Conversation with the Delegation of the Italian Communist Party[1]
(April 19, 1959)
Mao Zedong (hereafter Mao): The rebellion in Tibet[2] has given the world’s bourgeoisie a fine topic. There is an old saying in China: ‘When you have many lice, you don’t itch.’ Chiang Kai-shek and the imperialist reactionaries have cursed us so much that we no longer feel the itch. Do you understand the Tibet issue?
Pajetta[3] (hereafter Pa): We think we do. It does not surprise us. The Tibet affair will not provoke a huge reaction in Western Europe. Some people try to compare the Tibet issue with the Hungarian issue, but that is difficult because the two cannot be compared. In 1870, the Pope was still the King of Rome. To occupy Rome, the Italian bourgeoisie had to fire cannons at the Pope. It is not surprising that the Pope of Tibet is now firing cannons at the Communists. The propaganda campaign in Italy surrounding the Tibet events is artificial and has no mass base.
Mao: The cannons were fired well.
Pa: At the time, it was the Italian King who gave the orders, opposing the Pope of Rome.
Mao: On April 18, our People’s Liberation Army occupied several key strongholds along the so-called McMahon Line. The broad masses of Tibetans stand with the PLA; they bitterly hate their leaders—the serf owners. The rebellion in Tibet differs from the Hungarian Incident[1] in many ways. I will mention just one point: the mass base is different. During the Hungarian Incident in November 1956, the thinking of the masses was confused, and it took the Party’s work in 1957 and 1958 to turn it around. The serfs in Tibet are not standing behind the cannons of the Pope of Tibet; most stand on our side. Some people cannot yet see clearly, but the majority stand with us, demanding liberation. The Tibet incident is very good, and we are very optimistic. Of course, to eliminate the serf system and carry out social reforms, we must explain the principles to the masses, and this will take time. There is a question: the PLA has been in Tibet for nine years, so why has Tibet not been reformed? We deliberately slowed down the pace in this region; it was a planned deceleration. It was not because we lacked a mass base. Some members of the Tibetan upper strata have their hearts set on foreign countries, not China. We slowed down reform, originally saying we would discuss the issue of reform after 1962. Now that they have fired their cannons, reform has been brought forward by four years. Therefore, firing cannons is also a good thing. The world’s bourgeoisie will always shout and curse about our quelling of the rebellion, because they believe Tibet is actually their territory, not ours. Their first argument is that Tibetans are not Chinese people; they are Tibetans, not Han people. In fact, within our country, there are very many people who are not Han. Inner Mongolia has Mongolians; the Uyghurs are people of Turkic lineage; there are other minority nationalities, none of whom are Han. Among China’s 670 million people, there are 36 million from minority nationalities. It’s not just the 1.2 million Tibetans who are not Han; the other over 34 million people are also not Han. The rebels say Tibet demands independence, and this so-called ‘independence’ means handing Tibet over to foreign countries. Marx spoke of national self-determination, but these rebels’ ‘national self-determination’ means going over to the side of foreign countries. How should a Marxist handle this issue? Tibet has a total of 1.2 million people. Regarding national self-determination, should it be determined by 1.18 million people, or by twenty thousand reactionaries? They want the self-determination of the twenty thousand reactionary serf owners. Some of our country’s minority nationalities had their own armed forces in the past. Armed forces should be those of the working people, not the armed forces of serf owners. The current task is to transfer the guns from the shoulders of the serf owners onto the shoulders of the working people. This leads to a theoretical question, namely, that class struggle always requires a fight in the end; peaceful transition is very difficult. In such a small place as Tibet, with only twenty thousand reactionaries, so few, a fight still had to happen—they wanted to test their strength against us. So when I talk with foreign comrades, I always say we must make ideological preparations and not disarm ourselves mentally; do not think you can seize power without a fight. Openly stated, we must raise two points: first, we are willing to solve problems peacefully and seize power through peaceful transition. Second, if the bourgeoisie fires cannons at us, we will fight back.
On April 19, 1959, Mao Zedong and Liu Shaoqi attended the signing ceremony for the communiqué of the talks between the Chinese and Italian Communist Parties. Deng Xiaoping and Giancarlo Pajetta, Secretary of the Central Secretariat of the Italian Communist Party, signed the communiqué respectively.

--- Notes

This is part of the conversation.
[2] The Tibet rebellion. On March 10, 1959, the reactionary clique of the Tibetan upper strata, supported by foreign forces, deliberately sabotaged the implementation of the agreement on the peaceful liberation of Tibet, launched an armed rebellion, and openly declared ‘Tibetan independence.’ On the 17th, the Dalai Lama and some key rebels fled to India. On the 19th, the rebels launched a full-scale attack on the People’s Liberation Army garrison in Lhasa and the offices of the central government representatives. The PLA troops stationed in Tibet counterattacked the rebel forces in Lhasa on the 20th, quickly quelling the armed rebellion in the Lhasa area. Subsequently, armed rebellions in other areas were also suppressed, safeguarding national unity and ethnic solidarity.
[3] Pajetta (1911-1990), then a member of the Political Bureau and the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the Italian Communist Party.