I

All of us Orientals have, in our history, been subjected to bullying by the Western imperialist powers. Japan, though an Eastern country, was itself an imperialist power in the past and bullied other Eastern countries; yet now even Japan is being bullied. China suffered at the hands of the Western imperialist powers for over a hundred years, while your country endured such bullying for an even longer period—more than three hundred years. Now the Japanese people, too, find themselves in an oppressed situation. Therefore, we Orientals have a sense of solidarity and a sense of defending ourselves. Having been in China for several years, Ambassador R. K. Nehru must surely understand the patriotic sentiments of the Chinese people and their feelings toward the Indian people and the peoples of other Eastern countries. Although we differ in our thinking and social systems, we have one very important common point: we both have to deal with imperialism. Prime Minister Nehru should not think that China is now fully independent and has no problems left; we still face great problems. Taiwan, for instance, remains in the hands of the United States and Chiang Kai-shek. Just a few kilometres from the mainland, we have more than thirty offshore islands, three of which are major ones. These islands are all occupied by the United States and Chiang Kai-shek, and neither our ships nor foreign ships can pass through. American aircraft fly over our interior and drop special agents by parachute. These agents operate in groups of seven to ten men, each equipped with a radio set. To date, dozens of groups of such special agents have been dropped by parachute into various inland provinces of our country. In Sichuan and in Qinghai near Tibet, American planes have dropped special agents and air-dropped weapons to the bandits there. This shows that a small faction among the U.S. authorities will seize every opportunity to take us on. Moreover, as Prime Minister Nehru knows, our country is not an industrial one but an agricultural one. Our industrial level is even lower than India’s. We must strive for ten to twenty years before we can achieve some results. The imperialist countries now look down on us. The situations of our two countries are quite similar, and this is also the common predicament of all Eastern nations. I have read Prime Minister Nehru’s speech of the 29th of last month, and the sentiments he expressed are much the same as ours. The welcome our two peoples gave to the visiting leaders of each other’s countries shows that what they value is not differences in thinking and social systems but our common ground.

The Five Principles\[1\] should be extended to the relations among all countries. In his speech on the 29th of last month, Prime Minister Nehru also said that we should be bound by and undertake commitments in accordance with the Five Principles. If a country makes promises but fails to act on them, then there is reason to reproach it, and it loses face in the eyes of others. The problem is that some major powers are unwilling to be bound and decline to conclude agreements based on the Five Principles as our two countries have done. I wonder what they are thinking. As far as I know, the United States and Britain also say they desire peace and do not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. But if we wish to issue a joint statement with them based on the Five Principles, they are not willing to do so. One cannot imagine any country sending troops to invade the United States. As for the United States, it is said to fear losing the places it occupies in various parts of the world; yet I seem to have heard that the United States opposes British and French colonialism. The fears of the United States are truly excessive. It has laid out its defence lines in South Korea, Taiwan, and Indochina—places that are so far away from the United States but very close to us. This makes it very hard for us to sleep peacefully. The United States does things without caring whether others can bear them. For example, in forming the Southeast Asia Treaty\[2\], it did not consult China or India. There are many countries in Asia, but it consulted only three: Pakistan, Thailand, and the Philippines. Prime Minister Nehru said that the Southeast Asia Treaty was an American response to the Geneva Agreements, which is very true. The Geneva Conference\[3\] did good work, and the United States came to destroy it. Eden once proposed a Locarno-type pact for Asia,\[4\] but later abandoned the idea and instead accepted the Southeast Asia Treaty. Such a major power, yet so timid. Our two countries are not afraid. The United States invited India to attend the Manila Conference, and India had the courage not to go. On the issue of restoring China’s position in the United Nations, India also had the courage to vote in favour. Yet major powers like Britain and France are so timid. We suggest to them: how about giving us their status as major powers? Britain often says that we do not recognize Britain; we say to Britain that it does not recognize us. We urge Britain to learn from India; if it truly does so, then Britain can establish formal diplomatic relations with us. Some Nordic countries, such as Norway, also dared to vote in favour of restoring our country’s position in the United Nations; therefore, we have also established formal diplomatic relations with Norway. Australia says it fears us, saying the Communist Party wants to invade it. But we do not even have ships; how could we get there? Australia joined the Manila Treaty, claiming it is for defence, but when we proposed the Five Principles to it—mutual non-aggression and non-interference—it refused. I have two doubts. First, the United States clamours under the anti-Communist banner; it is indeed a fact that it opposes the Communist Party. But does it really fear the Chinese Communist Party? China has only a few ragged guns; all we have are people, agriculture, and handicrafts. I think the United States is not truly afraid of the Chinese Communist Party but uses this as a pretext for other purposes. Second, why do countries like Britain, France, and Australia follow the United States, while India, Indonesia, Burma, and some Nordic countries do not necessarily do so? I think this is because Britain, France, and Australia have hitched their interests to the American wagon; when the American locomotive gives an order, they are forced to obey. India, Indonesia, Burma, and some Nordic countries have not hitched their interests to the American wagon, or have not hitched them tightly, and therefore have no need to follow the United States.

