which perhaps would seize on our errors in speech,
as we would seize on theirs. There is a Chinese saying—"to seize somebody's
pigtail." But China and India do not seize each other's pigtail—we are not on
the alert against each other, and it does not matter if a slip of the tongue
occurs.
India is a promising nation, a great nation. I have heard from our
Ambassador Yuan Zhongxian that the people in southern India practice
intensive farming and utilize all the land that can be utilized—somewhat like
the situation in the areas around Chengdu of our country. Every piece of good
news from India makes us happy. When India gets better, the world will
benefit.
I am very glad to have had these several rounds of talks together, which
have enabled us to exchange views. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Nehru has had
talks with Premier Zhou Enlai. The diplomatic work between our two countries
is easy to do; there is no need to quarrel. Between friends there are sometimes
differences and sometimes quarrels—quarreling until faces turn red. This kind

of quarrel, however, is different in nature from our quarrel with John Foster
Dulles.
With this visit Prime Minister Nehru must be aware that China is truly
in need of friends. Ours is a new China, still weak, though called a big country.
We are faced with a strong opponent, the United States, which is bent on
fixing us whenever it has the opportunity. Therefore, we need friends, and
Prime Minister Nehru must have felt this already. I think India is also in need
of friends; this can be seen from the talks we have just had, from our
cooperation over the last years, and from the welcome accorded Premier Zhou
Enlai during his visit to India and the sincere talks held during that visit.
Prime Minister Nehru advocates the establishment and expansion of zones
of peace and hopes that countries that stand for peace will continually increase.
To establish and expand zones of peace is a very good idea, with which we
agree. To attain this goal, it is necessary to remove certain factors that are
likely to cause suspicion or hamper cooperation. The Sino-Indian Agreement
relating to Tibet is conducive to the removal of factors causing suspicion or
hampering cooperation. It is very good, too, that we have jointly announced
the Five Principles. The question of overseas Chinese should also be solved in
an appropriate manner, lest some countries assert that we wish to utilize
overseas Chinese to make trouble. If overseas Chinese retain their status as
foreign nationals, they should not take part in the political activities of the
country in which they reside. If they have acquired the nationality of the
residing country, they should abide by the laws of that country. Overseas
Chinese should also observe the laws of the country in which they reside.
We should try to resolve all issues that can cause suspicion or hamper
cooperation. By so doing, equality and mutual benefit, as contained in the Five
Principles, can be realized. Cooperation should not harm any of the partici
pating parties. If it does, it cannot last long and is bound to break up. That
is true of all cooperation, whether between friends, countries, or political
parties. Cooperation has to be beneficial; otherwise, who will join in it?
(From the verbatim record)