BOTH FIGHT AND NEGOTIATE*
{November 17, 1968)
Since there have been no battles lately, you are inclined to negotiate with
the U.S. Negotiation is all right, but it is difficult to negotiate the U.S. away.
The U.S. is also ready to negotiate with you because of its awkward situation
at present. It has to take care of problems in three regions: America (the U.S.),
Europe and Asia. It has lost its balance by stationing a large number of troops
in Asia all these years. American capitalists who have investments in Europe
are not satisfied. Meanwhile, historically the U.S. was used to letting other
countries do the fighting first, then it would join at the halfway mark. Only
after the Second World War did it take the lead, in the Korean War and the
war in Vietnam. Since the U.S. was in the lead, only a few countries
participated. It spared no efforts either in so-called special wars or local wars
and is now unable to attend to other countries. For example, its troops in
Europe cry out that they haven't enough manpower, veteran fighters and
commanders have been transferred, and good equipment has been moved
away. No matter whether in Japan, Korea or other places in Asia, its troops
are being transferred as well. Does it claim that it has a population of 200
million? However, it cannot withstand attacks since its armed forces are limited,
and it can only afford to send overseas several hundred thousand troops.
After you have fought for more than ten years, you should not look
merely at your own difficulties, but at the enemy's difficulties as well. It has
been 23 years since Japan surrendered in 1945, and Vietnam still exists. You
have been invaded by three imperialist powers: Japan, France and the U.S.
However, your country not only continues to exist, but has developed.
Of course, imperialism is inclined to wage war. Its aim is, first, to put out
fire, and you had fire; second, to deal in munitions capital. To put out fire,
"fire extinguishers" have to be manufactured; that will make money. The U.S.
* This is the major part of Mao Zedong's talk with Premier Pham Van Dong of the
Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
has spent over 30 billion dollars every year in your country.
The U.S. is not accustomed to fighting long. Its wars usually last around
four years. The fire in your country, instead of being put out, has become
increasingly rampant. The U.S. capitalists are divided into different groups. If
one group earns more profit than the others, there will be trouble among them
owing to the unjust division of the spoils. You can take advantage of these
contradictions. The capitalists who are getting less profit will not persist in
carrying on the war. This can be perceived from the election campaign
speeches of the two parties. Particularly, an American correspondent named
Walter Lippmann recently published an article warning the U.S. to be careful
of falling into another trap. He said the U.S. had fallen into a trap in Vietnam,
and the question now was how to manage to get out of it. He was afraid it
might fall into another one. Therefore, your cause is promising.
I had an interview with Chairman Ho Chi Minh^'^ in Hangzhou in 1966.
At the time the U.S. had again started the war in North Vietnam but had not
yet resumed the bombing. In my opinion, the U.S. will probably persist nearly
through the year, because this is their year of general election. This problem
will always exist no matter who is elected president. Will it continue the war
or will it withdraw? I hold that it would incur more difficulties by continuing
the war. No European country has participated in this war, and the situation
is different from that of the Korean War. Japan is not likely to join, except
to render some economic assistance. It has made much money manufacturing
arms. I think the U.S. has overestimated its own strength in the past. It is
repeating its old practice by excessively dispersing its forces not only in
America and Europe, but even in Asia. We are not alone in speaking thus;
Nixon^'*^ said so as well. Originally I didn't believe the U.S. would invade
North Vietnam, but it bombed the country afterward, so my words went for
nought. Now it has stopped the bombing, so my words have proved effective.
Perhaps it will resume bombing, then my words will be ineffective again.
However, my words will invariably come true someday when it again stops
bombing. Therefore, it is better for you to be prepared against all possibilities.
In brief, the U.S. army hasn't attacked North Vietnam all these years,
neither blockading Haiphong nor bombarding the urban district of Hanoi. It
has held back a trick or two. Once it spoke of "hot pursuit," but it failed to
"hotly pursue" your airplanes, which flew to and fro from China. So this is
only empty talk. It has never mentioned anything about your airplanes using
our airfields. Take another example. It knew many Chinese were working in
your country, yet it didn't say a word, as if this had never happened. As for
some of our personnel who are at present not required in your country, they

may withdraw to China. Have you discussed this question? We can send them
back to you if the Americans return. You can think about who should remain
and who should leave. You may keep those who are useful to you and let the
rest evacuate. They will go back to Vietnam in future if you need them again.
It is the same for your airplanes making use of Chinese airfields. You can use
them if you need to and stop using them if there's no need at the time. Things
are more or less like this.
I agree with your policy to both fight and negotiate. Some of our
comrades are just afraid you might be taken in by the Americans, but I don't
think so. Aren't negotiation and fighting alike? In drawing laws from experience in fighting, we may be taken in sometimes. Just as you've remarked that
the Americans don't mean what they say. Johnson^®*" has openly stated that
even treaties sometimes do not count. Yet there is invariably a rule in
everything. Like your negotiations, do you wish them to last 100 years? Our
Premier said if the negotiations continue another two years without solving
any problems, it will be difficult for Nixon to win in the next presidential
election.
There's still another point; The South Vietnamese puppet regime is very
much afraid of the South Vietnam National Liberation Front. Some people in
the U.S. said it is not the Saigon government, but the Liberation Front, that
is truly effective and has influence among the South Vietnamese people. This
remark was not made in the U.S. Congress but reported by a correspondent,
who didn't reveal any names, but merely mentioned that it came from so-called
U.S. official sources. This remark poses the question of whose government in
South Vietnam truly has prestige: Nguyen Van Thieu^'^ or Nguyen Huu
Tho®'®? Therefore, outwardly the U.S. boasted how terrific Nguyen Van Thieu
was, and declared that he wouldn't go to Paris to attend the negotiations.
Actually it was nothing of the sort. The U.S. knows very well that nothing
can be settled without the participation of the South Vietnam National
Liberation Front.
(From the verbatim record)