FIFTH OFFICIAL MEETING BETWEEN THE DELEGATION OF THE ALBANIAN LABOR PARTY AND THE DELEGATION OF THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTYCITATION SHARE DOWNLOAD
get citationAlbanian leaders Hysni Kapo and Ramiz Alia meet with a Chinese delegation to discuss industrialization in Communist countries, specificallyAlbania's five-year plan. The Albanians complain about being excluded from international meetings of the socialist countries. The Chinese update the Albanians on their position of supporting Jiang Jieshi over the "Two Chinas" objective of the United States and their relations with other countries throughout Asia, while encouraging the Albanians to reach out to the Muslim nations of Africa."Fifth Official Meeting Between the Delegation of the Albanian Labor Party and the Delegation of the Chinese Communist Party," June 19, 1962, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, Central State Archive, Tirana, AQPPSH-MPKK-V. 1962, L. 14, D. 6. Obtained by Ana Lalaj and translated by Enkel Daljani. https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/110806
VIEW DOCUMENT IN
THE FIFTH OFFICIAL MEETING BETWEEN THE DELEGATION OF THE ALBANIAN LABOUR PARTY AND THE DELEGATION OF THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY (HELD AT THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY, AT 9 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, ON 19 JUNE 1962)
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: We apologize that during the past three days we have been very busy and have not been able to meet with you. A meeting with comrade Mao Zedong in Beijing has been planned for you for a few days from now.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: That would be a very good thing.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: Until when would you be able to extend your stay in our country?
Comrades Hysni Kapo and Ramiz Alia: This is an issue we can discuss together.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: You also expressed the desire to visit some of the regions in our country, so we are of the opinion that we can continue our talks when you return from those visits. Would you like to visit Tianjin or northeastern China? Either way, when you return, comrade Mao Zedong will have also returned, we can then keep in contact and arrange to talk with you. The Central Committee of our party has not yet even invited you to break bread together. (Laughter)
Some of your comrades would like to visit Shanghai and the cities of the south. This is something you can also do as you depart from Beijing during your trip back to Albania. This is what we think, but you should also give us your opinion on this. We will manage the matter of the visits according to your desires and opinions.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: Everything is dependent on the time we have and the course of our travel.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: We can talk about the course you will take on your way back.
Comrade Van Tse Zian: My personal opinion is that when you return to Albania, an airplane of ours should take you to Rangoon. From there you could use an airplane to go through the countries of the West. Yet I personally still think that (and of course, you will make the final decision yourselves) the principal comrades of your delegation should once again use a ship for their travel. The rest can return by air via Rangoon, where we can take them with our own plane. We do not have a plane that can take them further. I am only thinking of security for the principal comrades.
In the future we are planning on creating an air route between Beijing and Cairo, and then to your country, but for the moment we have no route of the kind.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: Are you also thinking of such a route?
Comrade Hysni Kapo: We have not thought of such a route because we do not have the capacity.
Comrade Ramiz Alia: Even the plane that goes through Albania at this moment belongs to a Dutch airline.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: We are not planning on creating such a route, because as you well know we are not able to do this. The plane that comes now to Tirana follows the route of Tirana – Beirut – Rangoon and only comes once every two weeks.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: Has it [your return flight] been set already?
Comrade Hysni Kapo: Yes, there will be a flight on 25 June and another on 11 July. We, the principal comrades of the delegation, have been instructed by our Central Committee that we are able to travel by plane, after we also consult with you and if we all find it suitable together. The reason is that sea travel takes too long and, furthermore, our ship, due to the nature of the cargo it is carrying, will not stop anywhere. If we return to Albania from China by air, our coming here will surely become known no matter which route we take.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: It would not matter if it becomes known. We have no opposition to whichever route you take to return. As to our steps, we will take you all the way to Rangoon, and there we will get you tickets for your trip to Albania. So if you think it prudent to return via that route, we have no opposition to it.
