Chairman: Welcome. The Chinese people welcome you. The whole world knows of your struggle and has great sympathy for you. Only the imperialists are unhappy about it, probably only U.S. imperialism. Britain may be somewhat better. What was it like? When the United States intervened against you, what attitude did Britain take?

Arbenz (hereafter "A"): Britain appeared to express no attitude. In the Security Council, when the Guatemalan request for an end to imperialist intervention was put to a vote, Britain abstained — neither supporting nor opposing.

At the time of the incident, a British merchant ship was loading cargo at a Guatemalan port, and it was sunk by the air force manipulated by the U.S. Embassy.

Chairman: Does Britain have any interests in Guatemala?

A: Britain has no interests whatsoever in Guatemala. In the last century, Britain obtained the concession of a piece of Guatemalan territory, which became a British colony (Chairman looks at the map).

Mrs. Arbenz: That is British Honduras on the map.

A: We have been demanding its return.

Chairman: Is the recovery of this land not the main issue? The main issue is still U.S. aggression against Guatemala as a whole. At the time of the incident, what attitude did your neighboring countries take? What attitude did Mexico take?

A: Relations between Mexico and Guatemala have always been very friendly. The Mexican government tried its best to remain neutral.

Chairman: Does Mexico belong to North America?

A: Yes.

Chairman: Which countries are in Central America?

A: Central America includes Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica.

Chairman: Does it not include Panama?

A: No. Panama was originally part of the Republic of Colombia. It became a separate country because of the Panama Canal Zone. Also, the five Central American countries, after independence, formed the United Federation of Central America.

Chairman: What was the attitude of the countries to your south?

A: The people of South American countries were all very sympathetic to Guatemala.

Chairman: Did the intervention come from the sea?

A: No. The aggression came directly from Honduras and Nicaragua, clearly instigated by the U.S. State Department. Before the incident, the Foreign Ministers' Conference of American States was held in Caracas. At the conference, Dulles introduced a resolution against "international communist intervention." This resolution was designed to have all American countries persecute communists and all patriots who defend their own national interests and oppose imperialist aggression. Guatemala opposed this resolution because it was a U.S. interference in the internal affairs of other countries and would enable monopolies to increase their penetration of other countries.

Chairman: When was this conference held?

A: March 1954.

Chairman: The United States uses the anti-communist slogan everywhere as a pretext to achieve its goal of aggression against others. The communist parties in the American countries are very small, and the Soviet Union is very far away. Why is the United States so eager to oppose communism?

A: The United States is so eager to oppose communism because the communists resolutely struggle for the sovereignty and independence of their own nations and for liberation from monopoly control, and they expose the treasonable designs of their own governments.

The Guatemalan delegation pointed out at the Caracas conference that the United States was using the anti-communist banner to cover up its intent to further infiltrate other countries and deepen colonial control.

The voting on the U.S. resolution was as follows: Mexico and Argentina abstained; the Guatemalan delegation voted against; all other countries voted in favor.

Guatemala's stance has won the respect of progressive and revolutionary forces everywhere, because it expressed not only the will of the Guatemalan people but also the will of the peoples of Latin America.

Chairman: We know that.

You have more friends; the United States has fewer friends. Your friends are more numerous than those of the United States.

America's victory is temporary. Guatemala is, after all, yours — it belongs to the Guatemalan people. All nations must be independent.

The United States is in debt everywhere. It owes debts to Latin American countries, to Asian and African countries, and to European countries as well. The whole world dislikes the United States, including Britain. The broad masses of the people dislike the United States. Japan dislikes the United States; it oppresses Japan. There is not a single Eastern country that has not suffered U.S. aggression. Japan, South Korea, China's Taiwan, the Philippines, South Vietnam, Pakistan — all these countries have suffered U.S. aggression. Some are even U.S. allies. The people are unhappy; some of those countries' authorities are also unhappy.

A: Developments in the international situation over the last two years have been favorable to the struggle of all peoples for independence. The Asian countries are an example of this. The situation in Asia has decisive significance for the struggles of other continents. Now the voice of Asia is being heard; in the future, the voice of Latin America will surely be heard as well.

