Dulles Is the World's Best Teacher by Negative Example [I]

(October 2, 1958)

I wish you comrades good health. Unite and strive for the greater development of socialism and for the final victory over imperialism. Do we want to defeat imperialism or not? One day we will defeat it, won’t we?
Of course, it doesn’t necessarily have to be tomorrow morning; tomorrow evening is fine, or the morning of the day after tomorrow will do as well. We must defeat it, right? Imperialism will always be defeated. In fighting, there are two methods: fighting with cultural means and fighting with military means. Basically, we fight with cultural means—using peaceful methods to combat it—but we also prepare for military means. This time, several military delegations have come. Are you preparing to fight with cultural means or military means? We have so many troops—do you think with troops we are not prepared to fire? Of course, we are prepared to fire! This is what I answer on your behalf. But this is our last resort. If the enemy uses this means against us, we will bring out this means.

You will criticize me, saying that my thinking is self-contradictory. Since this is a means to be used only as a last resort, why are we still shelling Jinmen? This immediately throws me into an awkward position,

263

Volume 40 of the Complete Works of Mao Zedong

difficult to answer.

The shelling of Jinmen [1] —this is real fighting, but basically it is still fighting with cultural means. We have not gone to war with any foreigner. The Americans want us to cease fire; every day they ask us to cease fire. We haven’t fought a war with you! Why cease fire? We, China, have never gone to war with you Americans, never fired a shot. We are only fighting with our Chairman Jiang, President Jiang. In our country, there is a "president" called Chiang Kai-shek, also an old friend of ours. We have been fighting this war with him for a very long time—thirty-one years, starting from 1927. How many more years we will fight, I don’t know either. Maybe we will fight for another seventy years, making a Hundred Years' War in total.

It’s better to have a Chiang Kai-shek, isn’t it? Do you think it’s better to have one or not? Without Chiang Kai-shek, the Chinese people could not have progressed, could not have united, and could not have armed themselves. Marxism alone cannot educate the Chinese people. So, in addition to the teachers of Marxism, we have invited another teacher, and that is Chiang Kai-shek. Oh! This man has done very beneficial things in China, and he is still fulfilling his historical responsibility to this day. His historical task is not yet finished; he is still serving as a teacher. He is very beneficial! He takes no salary; the Americans give him a salary. We don’t spend a single cent, yet he serves as our teacher.

Hitler once fulfilled such a historical responsibility, as did Mussolini, and in the East there was also

264

Dulles Is the World's Best Teacher by Negative Example

Japanese imperialism, educating the vast masses of the European people and the peoples of the world. It is a pity that there is no Hitler now, Mussolini is also gone, and some Japanese militarists no longer exist. But we still have teachers—there is Dulles. Isn’t he a good teacher? Without Dulles, things in the world would be hard to handle; with him, things are easy to handle. So we often feel that Dulles and we are comrades. We must thank him. This man truly understands Marxism—within the bourgeoisie, he is the one who understands Marxism relatively the most. Because he resolutely implements the line of class struggle, being rather uncompromising (I didn’t say he is completely uncompromising here, because he still has shortcomings). He is quite resolute, only not resolute enough yet. Although he has shortcomings, he is still the world's best teacher, except for the communists. Of course, the first teacher is the Marxist, and the second teacher is Dulles, and we must also add Chiang Kai-shek—he is still alive.

It seems that the people of the world have truly been educated on the Jinmen issue. The situation will continue to develop in a direction favorable to us; it is now favorable to us, and in the future it will become even more favorable. Dulles is now in a very difficult position; he has become very passive. People question him: Why do you meddle in Jinmen? He always compares it to Korea, saying the communists are waging another Korean War! People say it doesn’t look like that—Korea is Korea! Jinmen is Jinmen! Jinmen is only that big, just the size of a wine cup. The whole world, except for Dulles, says that Jinmen is a Chinese island and that the Jinmen issue is China’s internal affair. So he is now finding it very difficult to handle matters! We must continue to make things difficult for him and keep him in a difficult position. Don’t easily let him off! Don’t easily let him slip away! He probably can’t slip away easily from this place for quite some time.

In Lebanon, I also don’t want the United States to leave too quickly. If the United States leaves, fine! Then again it will claim to be peace-loving! This time in Lebanon, we caught the United States [I] —this thief who steals things had never

265

Volume 40 of the Complete Works of Mao Zedong

been caught before. In 1956, at the Suez Canal, we caught Britain and France [1] . At that time, the United States pretended to be a good guy; it posed as peace-loving. This time in Lebanon, the United States was caught by us. I say it would be best for it to stay a while longer! I discussed this with Comrade Khrushchev, and he also agreed with my opinion. As for how long the United States will stay, would three years be good? I’m afraid our friends in the Arab world wouldn’t agree and would want it to leave faster. The United States may also not stay long and will leave, because it can’t manage there. Alas! Then my objective cannot be achieved! I wanted to keep it to stay a while longer, but it wants to leave. I don’t know what your observations are. Perhaps within a few months it will flee from Lebanon, but in another place—that is, the Taiwan Strait—we can make it stay longer. The Taiwan Strait matter is an educational tool for the whole world, and it particularly has quite a big educational effect on the Chinese people! Don’t you believe it?