Comrade Ramiz Alia: You should still keep in mind, comrades, that if we take this route back, the Western countries will start to talk, because we will have to ask for visas from Burma, the United Arab Republic, and Italy.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: This does not bother us.
In the future, as comrade Van Tse Zian said, we are planning on creating an air route to Cairo. Now we are making contacts with the English for the purchase of airplanes, because since many people come to China from southern countries the single air route that we have with the north is not nearly enough. That is why we also need an air route in that direction. The point in time when we will decide to start it will be decided later. Either way, the plane on this route will not stop in India, because the situation may get complicated, in fact it will not stop in Ceylon either.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: Are you planning on creating the route this year or the next?
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: We are still in negotiations with the English over the price of the planes. We are actively working for the solution to this issue.
Since our last meeting, you have brought up a few issues. I think that we should not talk about some of them today. The comrades responsible for dealing directly with specific issues will inform you in the next round. As to the issue of the international organizations of the masses, we have the expert here, comrade … … Yi [the name is obscured from the scanner and a party seal, but is probably Liu Nin Yi] and he will speak to you, but I think he will not give you very good news (laughter). In order to talk about such issues, the activity of such organizations must be observed in the field. What do you think?
Comrade Hysni Kapo: As to what has happened in the past in these organizations – at least in those in which we have taken part, such as in the meetings of Stockholm, of Moscow, of Berlin, etc. – we are fully knowledgeable, but that has always depended on what our delegations have been able to gather information. So if there are further specific items, you may inform us about them.
Comrade Ramiz Alia: Our people do not take part in the executive organs of these organizations, so if there are some things which you deem necessary for us to be informed about, you may tell us.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: As to our positions on issues, we do not intend to change them and nor is it necessary that we do. Also, as to the matter of the coordination of the activities of both our sides, this is also an issue that can be easily solved. Comrade Liu Nin Yi will talk to you about the meeting that will be held in Moscow on the issue of disarmament and peace. We do not intend to send a delegation of any importance to this meeting; the delegation will probably be headed by Kao Dun, not a member of the party. We initially intended to have comrade Liu Nin Yi go, but now we think we might not send him. Our position toward this meeting is neither warm nor cold.
Our plan on the issue of the nitrogen fertilizer plant called for comrade Zhou Enlai and comrade Li Xiannian to speak to you about it when we discussed the domestic situation. This is an economic problem. I just wanted to say that our side has some difficulties with such a plant.
Comrade Van Tse Zian: Especially on the technical side, because natural gas will be used as a raw material for this plant.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: We are now keeping contacts with the Italians working on a solution to this problem. The Italians are telling us that they have given their technology to the Americans and cannot sell it to us, but they have not been outrightly curt about this. But we are able to find many ways to solve this problem in the capitalist world. If we buy it, for you this issue becomes much easier to solve. We also have a lot of natural gas that goes to waste. Either way, we are actively working to solve this issue that preoccupies you so much.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: This [plant] is an object that in the state economic planning sector preoccupies us very much, especially as it concerns the development of our agriculture, and that is why we wanted to discuss it with you. We know that on your end there is much interest in relation to the Italians, but we wanted to know what the possibilities and perspectives are on this issue, because it is the main objective of our third five-year plan. We agree to discuss this issue when we talk to the comrades that you mentioned.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: This issue preoccupies us as well. The way that we produce the fertilizer is not economical. Our annual production is less than two million tons, and so we are forced to import fertilizer from the capitalist world. This year we are also foreseeing the importation of over one million tons. All the socialist countries have a deficit in the production of fertilizers. The USSR has only recently started to produce more fertilizers. Furthermore, the complete construction of such a plant is difficult; it takes time, at least three years. That is why it will be difficult for you to construct such a plant within this five-year plan. We are not experts, but I do know that if coal is used as raw material, the task will become easier.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: In the talks that you have had with the Italians, they had said that such an object can be constructed within three years. In the talks that [Central Committee Member] comrade Abdyl Kellezi has had with your comrades, it was foreseen that such an object can be constructed before the end of 1966 at the latest. The deadline has yet to be set, however, since that was just an exchange of thought.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: We will discuss this issue specifically. Comrade Li Xiannian knows this issue better.