Chairman: Everything will change. The strong must yield to the weak. The weak will become strong, because the majority of people want change, the small want to become large. American strength will diminish because even the American people are unhappy with their own government.

In my own lifetime, I have experienced such changes. (Chairman asks the ages of those present.) Among us here, there are three people from the Qing dynasty, four from the Republic of China — four from the Kuomintang era. (Laughter.)

The Qing dynasty had to be overthrown. Who overthrew it? The party led by Sun Yat-sen, together with the people, overthrew it. Sun Yat-sen's power was very small. Qing dynasty officials looked down on him. In battle, he was always defeated. Yet in the end, it was Sun Yat-sen who overthrew the Qing dynasty. Big is not to be feared. The big will be overthrown by the small; the small will become big. A few years later, Sun Yat-sen failed, because he did not satisfy the people's demands — for example, the people's demand for land. I do not know whether he knew about suppressing counterrevolutionaries; at that time, counterrevolutionaries were running everywhere, and later he was defeated by a warlord chieftain, Yuan Shikai.

Yuan Shikai's power was greater than Sun Yat-sen's. But it still followed the old rule: the small that are linked with the people are strong; the large that are opposed to the people are weak.

Then Sun Yat-sen (and later Chiang Kai-shek) cooperated with our Communist Party and eliminated all the warlords.

Chiang Kai-shek unified China, gained recognition from the governments of all the countries of the world, and ruled for twenty years — the greatest power. Our power was small; at that time we had fifty thousand Party members; after suppression, only a few thousand were left. The enemy was creating trouble everywhere. Still it followed the old rule: the powerful fail because they are divorced from the people; the weak triumph because they are linked with the people and work for the people. And so it was.

In the War of Resistance Against Japan, Japan was very powerful. It drove both the Kuomintang and the armed forces led by the Communist Party into remote areas and occupied China's big cities — Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Hankou, Guangzhou. Japanese militarism and Hitler followed the same law; within a few years they were defeated.

We went through many difficulties. We were driven from the south to the north, from hundreds of thousands of men down to only a few tens of thousands. On the Long March of twenty-five thousand li, only twenty-five thousand men remained.

Through the war of resistance, fighting the Japanese, we developed to nine hundred thousand guerrilla troops, whose guns and equipment were inferior to the Kuomintang's. The Kuomintang army numbered four million. (Arbenz says to his wife in surprise: Four million.) After three years of fighting, the Kuomintang could not defeat us. The powerful cannot win; the weak always triumph.

The United States is very strong now, but it is not truly strong. American politics is very weak, because it is divorced from the broad masses of the people; everyone dislikes it, including its own people. On the surface it is strong, but in reality it is not to be feared — a paper tiger. On the surface it is a tiger, but it is made of paper, unable to withstand wind and rain. I think the United States is a paper tiger. (Laughter.)

All of history proves this. Human history in class society spans several thousand years, and this can be proven. The strong must yield to the weak. The same holds for the Americas. In the Americas, the United States must yield to you.

A: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your warm concern and help.

Chairman: Our experience is for your reference; you cannot copy it exactly.

A: We will certainly adapt it to suit our conditions. We feel very confident. In another five or six years, we would like to come to China again to see the achievements of the Chinese people. These achievements are not only for the Chinese people but also for the people of all countries, including the people of Guatemala.

Chairman: The Chinese people are your friends. In the achievements of the Chinese people, there is a part that belongs to you; in your achievements, there is also a part that belongs to the Chinese people.

Only when imperialism is eliminated will there be peace. One day the paper tiger will be eliminated. But it will not eliminate itself; it needs to be battered by wind and rain.

A: Dear Mr. Chairman, to be able to greet you in person makes us feel deeply honored. We consider this a great friendship toward us and toward the Guatemalan people. In the hearts of our people, Mr. Chairman is held in the greatest respect. (Chairman: Thank you.) We congratulate you on your achievements in the work of the state and wish you personal happiness.