(October 19)

II

We have gained one lesson in our cooperation: whether it is cooperation between individuals, between parties and parties, or between countries and countries, it must be mutually beneficial and must not harm either side. If either side is harmed, cooperation cannot be sustained. Precisely for this reason, one of our Five Principles is equality and mutual benefit. Mencius, an ancient sage of China, once said: "It is the nature of things to be unequal in quality."\[5\] This means that diversity is the reality of the world. Marxism also recognizes the diversity of things, which is where it differs from metaphysics. Countries should not maintain vigilance against one another, especially among friendly countries. Such mutual vigilance as exists between our country and the United States is not good.

(October 21)

III

We do not approve of the past assertions of Hitler’s Germany.\[6\] Hitler’s Germany and Japan used to say that they were "have-not" countries and wanted to acquire things from "have" countries. Japan, in the past, ten years ago, was indeed the "Yellow Peril." We now need several decades of peace, at least a few decades of peace, in order to develop domestic production and improve the people’s livelihood. We do not wish to fight. If such an environment could be created, that would be excellent. We can cooperate with all who endorse this goal. Undoubtedly, India endorses it, and so do Indonesia and Burma. I think Thailand would not suspect China of intending to launch a large-scale attack against it. We want to develop good relations with Thailand, but the Thai government is very strange and pays no attention to us. The Philippines claims to fear aggression from us, but when we want to build good relations with it, it refuses. Since it fears aggression, then let us become friends, mutually commit to non-aggression, and, like China and India, issue a statement. But it refuses and is unwilling to recognize the existence of our country. We cannot understand why; the only reason is that it listens to the United States and walks on the same track as the United States, doing whatever the United States says. Speaking of the United States, there was one issue we did not finish discussing last time, and that is the question of war. Prime Minister Nehru said that the United States wants to fight and seeks to gain greater advantages through war. Whether war is advantageous or not is a question worth studying. We can look at the two world wars and see to whom and to which countries they were actually beneficial. It can be said that the two wars were beneficial to three categories of countries and harmful to all the rest. The first category is U.S. imperialism, which gained advantages and developed in both wars. The second category consists of countries established after the two wars and led by Communist Parties and the working class. The third category comprises oppressed nations and countries, not led by Communist Parties but by patriotic groups and parties—countries like India, Indonesia, Burma, Syria, and Egypt fall into this category. To wage war, it is necessary to mobilize the people, keep them in a state of tension, and teach them to fight. But once the people unite, revolution will inevitably arise. For example, the Chinese revolution happened this way, and so did the Indian revolution. The independence of both our countries resulted from the Second World War; without the Second World War, independence would have been hard to achieve. Some other countries were weakened by the war, such as Germany, Italy, and Japan; even though Britain and France were victorious countries, they were also weakened. In China, because Japan and Chiang Kai-shek were weakened, we rose up. Because Britain was weakened, India, Burma, and Egypt rose up. Because France was weakened, Vietnam and Syria rose up. Because the Netherlands was weakened, Indonesia rose up. If another war is fought, I wonder what the U.S. military bloc is thinking. Their past experience is that they gained advantages and developed in the two great wars, and they hope to gain even greater advantages and development through yet another war. They think this way based on their own experience, but this is only one side of the experience; on the other side, after the two wars, Communist-led countries and countries led by patriotic parties also emerged. If another great war is fought, I think the United States may not necessarily benefit, and problems will arise within the United States itself. If another great war is fought, much of West Asia and Africa, or possibly all of them, as well as the whole of Latin America, will break away from imperialism. The forces of people’s revolution need an opportunity to rise. If the Bolsheviks\[7\] had not had the opportunity of the First World War, the October Revolution would have faced difficulties. In China, we fought for twenty-two years, but victory was only achieved in the final years. After the Second World War, we gained the opportunity and rose up. That is for the side of Communist-led countries. As for the side of countries led by patriotic parties, we can also see some examples in Southeast Asia and West Asia. Different people have different views, but I believe that to fight another great war would be unprofitable for the United States, and the whole world, or the overwhelming part of it, would be in a state of revolution. I do not say this to deliberately issue alarmist warnings but based on the actual circumstances of the two wars. If another great war is fought, I can see no benefit whatever for the United States; it can only reduce its sphere of domination. In terms of weaponry, the United States believes it has atomic bombs and big guns and considers its navy and air force to be powerful, so it relies on these things. I think that although weapons have changed, there is no fundamental difference except that the number of people killed has increased. In ancient times, cold weapons, such as swords and spears, were used. Later, hot weapons, such as rifles, machine guns, and cannons, came into use. Now, atomic bombs have been added on top of these.