Another issue that you have presented to us is that of our participation and position in the meetings of the organizations and institutions of the 12 socialist countries. The organizations of the socialist countries have assorted characters. For example, in the meeting of the Warsaw Pact we take part only as observers.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: The Economic Council [COMECON] and the Warsaw Pact have another character.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: In the organizations of the socialist countries that have such a character, like The Economic Council [COMECON] and the Warsaw Pact, we have not taken part, in fact at the last meeting we did not even send any observers.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: Before these meetings were called you have also asked us whether we had received an invitation or not and we have not had any concern in relation to your position.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: Both these organizations are of the same character. We will also not take part in them in the future.
The cultural organizations have a different character. These are organizations of a temporary or permanent nature. A permanent organization is, for example, that of the military, the Sports Society of Friendly Armies. We have wrangled with them on the gathering of this society, which should have been held in your country, and we have informed you about that. Now the struggle in this organization continues. We think that it is possible that we will not take part if this changes the existing rules of the organization. We will only take part on the condition that the existing statute of the organization is not changed and that Albania is also invited to take part in it.
But there are also organizations of a temporary character. You are not a member of the railroads organization. We also decide our position toward these organizations depending on their character. For example, we did not take part in the gymnastics challenge in which the socialist countries and some European countries took part. There are also certain temporary meetings in which the representatives of the socialist countries and of some capitalist countries take part. Such an organization is that of weight-lifting.
A permanent organization of the socialist countries does not exist, except for that of the military.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: Perhaps our intentions in asking these questions have not been understood. As to COMECON and the Warsaw Pact, we did not even ask any questions about them, because no issue to be discussed has arisen from the correct position that your party and government have taken toward these organizations. After the chilling of relations with Albania, the possibility of our participation in these organizations was severed. Not only have we not taken part in these organizations, but we have not taken part in the commissions either, and we know full well that even in the future, every position taken from your party and government toward these organizations shall be the correct position.
As to the issue of the organizations of the twelve socialist countries, we agree with the classification that you make as those of a permanent or of temporary character. But we wanted to add that for both the temporary ones and the permanent ones or for the meetings that are held for the consultation of the representatives of the twelve socialist countries, we are, naturally, ready in principle to take part if we are invited. If they do not invite us, we are sorry, but there is nothing we can do about it. But when eleven socialist countries are invited and Albania is left aside, this is done intentionally to let the world know that Albania has been expelled from the socialist camp and that it is not a socialist country. I say this because there is a tendency in the meetings of the temporary or permanent organizations and in the consultative meetings of the various institutions to leave Albania aside. So, we wanted to tell you that when there are meetings of the organizations of the twelve socialist countries, whether they are temporary or permanent ones, we agree to take part if we are invited. Had they invited us to take part in the organization of the railroads, we would not take part, not because we are against such a meeting, but because we have nothing to discuss on this particular matter since no such problems exist in our country. But when they do not invite us, we consider this as an affront towards us by the organizers of the meeting. Here we simply wanted to express our point of view on the participation in these meetings.
The position of your party on this matter is very clear to us; it has always insisted and continues to do so that in all the meetings of these organizations all 12 socialist countries take part and not only 11 of them. We know that your party and government have requested the participation of Albania in the meetings of the temporary and permanent organizations.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: On these issues we do not have any opposing viewpoints; we agree with your point of view. Our position, as you also mentioned, has been and will remain the same: without an invitation for Albania to participate, we will not participate in these meetings either. If there are meetings where the participants include other states, such as Yugoslavia, we will also not take part in them either.