Chairman: We are in the same position, doing the same work — doing a little something for the people, reducing the oppression of the people by imperialism. If well done, imperialist oppression can be fundamentally eliminated.

What need is there for imperialism? I do not understand. The Chinese people do not want imperialism. There is no need for imperialism to exist.

On this point, we are comrades.

We are the same in nature; it is only the places we live, the nations and languages that differ — there is no difference in nature. With imperialism, there is a difference in nature. When we see imperialism, we feel uncomfortable. Qiao Guanhua spent over two years negotiating with the Americans at Panmunjom on the 38th Parallel, and he too felt uncomfortable when he saw imperialism.

The paper tiger is from a strategic perspective. Taken as a whole, it should be treated lightly. From each particular part, it should be taken seriously. It has claws and teeth. To deal with it, one must tackle it one by one. It has ten teeth; when you knock out the first one, it still has nine. Knock out another, and it still has eight. When all the teeth are knocked out, it still has its claws. Step by step, done earnestly, in the end success will be achieved.

From the strategic perspective, treat it with complete contempt. From the tactical perspective, take it seriously — fight each battle seriously, handle each matter seriously. Right now the United States is powerful; but from a broad perspective, from the whole, from the long-term view, it has no support. Its policies are disliked by the people; it oppresses and exploits them. For this reason, the tiger is bound to die. Therefore there is nothing to fear; it can be treated with contempt. But it still has strength — it produces one hundred million tons of steel a year, it strikes everywhere. So you still have to struggle with it, fight hard, contest every position — and that takes time. At Panmunjom it took more than two years of talks to achieve something, to produce the Korean armistice. Now at Geneva it has been nearly a year of talks, and still nothing has come of it; it may go on into the twenty-first century. If the United States drags it into the twenty-first century, you have to be prepared to go along.

Don't be pessimistic; it won't drag on that long.

Dealing with the United States is like what we in China call eating sticky candy. It seems that the countries of the Americas and Asia will have to keep quarreling with the United States, quarrel to the end, until the wind and rain batter the paper tiger to pieces.

A: Right now the wind and rain of the peoples of all countries are battering the United States.

Chairman: Right.

You said earlier that in five or six years you would come to China again — does that mean you are confident of victory in five or six years?

A: That's not what I meant. We do not know when victory will come. But we believe that in the end victory will be ours.

Chairman: You (indicating Arbenz) emigrated from Europe?

A: My father came from Switzerland. My mother is…

Chairman: And you? (indicating Mrs. Arbenz)

Mrs. Arbenz: I believe I have some Spanish blood.

Chairman: What percentage of the population is of Spanish descent? What percentage is Indian?

A: In Guatemala, Indians make up 70 percent of the population.

Chairman: Are there many Indians in other Latin American countries?

A: There are many Indians in Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, and Bolivia. Argentina and Chile have almost entirely populations of European descent.

Chairman: Some say that the people of the Americas came from China.

A: Guatemalans look very much like Chinese.

Chairman: There is no evidence yet. It may be that they came from China, or it may not be. In all of South and North America, how many Indians are there?

A: (hesitates) Several tens of millions?

Chairman: Does this pose the question of cooperation between European immigrants and the native Indians?

A: Workers and peasants are both exploited. Indians in particular suffer discrimination; they are branded with numbers, like livestock.

Chairman: The European immigrants among you could perhaps be divided into two parts — one part ruling the other part. Then your part, the oppressed, would find it easier to approach the native population. You share the same position.

Your government implemented a policy of land reform, distributing the land of imperialists and landlords to the peasants. When a person from abroad becomes president and distributes land to the local people, he is sure to win their support.

A: We did indeed eliminate some of the oppression imposed by the reactionary parties. There is no racial discrimination in our country; blacks are not discriminated against.

Chairman: Are there blacks in Guatemala?

A: Very few.

Chairman: I wonder if your policies being too progressive might also be a shortcoming. Was the land of all landlords confiscated? Is there a national bourgeoisie? Among the landlords, were there any who did not follow the United States? Landlords who the people do not like, but who have fewer connections with the United States, could be united with. In this way, a strong united front could be formed, including some who, though they discriminate against the local people, are unhappy with the United States.