But the basic difference lies in this: cold weapons kill fewer people, hot weapons kill more, and the atomic bomb kills even more.


Apart from the number of casualties, there is no difference.


In the past, both sides possessed cold and hot weapons; now, both the Soviet Union and the United States have atomic bombs.


Thus, as weaponry evolves, it simply means the number of casualties grows.


If a third world war were fought, the casualties would likely be counted not in tens of millions but in hundreds of millions.


China currently has no atomic bomb, and I do not know whether India has one.


We are just beginning research. Atomic bombs require substantial investment, and we cannot build them right away.


If a third world war breaks out, then one side will suffer casualties, and so will the other—thus a balance is achieved.


In the end, it is people who decide the outcome of war. It depends on who holds the weapons, on what the soldiers wielding them believe is most beneficial to them, and on who fights better—but the first two are the main factors.


As for the quantity of weapons, the Indian National Congress and the Chinese Communist Party both started with none; now we both have them.


Furthermore, there is another lesson.


In the two world wars, the defenders were victorious and the aggressors were defeated.


In the First World War, the German army advanced to Paris in the west and nearly reached Petrograd in the east, but in the end the aggressors still lost.


In the Second World War, the aggressors—Germany, Italy, and Japan—were also defeated.


The defending side won, although some of the defending nations, such as Britain and France, were weakened by the war.


We can conclude that we should no longer fight major wars and should strive for long-term peace.


The result of another major war would be unfavorable to the aggressors.


Although our analyses coincide in some respects and differ in others, the conclusion is the same.


In his analysis of the United States, Prime Minister Nehru said that on the one hand the United States profited from the war, and on the other it encountered difficulties.


That is a very good analysis.


As for instruments of war, we can roughly divide them into three stages: the bow and arrow, the cannon, and the atomic bomb.


Prime Minister Nehru says there is a qualitative difference, and that is correct.


When I spoke of weapons just now, I was referring only to the outcome of war.


Regardless of the weapons used, regardless of the era in which a war is fought, and regardless of whether the war is local or global in scale, the result is usually the destruction of one side by the other.


Of course, there are wars that end in negotiation without a clear victory or defeat, such as the war at the 38th parallel [8] and the war along the 17th parallel [9].


In such wars, neither side fundamentally defeats the other.


But in most wars, there is always a victor and a vanquished, with the defeated side’s strength more thoroughly destroyed.


What we call strength includes not only living forces but also material forces.


Therefore, in the final analysis, victory or defeat is determined by the extent and scale of the destruction of strength.


Of course, I am referring to the final outcome of the war.


The result of the Second World War was the complete destruction of the German army, while the Soviet army not only avoided destruction but even advanced to Berlin.


The armies of Germany, Italy, and Japan were all disarmed.


Prime Minister Nehru speculates that a third world war would plunge the whole world into a period of chaos. Such a speculation is possible.


The atomic bomb would destroy not only people but also material resources, but would it leave many countries without governments?

No, it would not.


As long as people survive, there will always be governments.


If one government is destroyed, another will arise.


Human beings always seek a way out, and those who remain will strive to survive.


We must also recognize that people today have changed greatly from those in the past. Their consciousness and desire for liberation and independence have greatly increased. This is true in every country, including the United States.


In a word, it is best not to fight.


If we could serve as chief of staff for Eisenhower [10], he might then listen to us and not be surrounded by his advisers.


Prime Minister Nehru would do this job more smoothly than we would.