You said that if they invite you, you would take part in these meetings. Then it is easy to tackle this issue together. If, as in the case of the Sports Society of Friendly Armies, they do not invite you, or invite Yugoslavia or India, we will not take part.
Another question you raised was that of the international issues that are being discussed between our countries and the Western countries. We have a general opinion on these issues. Among them there are three issues: disarmament, the cessation of nuclear weapons testing, and the issue of Berlin. The socialist countries have not reached an agreement with the Western countries on any of these three issues. This of course does not mean that there can be no agreement on partial issues, but on the main problems the positions of the Western countries, especially of the US, are very clear. They will not retreat one bit from their position.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: That is so.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: [Nikita] Khrushchev, on the other hand, makes concessions at every step. But due to the fact that the Soviet Union is a great power, he only makes concessions up to a certain point. He can not go any further, because further concessions would not be approved by the Soviet people, by the peoples of the entire world; some of his concessions would not be approved by the countries of Eastern Europe either. Furthermore, the US is limited to a certain degree as well, because they have their own contradictions with the English, the French, and the leaders of West Germany. But there are some issues on which no agreement can be reached, such as, for example, the issue of disarmament, especially over the so-called full and general disarmament. We have never fallen for this. It is just strange to think that the imperialists will ever agree to disarm.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: In other words, to surrender their weapons.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: Only with the fist will the proletariat ever destroy imperialism.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: (With sarcasm) But the imperialists are good-hearted and will disarm.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: So, disarmament is an impossibility. They may make some noise in some way or form, or on some partial agreement. For example, [if] the Soviet Union [were to] reduce their military by some hundreds of thousands of soldiers, it is possible that the US might also do the same, but such a thing would be a token move; in reality this would not mean a decrease in armaments, on the contrary, it would be an increase in armaments, because they will reduce the army by some [number of] people, but increase the quality of their armaments. It is thus impossible to achieve an agreement on disarmament.
As to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we think that no concrete achievement can come of it. This can happen only when more socialist countries are in possession of nuclear weapons and when they have absolute superiority over the imperialist countries; only then might the imperialists accept such an agreement, but as of now an agreement on the proliferation of nuclear weapons can not be reached. In fact, at the moment, even a cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons can not be reached. Look at what happens: when they cease their testing, the Soviet Union starts them. Now the US has started them too. How can the talks on the cessation of the testing of such weapons go forward under these circumstances?
On the issue of Berlin we also have the problem of the old borders of the East. On the issue of Berlin, N. Khrushchev has made many concessions, but the US insists on two points: on the occupation of West Berlin by Western forces (they will not concede on this point), and we also have the issue of the passage corridor into West Berlin (the imperialists will not make a concession on this point either, while N. Khrushchev has already conceded to a certain degree on it).
Comrade Van Tse Zian: N. Khrushchev's concessions will go as far as an agreement for an occupation regime in West Berlin by the military forces of the Western countries. In fact, such an occupation regime already exists there at the present. Even if the government of the USA agrees to remove the occupation regime in Berlin, [West German Chancellor Konrad] Adenauer will not agree to it.
At the same time, the issue of the old borders in the East is even more complicated. Could Poland and Czechoslovakia agree to a change of the borders [that were] decided in the Potsdam agreement? The USSR itself would not want the borders of Kaliningrad and its region to change. But Adenauer will not make concessions on this point. There is also a party in West Germany, the party of the refugees. There are around three million refugees who have left the eastern part of Germany, and they are organized.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: The three million are only those in Germany and do not include those of Poland and Czechoslovakia, etc.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: In the rest of the world the fiercest aggression is represented by American imperialism, while in Europe, on the issues of Berlin and West Germany, Adenauer is the fiercest one.