A: The landlord class was generally pro-American. The national bourgeoisie had interests opposed to those of the imperialists. We followed the advice of the Guatemalan Communist Party and corrected an error of the previous government. The previous government, in order to attract popular support, had adopted policies generally favorable to the poor and unfavorable to the rich, creating antagonism between rich and poor. We changed that and supported the legitimate demands of the national bourgeoisie.

However, we made one mistake: the national bourgeoisie, the industrial capitalists, and the middle class supported the government, but we distanced ourselves from them.

Chairman: Here we also have left-wing elements among the landlords — those who split off from the landlord class, opposed Chiang Kai-shek, and came together with us.

Apart from those who fled to Taiwan, we took over the entire bourgeoisie, we took over all engineering and technical personnel, professors and teachers of universities, middle schools and primary schools. We educated them, asking them to serve the people.

In our work, we have committed some "left" errors, making them feel uncomfortable and arousing their resentment.

Broadly speaking, after five or six years of cooperation, we have achieved better unity.

Civilian and military officials of the Kuomintang, as long as they did not flee to Taiwan, we also took over. But we handled this poorly — some had positions without authority, just nominal appointments. In the Ministry of Water Resources there was a counselor, Zheng Dongguo, who held a nominal post but had nothing to do. How could this go on for long? The Research Institute of Culture and History does nothing. In some places the Political Consultative Conference also does nothing — this is a shortcoming.

During your stay in China, you should pay attention to our errors and shortcomings and make comparisons. (The Chairman asks those present: What seminars have been arranged for Arbenz? Wu Maoqian replies: Seminars have already been arranged on the reform of private industry and commerce, and also on land reform, agricultural cooperation, and the united front.) If only good things are talked about, don't believe it. If he does not speak of the bad, ask him: what bad things are there?

How much longer can you stay in China?

A: Until August 14. Because of visa problems, we must return to France before the end of next month.

Chairman: Then you can still go to various places and have a look. Talk with more people — talk with Communists, but also with people from other parties, with former Kuomintang generals who have come over to our side, with capitalists, and with people from religious circles. If you have questions concerning minority nationalities, you can also discuss them; we have some experience in this area, and also some mistakes.

Zhang Xiruo: They have already visited the Institute of Nationalities.

A: I am very grateful for what Mr. Chairman has said. We will use the time we stay in China to learn. We have already learned about the flexibility of your policies — how you give every person who does not side with the United States an opportunity to serve the people and, in the course of that service, to acknowledge their own mistakes.

In the Americas, political leaders often do not act this way. They never admit to having made mistakes themselves.

Chairman: You are very honest — you speak what is on your mind.

We have made mistakes. In the early years in the base areas, we adopted a slogan that could be called "down with everybody." Apart from workers and peasants, we did not want anyone — we drove them all away. That made Chiang Kai-shek feel comfortable instead. Chiang Kai-shek grew strong and drove us from many base areas in the south to a single base area in the north. In this way we "reflected," criticized, and corrected our mistake.

In our history we have committed three "left" errors and two right errors — Chen Duxiu, Wang Ming. Besides these, there were also local and individual right errors, such as those of Zhang Guotao and Gao Gang.

Making mistakes also has its benefits — it can educate the people and educate the Party. Japan was our teacher. We have many teachers: Japan, the United States, Chiang Kai-shek, Chen Duxiu, Li Lisan, Wang Ming, Zhang Guotao, Gao Gang. These lessons cost us dearly. Historically, Britain has fought many wars with us. British imperialism, France, Germany, Italy — all liked our land very much. They are all our professors; we are their students.

I do not know whether you have made mistakes. If you have made mistakes, you too can draw lessons from them. The United States is your professor. The current President, Armas, can be said to be your second professor.

A: Before taking leave, I must first express my thanks. We have taken up much of your time. We know that this time has not been wasted. We will take the words of Mr. Chairman back to our political forces to improve our work. Thank you very much.

Chairman: Thank you for coming to see me.