Comments on Arieti’s Views on the Bucharest Conference (August 1960) 1. Jiang Qing read it carefully and slowly; she found it very beneficial. Printed from Mao Zedong’s manuscript.

2. A good conversation [1]. Printed from Mao Zedong’s manuscript.

Notes [1] Refers to the document “Views of Comrade Arieti, Alternate Member of the Politburo of the Romanian Communist Party, on the Bucharest Conference,” published in an internal publication compiled and printed by the International Department of the CPC Central Committee on August 19, 1960. The material states that after visiting Northeast China and returning to Beijing, Arieti frankly shared some of his impressions and opinions about the Bucharest Conference. He said: “The manner in which the Bucharest Conference was convened was very poor. I, along with representatives of several Latin American parties (such as Brazil and Cuba), were quite surprised. Our central committees had no prior knowledge that such a meeting would be held to discuss these issues.” “Before we had thoroughly studied a series of documents, before we had any understanding whatsoever of the Chinese Communist Party’s views and circumstances, we were simply asked to speak and express our attitudes on these matters based solely on one side’s presentation. Moreover, the time allotted for discussion was extremely brief.” Therefore, he believed that “the conference of fifty-one communist parties was conducted without adequate preparation, forcing participants to debate and criticize the Chinese Communist Party’s domestic policies and work.” He also pointed out that “another undesirable feature of the conference was that instead of inviting party representatives to take the issues and opinions back to their respective central committees for deliberation and subsequent expression of views, it required individual attendees, acting in their capacity as party representatives, to state their positions.” He considered Khrushchev’s demeanor during his speech to be “very arrogant.” Arieti further remarked: “The methods employed at the Bucharest Conference served to reinforce many people’s preconceived biases on certain questions.” “The format of the meeting created an atmosphere of fear, discouraging frank discussion for fear of saying something wrong.” “Some of the issues raised at the conference were not necessarily those that the international communist movement needed to address, such as the people’s communes and the Great Leap Forward steel campaign.” “Certain points in Khrushchev’s report should not have been brought up, such as the question of how many rubles the Soviet Union had provided in aid to China.” “What connection, after all, does economic assistance have to questions of peaceful coexistence, war, and peace?” “Khrushchev’s approach amounted to conflating ideological questions with concrete ones,” he noted, adding, “There is something fundamentally flawed in this line of thinking.” Arieti maintained that imperialism would not alter its policy of war and that “securing ten to fifteen years of peace does not rule out the possibility that the proletariat in certain countries may seize power during that period.” He went on to ask: “Why can’t the United States practice peaceful coexistence with Cuba? If Venezuela were to expel U.S. imperialist forces and achieve full independence, could the United States then coexist peacefully with Venezuela?” “Following the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU, both the Soviet and British Communist Parties advocated peaceful transition, but we have never believed that Venezuela could achieve peaceful transition. While peaceful transitions may occur in individual cases, such instances cannot be generalized into a rule.” With regard to China’s experience in socialist construction, Arieti generally expressed a positive assessment, stating: “You have made tremendous progress, yet there are still those who criticize you. Certain political leaders ought to come to China to examine your situation firsthand, studying each issue carefully. It is highly dangerous to offer criticism without a proper understanding of the facts.”