If we tried to do it, he would say we are threatening him with revolution and claim he is not afraid of revolution.


I think not only war, but also tension, brings profit to those who create it on the one hand, and inflicts harm on the other.


I would like to ask: is it more beneficial for the people to feel secure, or to live in daily tension?

Tension promotes the people's awakening and prepares them to resist pressure.


This is helpful to revolution.


It is clear that there is no tension between China and India; we do not engage in psychological warfare against each other, nor are we on daily guard, as is the case between us and the United States or between the Soviet Union and the United States.


Prime Minister Nehru has been in China for several days now and must have learned about our situation.


We are now carrying out a Five-Year Plan, and socialist transformation has just begun.


If war breaks out, all our plans will be disrupted.


Our funds are all invested in construction.


If war occurs, our economic and cultural plans must stop, and we will be forced to devise a war plan to meet the war.


This would delay China's industrialization.


But to totally destroy China, to bomb it to the bottom of the sea, would be difficult; the Chinese people will endure forever.


The same is true for India.


Tens of millions of years ago, there was a large animal called the dinosaur, which perished during the Ice Age.


But later, other animals emerged, and eventually, humans appeared.


Today, traces of glaciers can still be seen in China.


In short, we should work together to prevent war and strive for lasting peace.


(October 23) Four

More than two thousand years ago, a Chinese poet, Qu Yuan, wrote two lines: "Sad, sad, are partings in life; happy, happy, are new-found friends." [11]


I once mentioned to Prime Minister Nehru at a banquet our feelings about India, saying that China and India have no need to be on guard against each other.


We do not feel that India intends to harm us.


I once asked, if our two Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers say something wrong in conversation, can we correct it? I think we can.


But this is between our two countries; some other nations might seize upon our misspoken words, and we might seize upon theirs.


There is a Chinese saying: "grabbing the pigtail."


But we do not grab each other's pigtails with India. We are not on guard against each other, and it does not matter if a wrong word is spoken.


India is a nation with a promising future, a great nation.


I have heard from Ambassador Yuan Zhongxian [12] that the people of southern India engage in intensive and meticulous farming, utilizing every piece of available land. This is somewhat like the conditions around our Chengdu region.


Every piece of good news from India makes us happy.


A prosperous India benefits the world.


I am very glad to have had these several talks, enabling us to exchange views.


At the same time, Prime Minister Nehru also held talks with Premier Zhou Enlai.


Diplomacy between our two countries is very easy to handle; there is no need for quarrels.


Friends sometimes have differences and sometimes quarrel, even to the point of red faces.


But this kind of quarrel is qualitatively different from our quarrels with Dulles [13].


Prime Minister Nehru will surely see during this visit that China very much needs friends.


We are a new China. Though hailed as a great power, our strength is still weak.


Before us stands a formidable adversary: the United States.


Whenever the United States has an opportunity, it will try to bully us. Therefore, we need friends.


This, I believe, Prime Minister Nehru can sense.


In my view, India also needs friends.


This can be seen from our several talks, from our cooperation over the past years, and from the welcome and earnest discussions that took place during Premier Zhou Enlai’s visit to India.


Prime Minister Nehru advocates the establishment and expansion of a zone of peace and expresses the hope that the number of countries favoring peace will increase daily.


To establish and expand a zone of peace is an excellent slogan, and we support it.


To achieve this goal, certain factors that might arouse suspicion and hinder cooperation must be removed.


China and India signed an agreement concerning Tibet [14], which helps eliminate factors that might arouse suspicion and hinder cooperation.


We jointly proclaimed the Five Principles, and this is also very good.


The question of overseas Chinese should also be appropriately resolved, lest some countries say we intend to use overseas Chinese to create disturbances.


If overseas Chinese retain their status as foreign nationals, they should not participate in the political activities of their country of residence; if they acquire that country’s nationality, then they should act in accordance with its laws.


Overseas Chinese should also abide by the laws of their country of residence.


We should resolve all issues that may arouse suspicion and hinder cooperation, thereby achieving the equality and mutual benefit enshrined in the Five Principles.


Cooperation must not be harmful to either side; otherwise, it cannot endure and will surely break apart.


This applies to cooperation between friends, between nations, and between political parties alike.


Cooperation must be mutually beneficial; otherwise, who would engage in it?

(October 26)

Published based on The Selected Diplomatic Works of Mao Zedong, issued by the Central Party Literature Publishing House and World Affairs Press in 1994.

