Critique and Revision [I] of the Draft Reply Letter from the CPC Central Committee to the CPSU Central Committee
(April 30, 1964)

Comrades Kang Sheng and Lengxi, and please inform all comrades of the Standing Committee of the Central Committee:
I agree with this letter, and have only made a small addition and revision on pages 7, 8, and 9[2]. On the question of the timing of this meeting, the leadership of the CPSU has become disorganized in its methods, and as a result, the baton no longer works, because the majority of Parties fear a meeting that would cause a split. In reality, the leadership of the CPSU itself also fears such a meeting, because a split would do them no good. Such a meeting, in fact, cannot be convened successfully.
Mao Zedong
April 30

[1] This item consists of Mao Zedong's critiques on the draft reply letter from the CPC Central Committee to the CPSU Central Committee dated March 7, 1964. This critique was written on a letter dated April 29, 1964, from Kang Sheng (Alternate Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, Secretary of the CPC Central Committee Secretariat) and Wu Lengxi (Director of the Xinhua News Agency, Editor-in-Chief of *People's Daily*) submitting the draft reply letters to the CPSU Central Committee and the Central Committee of the Romanian Communist Party for Mao Zedong's review. Regarding the sentence in their letter stating, "The reply letter to the CPSU Central Committee and the letters exchanged internally between the Chinese and Soviet Parties since last November are planned to be published in the newspapers on May 6 or 7," Mao Zedong annotated: "Publication on the 8th or 9th would be better." On May 7, 1964, *People's Daily*, under the title "Seven Letters Exchanged Between the CPC Central Committee and the CPSU Central Committee," published the CPC Central Committee's letter of May 7, 1964, to the CPSU Central Committee, as well as the CPC Central Committee's letters to the CPSU Central Committee dated February 20, February 27, and February 29, 1964, and the CPSU Central Committee's letters to the CPC Central Committee dated November 29, 1963, February 22, and March 7, 1964. Items two and three are Mao Zedong's revisions to the draft reply letter from the CPC Central Committee to the CPSU Central Committee dated March 7, 1964.
[2] Refers to Item III of this section.

328

Critique and Revision of the Draft Reply Letter from the CPC Central Committee to the CPSU Central Committee
We ask you, under these circumstances, how can the Sino-Soviet talks and the international conference of fraternal Parties possibly be conducted well? What is there good to say? Wouldn't it just end up being a quarrel that breaks up with no result? Or would it lead to an open split from that point on, with each side going its own way? Are you truly determined to have an open split?

Comrades, we are against splitting. Before all the magic weapons you threaten to brandish have actually been brought forth, before the arguments and intentions of both sides have been made clear, and before adequate preparatory work has been fully done, convening Sino-Soviet bilateral talks and an international conference of fraternal Parties can only lead to a split, and we cannot agree to it.

Judging from the present circumstances, holding Sino-Soviet bilateral talks this May is not only impossible, but even holding them this October would be too early. We believe it is more appropriate to postpone the Sino-Soviet bilateral talks until the first half of next year, for instance, May of next year. By that time, if either of the Chinese or Soviet Parties feels that the time is not ripe, a further postponement can be arranged.

As for a representative conference of all Communist and Workers' Parties of the world, we believe that such a conference must be a congress of unity on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, and absolutely should not become a congress of division. To this end, full preparatory work must be made, and it must not be convened hastily. This is our consistent attitude, and it is also the common attitude of many fraternal Parties the world over, including some with whom we have ideological differences. This attitude previously received your approval. In your letter to us on November 29, 1963, you agreed that conditions should be created so that this conference "would not lead to a split in the world communist movement, but to genuine unity and solidarity of all fraternal Parties and all forces of peace and socialism." If you are not anxious for an open rupture, then you should not be impatient to convene an international conference this autumn. We advise you to think calmly; under the present circumstances, regarding the international conference of fraternal Parties, holding it later is better than holding it earlier, and even not holding it is better than holding it.

Now, there is no international organization comparable to the Second International, nor is there a standing committee like that of the Third International with the authority to convene an international conference. Under these circumstances, no single Party or group of Parties should or is permitted to unilaterally decide, in violation of the principle of reaching unanimity through consultation among the fraternal Parties, to convene a representative conference of all Communist and Workers' Parties of the world. To do so is illegitimate, utterly wrong, and would lead to serious consequences. You, we, and all Communist and Workers' Parties are aware of this point. If the Central Committee of the CPSU persists willfully, brazenly disregarding the advice of us and many fraternal Parties, and insists on hastily convening such a conference composed of a portion of the Parties that subscribe to your erroneous line of revisionism and splitting, passing it off as a representative conference of all Communist and Workers' Parties of the world, then you will find yourselves in the position of being loudly denounced by the working class, the revolutionary people, and all truly Marxist-Leninist Parties of the whole world. You will have to bear the responsibility for the split, and the banner of so-called unity you boast of will be hurled far beyond the highest heavens. Do you wish to do such a thing? Are you willing to walk down such a blind alley? We now lay these words here with the utmost sincerity and with clear stakes clearly outlined. Do not say we did not warn you beforehand.

330