Comrade Ramiz Alia: We would like to exchange opinions on this matter. It is possible that N. Khrushchev will come to a compromise with the Americans only on the issue of Berlin? For example, West Berlin could be allowed to become an occupied area by the UN, which in fact would mean the Americans, and control over the corridor could be entrusted to the German Democratic Republic. From a political standpoint this would be considered a success by N. Khrushchev. With such a move imperialism would make a concession to N. Khrushchev to win his support, while, as a solution to this issue, it would only be partial, as it would only cover Berlin, and the problem of a peace treaty for Germany would be postponed. Could such a possibility, for example, ever happen?
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: It can not be ruled out, though it would not be easy. Adenauer would not agree to it, and furthermore [General Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany Walter] Ulbricht would most likely not agree either. But again, such a possibility can not be entirely ruled out. Should it ever come to fruition, such a possibility would not be a success for N. Khrushchev. No! He thinks that West Berlin should become a free city and the peace treaty for Germany should be signed. Without the signing of a peace treaty, N. Khrushchev will not be able to see good days. In what position would this put East Germany? Should this possibility happen, the prestige of the USSR would suffer heavily in the eyes of the world. So while this possibility cannot be entirely ruled out, the fact that the USSR is a large and powerful country means that it is not going to be easy for this to happen. N. Khrushchev and his cohorts want to make concessions, but they do not find it easy. On the other hand, even making concessions does not mean that the issues would be resolved; it does not mean that the imperialists would give them much in return.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: (With sarcasm) And the peace treaty can wait, as far as N. Khrushchev is concerned; he has plenty of time to solve this issue; and the measures that were taken at the Berlin Wall, according to them, showed their great power.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: His point of view is entirely different from that of the entire world, including here even the capitalist world. By his acting this way, the capitalist countries will create a view of the USSR as weak. If he continues to make constant concessions, N. Khrushchev will automatically and continuously be unmasked.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: We have similar points of view on the disarmament matter, the cessation of nuclear weapons' testing, and on Berlin. Though we know it is political blackmail, the proposal by N. Khrushchev for a non-aggression pact between the countries of NATO and those of the Warsaw Pact has caught our attention. And though it is only a political maneuver, the proposal by the Poles at the UN for the prohibition of those countries that as of now do not have nuclear weapons from ever having them – in other words, to keep the status quo and allow only those countries that already have them – has also caught our attention. We do not consider the proposal about a status quo in the matter of military bases to be fair either because it is well known that only the US has such bases in other countries. Do these proposals, perhaps, have the goal of causing imperialism to shift its attention into striking another area, Asia? This is the reason we brought this issue up. What are the intentions of imperialism in Asia where we know that its main objective is the People's Republic of China? These thoughts have gone through our minds when considering the concessions and proposals that we see being made and which appease imperialism in the other areas, but urge it to shift its attention in the direction of Asia. We ask this question only so that we may be clear, because for us no matter where the attack against the socialist countries is made, the pain will still be the same. That is why we want to discuss this issue.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: On the proposal for the signing of a non-aggression pact between the countries of NATO and those of the Warsaw Pact we were in agreement, but this does not mean that such a thing will ever be realized. We have also proposed the signing of such a pact with Japan.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: But we consider this proposal alongside the other issues that I mentioned.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: It is impossible that this non-aggression pact will ever be signed. We are in agreement with N. Khrushchev on the matter of the non-aggression pact only because of the fact that this proposal is a tool for unmasking imperialism when it answers that it does not agree. I think that neither the Soviets nor the Americans ever seriously considered that such a thing can ever be achieved. The Americans themselves say that if other issues can be solved, this can be solved too; in other words, they are putting conditions on it. It is also difficult to achieve an agreement that nuclear weapons not be given to others.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: We are convinced of this.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: For example, France will not agree to such an agreement. It has started to conduct testing of nuclear weapons and asks the US and the UK to give it the new technologies for the development of such weapons. The concessions that France makes to the UK on the issue of inclusion into the Common Market [European Economic Community], is done with the intention of obtaining the new technology for the development of nuclear weapons. West Germany also seeks the technology for the development of those weapons. But even if they do not give West Germany this technology, it is capable of developing it on its own. The English did the same exact thing; the Americans did not give them the technology, they developed it on their own. There will certainly be many states in the capitalist world which will possess atomic weapons, including West Germany; in fact, in addition to such states as Sweden and Switzerland, Japan and Italy will possess them as well. Everyone is actively working to achieve such a thing. The small countries, such as Sweden and Switzerland, will of course not be able to achieve it completely, but they will have some partial success, enough to sell it to others, because they are born peddlers. In their world you cannot restrict them from doing such things.
