Because there haven't been any recent wars, you want to negotiate with the United States.
You can, but negotiating it out would be difficult. The United States also wants to negotiate
with you because it's in a very difficult situation. It has three regional issues to consider:
America—the United States, Europe, and Asia. However, it has been heavily concentrating its
forces in Asia for several years, creating an imbalance that has displeased American
capitalists with European investments. Furthermore, the United States has a history of
letting other countries fight, only joining in mid-fight. It was only after World War II that it
fought the Korean War and then the Vietnam War, where it led the charge, with other
countries rarely participating. Whether it's a special war or a localized war, the United States
is committed to it with all its might. Now, it can't afford to pay attention to other countries.
For example, its troops in Europe are complaining about being short-staffed, having lost
experienced soldiers and commanders, and their good equipment. Isn't the same trend
happening with its troops in Japan, Korea, and elsewhere in Asia? Doesn't it claim to have a
population of 200 million? Yet it can't withstand a war and can only deploy a few hundred
thousand troops, a limited force.
After fighting for over a decade, you should stop focusing solely on your own difficulties and
recognize the enemy's. Twenty-three years have passed since Japan's surrender in 1945, and
your country still exists. Three imperialist powers once invaded you: Japan, France, and the
United States. Yet, your country still exists and has even developed.
Of course, imperialism must fight. Its purpose is, first, to put out fires. If a fire breaks out in
your area, it will put it out. Second, it's to generate arms capital. To put out fires, they need
to manufacture fire-fighting machinery, which makes money. The United States spends over
$30 billion annually in your area.
The American rule is that they don't want prolonged wars. Their wars usually last about four
years. In your area, the fires can't be put out, and instead they burn even wider. Their
capitalists are divided into factions, with some groups profiting more and others less.
Unequal distribution of the spoils leads to internal unrest. These contradictions can be
exploited. Monopoly capitalists who profit less are unwilling to persist in the war. This is
evident in the campaign speeches of both factions. In particular, an American journalist
named Lippmann recently published an article warning against falling into another trap. He
said they had already fallen into one in Vietnam, and the question now was how to climb out
of it. He also feared falling into another. Therefore, there is hope for your cause.
In 1966, I spoke with President Ho Chi Minh in Hangzhou. At that time, the US had already
resumed fighting against North Vietnam, but had not yet resumed bombing. I said that the



US would probably continue the war until this year, as it was an election year. Whichever
president came to power would face this question: would it continue the war, or withdraw
now? I thought continuing the war would only increase its difficulties. All of Europe had
stayed out of the war, unlike the situation during the Korean War. Japan probably wouldn't
join the war, though it might offer some economic assistance; it makes money
manufacturing arms. I think the Americans overestimated their own strength in the past.
Now they're repeating their past behaviour, over-dispersing their forces. This wasn't just our
opinion; even Nixon said the same thing. They're spreading their forces thin not only in
America and Europe, but also in Asia. I originally didn't believe they would attack North
Vietnam, but then they bombed North Vietnam, and that stopped working. Now that
they've stopped bombing, that's working again. Perhaps they'll resume bombing, and my
words won't apply again. But one day it will finally work, and the bombing will cease. So I
think it's a good idea for you to make some plans.
In short, for all these years, the US Army did not attack North Vietnam, nor did it blockade
Hai Phong or bomb downtown Hanoi. It was holding back. At one point, it said it would
"pursue you relentlessly," but even when your planes flew in and out of our country, it didn't
"pursue you relentlessly." So, those were empty words. Your planes flew in and out of our
airports, but it didn't even mention it. For another example, it knew that so many Chinese
were working in your country, but it didn't mention it a single word, as if nothing had
happened. As for those of us who are currently no longer needed in your country, we can
withdraw them. Have you discussed this? If they come again, we'll leave again! Think about
which ones you can keep and which ones you can't. Keep those that are useful to you, and
withdraw those that aren't. We'll return when they're needed again. It's just like your planes
using Chinese airports: use them when you need them, and you don't need to now. That's
basically it.
I support your policy of both fighting and negotiating. Some of our comrades are concerned
that you might fall for the Americans' deception. I doubt it. Aren't these negotiations just like
fighting a war? It's in the midst of war that we gain experience and discover new principles.
Sometimes we're bound to be deceived. As you say, Americans don't keep their promises.
Johnson [2] publicly stated that even treaties sometimes don't hold water. But there are
always rules. For example, are your negotiations going to last a hundred years? Our Prime
Minister said that if Nixon doesn't resolve the issue in two more years, it would be difficult
for him to be president again.
Another point is that the puppet government in South Vietnam was deeply afraid of the
National Liberation Front of South Vietnam. Some Americans claimed that the truly effective
and influential force within South Vietnam was not the Saigon government, but the National
Liberation Front. This statement wasn't made in the US Congress, but by journalists.
However, the person who made the statement didn't mention the name, only that it was a
so-called US official. This raises the question: Who was the truly authoritative government in



South Vietnam? Was it Nguyen Van Thieu or Nguyen Huu Tho? So, while the US nominally
praised Nguyen Van Thieu's prominence and said he wouldn't attend the Paris negotiations,
the reality was different. The US knew that without the participation of the National
Liberation Front of South Vietnam, the issue could not be resolved.