Original title: "The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence Should Be Extended to All Interstate Relations."

Notes
[1] Refers to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. See note [5] on page 336 of this volume.
[2] Southeast Asia Treaty; see note [4] on page 342 of this volume.
[3] Geneva Conference; see note [6] on page 336 of this volume.
[4] Locarno Treaties, formally the Locarno Pacts of Guarantee, adopted by representatives of seven nations—Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Poland, and Czechoslovakia—at a conference in Locarno, Switzerland, on October 16, 1925, and formally signed in London, England, on December 1 of the same year. The pacts consisted of one protocol and seven treaties. The most important, the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee between Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain, and Italy (also known as the Rhine Security Pact), stipulated that the signatories guaranteed the inviolability of the German-French and German-Belgian borders, abided by the Treaty of Versailles provisions on the demilitarization of Germany's Rhineland, and settled all disputes through diplomatic channels. In March 1936, the German fascist government violated the treaty by marching into the Rhineland, and in April 1939, it announced the abrogation of the Locarno Treaties. In the early 1950s, British Foreign Secretary Eden proposed establishing a collective security system similar to the Locarno Treaties in Southeast Asia, but this was not realized due to American opposition.
[5] See Mencius, "Teng Wen Gong I."
[6] Hitler; see note [3] on page 94 of this volume.
[7] Bolsheviks, referring to the Bolshevik Party, the predecessor of the former Communist Party of the Soviet Union, formally established in 1912.
[8] War at the 38th parallel, referring to the Korean War. Near the end of the Second World War, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to use the 38th parallel north latitude on the Korean Peninsula as a temporary dividing line for military operations and acceptance of Japan's surrender. This line is commonly known as the "38th parallel." In June 1950, war broke out between the two sides above and below the 38th parallel (the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea). Subsequently, the United States, under the banner of the United Nations, sent troops to intervene and crossed the 38th parallel, advancing aggressively toward the Sino-Korean border and gravely threatening China's security. To resist U.S. aggression, aid Korea, and defend the homeland, the Chinese People's Volunteers fought alongside the Korean People's Army, severely punishing the U.S. aggression and forcing it to sign the Korean Armistice Agreement in July 1953.
[9] Refers to the Vietnamese people's war against French invasion from 1946 to 1954.
[10] Eisenhower, then President of the United States.
[11] Adapted from Qu Yuan's "Nine Songs: The Lesser Master of Fate" in the Songs of Chu. The original line is "Sad, sad, are partings in life; happy, happy, are new-found friends."
[12] Yuan Zhongxian, then China's Ambassador to India.
[13] Dulles, then U.S. Secretary of State.
[14] Refers to the "Agreement between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of India on Trade and Intercourse between the Tibet Region of China and India," signed in Beijing on April 29, 1954.

In September 1945, Vietnam declared independence and established the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

France, aiming to reestablish colonial rule in Indochina, promptly invaded Vietnam.

The Vietnamese people waged an eight-year-long war of resistance against France to safeguard their national independence.

In May 1954, the Vietnamese people achieved a decisive victory in the anti-French struggle through the Battle of Dien Bien Phu.

In July, under the Geneva Accords, the Vietnam People's Army and the French forces implemented a ceasefire with the 17th parallel north serving as the provisional military demarcation line; France recognized Vietnam's independence and withdrew from Indochina.

[10] Eisenhower, then President of the United States.

[11] See Qu Yuan, "Jiu Ge: Shao Si Ming" ("Nine Songs: The Lesser Master of Fate").

[12] Yuan Zhongxian, then Chinese Ambassador to India.

[13] Dulles, then U.S. Secretary of State.

[14] On April 29, 1954, the governments of China and India signed in Beijing the "Agreement Between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of India on Trade and Intercourse Between the Tibet Region of China and India."

The agreement explicitly adopted the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence as the guidelines governing relations between the two countries and, on this basis, established specific measures to facilitate trade and commerce between the Tibet region of China and India, as well as to facilitate pilgrimage and travel between the peoples of the two countries.

The main contents included: the mutual establishment of trade agencies; trade and customary pilgrimages by merchants and pilgrims of both sides at designated locations, with passage through specified mountain passes and routes; and provisions concerning the transit of diplomatic, official, and national personnel of the two countries.

The agreement came into force on June 3, 1954, with a validity of eight years, and expired in June 1962.