And why should something like this not happen in our world? We are also actively working to achieve this. We have told the Soviets a long time ago that on the matter of nuclear weapons we will not be part of the obligations that they may put on themselves. In the international peace organization we have declared that we will not honor the obligations that others will place on themselves on this issue.
Comrade Van Tse Zian: We also declared there that if the countries that already have nuclear weapons do not retreat from producing them, why should we take on such obligations? We are in favor of the complete liquidation of such weapons, but we will cease from producing them only if everyone ceases too.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: Now I would like to speak of the situation in Asia. According to our opinion, the primary attention of the US is now centered in Europe. This position of theirs has not changed and will not change; their primary arrows are trained on the USSR. When we spoke the last time on this issue, we said that this is an objective issue and will not change. The US guided missile bases are directed primarily at the USSR, though some of them, of course, are directed at our country. We are a country that does not have nuclear weapons, while the Soviet Union has them. Should a war start, the primary danger to the capitalist countries would be the Soviet Union, as long as China does not possess many nuclear weapons. This is what defines the strategy of the US. Of course, after the Soviet Union, the greatest danger to the capitalist countries comes from China. The bases in the East are not all meant for us, but [are] also against the Soviet Union, while at the same time they are against us too [sic]. This is the general situation. This does not mean that American imperialism will not increase its aggression and will not take various concrete measures against China. It can be said that the process of encirclement of the USSR by the US has been completely finished, while in Asia, according to our opinion, the work still goes on toward achieving the same results. Such a system has yet to be completed in Asia.
During these last two years it is clear that the American imperialists are helping two forces in Asia: Japan and India. These two forces have yet to form completely. The attempts by the American imperialists to increase the power of India are due to the fact that India is very populous, while Japan is both populous and technologically advanced. Of course, lesser countries of South Asia and Indochina are also included in this plan. Their specific measures are intended to help India become a great power, but its body is very weak. In other words, they are trying to shift India from a policy of neutrality to the side of the American imperialists. Should something like this come to fruition, it would be a blow not only to China, but to the Soviet Union as well. When they help India, they offend Pakistan. The public opinion in Pakistan is now on the side of a change in the government policy, and now Pakistan has a good position towards us. This has yet to be achieved completely. It would take a long time to achieve it.
Further away in the East, the American imperialists are building a defensive line from Thailand, to Cambodia, to South Vietnam. Thailand has always been a country where the American imperialists have sought to establish their presence. Using the situation in Laos to their advantage, they have now sent a few thousand American troops to Thailand. But the Americans' business in South Vietnam is not going well, because even [South Vietnam President] Ngo Din Diem, in his own way, is now working in opposition to the US. The partisan struggle, especially in South Vietnam, has now developed greatly. For a long time now the American imperialists have lost control of Cambodia.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: Does this mean that due to the difficult situation in this region of Asia and the trouble developing in Laos, the situation in Vietnam and Thailand, etc. there is no possibility that the imperialists will escalate the situation?
