Khrushchev146 Is Having Ahardtime

KHRUSHCHEV146 IS HAVING
AHARDTIME*
{January 17, 1964)
We now come across two diplomatic questions, on which we should like
to hear your opinions. First, is the United States paying more attention to the
Soviet Union or to China? Second, is America actively preparing for a third
world war? Some people say yes.
(Adler: On the question of whether the United States is paying more
attention to the Soviet Union or to China, the American press says that in the
short term the Soviet Union is the principal enemy, whereas from a long-term
point of view China is the principal enemy.)
This is what they say, and I have read words to this effect. But imperialists
are pragmatists; "long term" is not that important to them, because it is too
far away. Now they donot take us seriously, for we have only grenades, no
atom bomb. You and other foreign comrades who work with us are not taken
seriously either. They think that you are no more than intellectuals working
for Beijing Review or radio stations and can do nothing but raise a hue and
cry. It is a good thing that they donot take us seriously; it is to our advantage.
Nonetheless, they are also paying attention to us.—Rodeuck, a U.S.
journalist stationed in Tokyo, is a specialist on China.
In any case the Soviet Union is a big industrialized country, one of the
two nuclear powers. Apart from grenades, China has a few more people. In
the eyes of Khrushchev a few more people mean only a pile of flesh. He also
said, moreover, that in China now five people are sharing one pair of trousers
and that people have nothing to eat but wishy-washy gruel. In fact, he said
that at just the moment when he had over there too few trousers and too much
clear gruel. He doesn't have a much easier life than we do. He said that in his
most difficult time just to show his people: Look, how great our country is!
We have quite a few trousers and not much clear gruel.
* These are excerpts from a talk with Anna Louise Strong, Frank Coe, Sol Adler, Israel
Epstein and Sidney Rittenberg.
A
On the question whether the U.S. is now preparing for a third world war,
we expressed our view earlier, and we now still hold that view.
We may look back at history. The United States has always taken part in
international wars at the very last. This was the case in the First World War
and the Second. Now the U.S. is reaching out too far. As the Sichuanese would
say; Catching ten fleas with ten fingers, you end up getting none. If you don't
believe it, open your fingers and try to catch one.
Now the United States meets resistance in two Third Worlds. The first
Third World refers to Asia, Africa, and Latin America, while the second refers
to a number of highly developed capitalist, mostly European, countries, some
even imperialist countries. On the one hand, these countries oppress others;
on the other hand, they are oppressed by the United States and have
contradictions with it. In the first Third World there is a place called South
Vietnam. The United States just fails to weigh its people down. Moreover,
things of this kind will always crop up in the future.
It is unimaginable for the U.S. to meet resistance in both Third Worlds,
only to find that such resistance is absent in the Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe.
Khrushchev is having a tough time. According to statistics, since the 20th
Congress of the CPSU only a small number of veterans are left in the
Presidium of the Soviet Communist Party as a result of leadership changes.
That shows it is not stable there, nor is it in Eastern Europe. For instance,
there are constant leadership changes in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Czechoslo
vakia. Some people stepped down after fiercely opposing China, but after they
stepped down, they changed their anti-China stance. Take Yugov^®' and
Siroky,^®' for example. Why? they opposed China just for the sake of
maintaining their power and position; that's why they stopped opposing
China after being driven out. This proved two points: First, some people are
not truly against China. Second, China now is in a position that evokes
opposition from other people and stimulates these people to write articles and
deliver speeches to attack it. We have the status that someone has to oppose
China to maintain his post.
In fact, Khrushchev has not secured big majority support among the
countries in the socialist camp.^®' Romania has differing views; Poland can be
counted as only half a supporter. Like the Americans, he wants to control
others and tries to make them develop single-product economies, which is not
feasible. Romania does not accept it. Cuba is quarreling with him.
After the 20th Congress of the CPSU we began to feel Khrushchev was
not following the correct line, but until the first half of 1958 our attitude was
one of helping him, for we thought at that time it was not easy for the Soviet
people to change leaders.
Later the naval base issue'" occurred in 1958. Khrushchev visited China
that year. Why did he come? Negotiations with the Soviet ambassador to
China over the naval base issue broke down. In the end, Khrushchev himself
had to come to clear things up. I said to him, "I can give you the whole of
China's coastline." He asked, "Then what will you do?" "Go up to the
mountains to launch a guerrilla war," I replied. He then said, "It's no use
launching a guerrilla war." I said, "You jammed my nose; what else could I
do except fight a guerrilla war?"
Then came the Sino-Indian border incident^®® in 1959. Before visiting the
United States, Khrushchev issued a statement through Tass indicating that he
would remain "neutral" on the Sino-Indian border issue. After visiting the
United States, he came to Beijing again. This time he talked about the Taiwan
question, asking us to treat Taiwan in the way the Soviet Union treated the
Far East Republic^®' in the past. I said to him, "It was you who established
the Far East Republic, but we never set up the Chiang Kai-shek clique." He
also asked us to release the four or five American convicts then jailed in our
prison. Neither of these two questions reached agreement. He said, "Eisenhower told me at Camp David, 'Your trip to Beijing this time will get you
nowhere.'"
From the 20th Congress of the CPSU to last July, we found ourselves in
a rather passive position. We then turned to a counteroffensive. Like stirring
up trouble in the Heavenly Palace, we broke their taboos and commandments.
We should never thoroughly yield to their taboos and commandments. They
malign us as dogmatists, Trotskyites, empty talkers, sham revolutionaries and
nationalists. But they are afraid of our "empty talk." They make verbal
allegations that what we say is empty talk, but in fact they take it as pestilence
and try very hard to block it. They even jam our broadcasts with the station
they use to jam the Voice of America.
They now ask us to stop public debates; they are very nervous. I told the
Soviet ambassador last March, "You labeled us as dogmatists, Trotskyites,
empty talkers, sham revolutionaries, and nationalists. If that was really what
we were, of course you should criticize us; feel free to do so." He said it would
be disastrous if things went on that way. I said, "What harm will it do to fight
a battle of words? First, heaven won't collapse; second, trees and grass will
continue to grow in the mountains; third, women will continue to give birth
to children; fourth, fish will swim in the rivers as before. If you donot believe
it, go to the riverside and have a look." In a recent letter to us, they quoted

A
these words of mine.
It is not up to one side to stop the debates. A fair agreement accepted by
both sides must be concluded, because the two sides represent not just two
parties, but parties in scores of countries. Therefore, it is very hard to stop the
debates.
(From the verbatim record)