[1] This is part of a conversation between Mao Zedong and Prime Minister Pham Van Dong
of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
[2] Johnson (1908-1973), a US Democrat, served as US President from 1963 to 1969.
[1]
(November 17, 1968)

Because there haven't been any recent wars, you want to negotiate with the United States.
You can, but negotiating it out would be difficult. The United States also wants to negotiate
with you because it's in a very difficult situation. It has three regional issues to consider:
America—the United States, Europe, and Asia. However, it has been heavily concentrating its
forces in Asia for several years, creating an imbalance that has displeased American
capitalists with European investments. Furthermore, the United States has a history of
letting other countries fight, only joining in mid-fight. It was only after World War II that it
fought the Korean War and then the Vietnam War, where it led the charge, with other
countries rarely participating. Whether it's a special war or a localized war, the United States
is committed to it with all its might. Now, it can't afford to pay attention to other countries.
For example, its troops in Europe are complaining about being short-staffed, having lost
experienced soldiers and commanders, and their good equipment. Isn't the same trend
happening with its troops in Japan, Korea, and elsewhere in Asia? Doesn't it claim to have a
population of 200 million? Yet it can't withstand a war and can only deploy a few hundred
thousand troops, a limited force.
After fighting for over a decade, you should stop focusing solely on your own difficulties and
recognize the enemy's. Twenty-three years have passed since Japan's surrender in 1945, and
your country still exists. Three imperialist powers once invaded you: Japan, France, and the
United States. Yet, your country still exists and has even developed.
Of course, imperialism must fight. Its purpose is, first, to put out fires. If a fire breaks out in
your area, it will put it out. Second, it's to generate arms capital. To put out fires, they need
to manufacture fire-fighting machinery, which makes money. The United States spends over
$30 billion annually in your area.
The American rule is that they don't want prolonged wars. Their wars usually last about four
years. In your area, the fires can't be put out, and instead they burn even wider. Their



capitalists are divided into factions, with some groups profiting more and others less.
Unequal distribution of the spoils leads to internal unrest. These contradictions can be
exploited. Monopoly capitalists who profit less are unwilling to persist in the war. This is
evident in the campaign speeches of both factions. In particular, an American journalist
named Lippmann recently published an article warning against falling into another trap. He
said they had already fallen into one in Vietnam, and the question now was how to climb out
of it. He also feared falling into another. Therefore, there is hope for your cause.
In 1966, I spoke with President Ho Chi Minh in Hangzhou. At that time, the US had already
resumed fighting against North Vietnam, but had not yet resumed bombing. I said that the
US would probably continue the war until this year, as it was an election year. Whichever
president came to power would face this question: would it continue the war, or withdraw
now? I thought continuing the war would only increase its difficulties. All of Europe had
stayed out of the war, unlike the situation during the Korean War. Japan probably wouldn't
join the war, though it might offer some economic assistance; it makes money
manufacturing arms. I think the Americans overestimated their own strength in the past.
Now they're repeating their past behaviour, over-dispersing their forces. This wasn't just our
opinion; even Nixon said the same thing. They're spreading their forces thin not only in
America and Europe, but also in Asia. I originally didn't believe they would attack North
Vietnam, but then they bombed North Vietnam, and that stopped working. Now that
they've stopped bombing, that's working again. Perhaps they'll resume bombing, and my
words won't apply again. But one day it will finally work, and the bombing will cease. So I
think it's a good idea for you to make some plans.
In short, for all these years, the US Army did not attack North Vietnam, nor did it blockade
Hai Phong or bomb downtown Hanoi. It was holding back. At one point, it said it would
"pursue you relentlessly," but even when your planes flew in and out of our country, it didn't
"pursue you relentlessly." So, those were empty words. Your planes flew in and out of our
airports, but it didn't even mention it. For another example, it knew that so many Chinese
were working in your country, but it didn't mention it a single word, as if nothing had
happened. As for those of us who are currently no longer needed in your country, we can
withdraw them. Have you discussed this? If they come again, we'll leave again! Think about
which ones you can keep and which ones you can't. Keep those that are useful to you, and
withdraw those that aren't. We'll return when they're needed again. It's just like your planes
using Chinese airports: use them when you need them, and you don't need to now. That's
basically it.
I support your policy of both fighting and negotiating. Some of our comrades are concerned
that you might fall for the Americans' deception. I doubt it. Aren't these negotiations just like
fighting a war? It's in the midst of war that we gain experience and discover new principles.
Sometimes we're bound to be deceived. As you say, Americans don't keep their promises.
Johnson [2] publicly stated that even treaties sometimes don't hold water. But there are



always rules. For example, are your negotiations going to last a hundred years? Our Prime
Minister said that if Nixon doesn't resolve the issue in two more years, it would be difficult
for him to be president again.
Another point is that the puppet government in South Vietnam was deeply afraid of the
National Liberation Front of South Vietnam. Some Americans claimed that the truly effective
and influential force within South Vietnam was not the Saigon government, but the National
Liberation Front. This statement wasn't made in the US Congress, but by journalists.
However, the person who made the statement didn't mention the name, only that it was a
so-called US official. This raises the question: Who was the truly authoritative government in
South Vietnam? Was it Nguyen Van Thieu or Nguyen Huu Tho? So, while the US nominally
praised Nguyen Van Thieu's prominence and said he wouldn't attend the Paris negotiations,
the reality was different. The US knew that without the participation of the National
Liberation Front of South Vietnam, the issue could not be resolved.

[1] This is part of a conversation between Mao Zedong and Prime Minister Pham Van Dong
of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
[2] Johnson (1908-1973), a US Democrat, served as US President from 1963 to 1969.