Alright! Then what to do if a war breaks out? Who wants to fight a war? We are peace-loving. This is called fighting a cultural war, not called fighting a military war. We want to punish Chiang Kai-shek. This teacher—we must both thank him and punish him, and also give him criticism. A student can also give his teacher criticism, and that is by criticizing him with artillery.

266

Directive on a Letter Reflecting the Disaster Situation in Lingbi County, Anhui Province (1)

(October 2, 1958)

Comrade Zeng Xisheng (2) :

Is this true? Please send someone there to investigate and handle it as appropriate.

Mao Zedong
October 2

(1) This unsigned letter to Mao Zedong, written on September 5, 1958, stated that in Lingbi County, Anhui Province, in Fengmiao Township, Yangting Township, and Yinji Township, due to wind disasters, false reporting of per-mu yields, forced conversion of dry fields to rice paddies, and over-reporting of planted acreage, the disaster situation was severe. By that time, no fewer than 500 people had already starved to death, and many more were bedridden and unable to rise, requesting the central authorities to send someone to investigate and handle the matter. The letter also reported incidents where township and commune cadres in Fengmiao Township hung and beat a landlord family and a middle-peasant family to extort silver dollars. In accordance with Mao Zedong’s directive, the Anhui Provincial Party Committee dispatched an inspection team to investigate and reported back to Mao Zedong on December 26, 1958, stating that the issues reflected in the letter were basically true. The provincial party committee conducted a self-examination, took measures, and carried out handling.

(2) Zeng Xisheng, then serving as the First Secretary of the Anhui Provincial Committee of the Communist Party of China.

267

--- Notes

[I] This is part of Mao Zedong's talks with delegations from six countries: Bulgaria, Albania, Romania, Mongolia, the Soviet Union, and Poland. Dulles (1888–1959) was an American Republican who, after World War II, represented the U.S. government at numerous international conferences. In 1950, he served as an advisor to the Truman administration, and from 1953 to 1959, he was U.S. Secretary of State. In his international activities, he advocated the "Cold War," pursued a "brinkmanship" policy, and threatened strategies such as "massive nuclear retaliation" and "peaceful evolution" against socialist countries. In 1950, he participated in plotting the U.S. government’s armed occupation of China’s territory, Taiwan, exploiting the Korean War. In 1954, he also plotted the U.S. government’s signing of the "U.S.-Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty" with the Taiwan authorities, attempting to legitimize the occupation of Taiwan and turn it into a long-term U.S. military base.


[1] In July 1958, the Taiwan Kuomintang authorities, with U.S. support, clamored about "counterattacking the mainland" and continuously shelled coastal towns in Fujian Province. To severely punish the Kuomintang troops and oppose U.S. violations of China's sovereignty, the People's Liberation Army Fujian frontline forces were ordered on August 23 to begin shelling military targets such as the Kuomintang's Jinmen Defense Command and artillery positions, blockading Jinmen Island and cutting off the supply lines of the Kuomintang troops. In early September, the United States massively increased its forces in the Taiwan Strait area, sending warships and aircraft to directly escort Kuomintang transport vessels and blatantly invading China's territorial waters. To counter the U.S. aggressive actions, our frontline forces launched comprehensive shelling against the Kuomintang troops on Jinmen and their naval vessels on September 8. By January 7, 1959, a total of seven large-scale shellings, thirteen air battles, and three naval battles had been conducted, shooting down or damaging thirty-six Kuomintang aircraft, sinking or damaging seventeen warships, and killing or wounding over 7,000 Kuomintang troops. The Jinmen artillery battle continued until it ceased on New Year's Day 1979, when diplomatic relations between China and the United States were established.


[I] This refers to the 1958 event of U.S. armed intervention in Lebanon. In May 1958, uprisings occurred throughout Lebanon against the government’s policies, which violated national interests. On July 15, in violation of the United Nations Charter, the United States, under the pretext of "protecting American nationals" and "defending Lebanon’s sovereignty," dispatched armed forces to land in Lebanon, intervening militarily in Lebanon’s internal affairs. Under strong opposition from the Lebanese people, the people of the Middle East, and the peoples of the world, the U.S. aggressor troops were forced to withdraw from Lebanon on October 25 of the same year.


[1] This refers to the Suez Canal incident. The Suez Canal, located in northeastern Egypt, is an international navigation canal connecting the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. It lies at the strategic junction of Europe, Asia, and Africa, making its strategic position extremely important. After it officially opened to navigation in 1869, Britain and France monopolized the vast majority of shares in the Suez Canal Company, reaping huge profits annually, and Britain also established its largest overseas military base in the canal area. After World War II, the Egyptian people waged an unremitting struggle to reclaim sovereignty over the Suez Canal. On July 26, 1956, the Egyptian government announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company. The Chinese government and the governments and leaders of many countries around the world issued statements supporting Egypt’s just action. In October of the same year, Britain, France, and Israel launched an aggressive war against Egypt, in an attempt to recapture the canal, but ended in failure.