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: It is possible that it will be escalated, but it will not be a wide-scale conflict.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: In other words, no conflict of a wide scale could be expected in this area at the moment.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: At the moment we do not see it that way. But we have said many times that a partial war in the East can not be ruled out, though this can not be easily achieved. We have been shown this by the events of the Taiwan Strait [in 1958] and the issue of Laos. The American imperialists today have no interest in widening the war in Laos, because they think that it is not in their favor. The Korean War is still a fresh lesson for them. The American imperialists are trying to create an aggressive bloc in East and Southeast Asia, with Japan as its nucleus, including also South Korea and Jiang Jieshi [Chiang Kai-shek], but until now they have not been able to achieve this. The Japanese are suffering economic difficulties. Lately a lot of talk is coming from there about trade with China; in fact [Japanese Prime Minister] Ikeda [Hayato] himself has spoken about it. The ruling classes in Japan are not showing any interest in the creation of such a bloc, in which South Korea and Jiang Jieshi are included, because such a thing would be a heavy burden on Japan.
In order for a war to be started in the East against us, it can come mainly from three points:
From the west, India. But no war can start from India. How can a war be waged in an area that has no people? Can a struggle between a few hundred people be called a war? It is very difficult to use a division at the border with India. That is why a war from this side is very difficult to wage. Our existing military units in the border areas with India are fully sufficient at the moment. If they attack, the Indians could take some areas from our land, but they would be mainly snowy mountains, places that are completely inhabitable.
Another war point against us could be opened from Indochina, but the terrain there is also not suitable for warfare. That is why the American imperialists are not increasing their presence in Laos, because it is not a suitable area for them from which to wage war. If the war starts further south, it will be easy for us to break through to Laos. Nonetheless, such a possibility can not be completely discounted, it could happen.
In the east, another point for war could be in Korea. The American imperialists have been there, they know the terrain, [but] they also know that the forces of North Korea and our main forces are situated in that area, so it will not be easy for them.
Aside from these areas, another point to start a war against us would be in the Taiwan Straits. In this area the war has to come from the sea, but this place is not easy for our enemies either. Can American imperialism use Jiang Jieshi for such a war? Lately we have noticed that Jiang Jieshi is making attempts at achieving this, in other words he is trying to start a counterattack against the continent. He has done some serious preparatory work towards this end, but he only has about half a million people for this job. His infantry counts around 400 thousand troops, and he has 300 planes at his disposal to use against us.
But why does Jiang Jieshi think he should undertake such a move? He thinks that we are in a difficult situation. But in his army, from the vice commanders of companies down to the simple soldier, he no longer has people from continental China as he used to before. If he does not undertake his attack against the continent at this time, he will never have another hope for such an attack in the future. That is why Jiang Jieshi has been making preparations for a counterattack since the beginning of the year.
He has made preparations for an attack against the continent, but in the US there are two schools of thought on this issue. One is that of the Department of State which holds that there is hope from such a move. The other is that of the Pentagon, where some people agree with the idea of an attack by Jiang Jieshi. At least until now, we see no resolution by the US for such a thing.
Should an attack start against China, American imperialism may give aid to Jiang Jieshi with some ships with the intention of solving the problem of supplying his army. But we have also made our own preparations in this direction. We are thinking that it would be a good thing to make some concessions to the army of Jiang Jieshi, so that he may put around 200 thousand troops on the mainland, the best part of his army; let him occupy a piece of land and then eliminate him completely. We are thinking about such a move.
But we are faced with another problem: should we preserve or liquidate Jiang Jieshi. If we liquidate 200,000 of Jiang Jieshi's soldiers, his regime would fall and American imperialism would achieve its objective of the so-called “Two Chinas.” The weakening or the liquidation of Jiang Jieshi would mean the occupation of Taiwan by the American imperialists. The American imperialists support some forces that call for the liquidation of Jiang Jieshi, for the reasons I mentioned. In this light Jiang Jieshi is our friend against the “Two Chinas.” [That is why our intention is to preserve Jiang Jieshi.] We fight so that his intentions may never be achieved, and at the same time we make sure that he is not heavily damaged. You can thus see that a counterattack against the continent is not an easy thing.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: Could you speak to us a bit about the present situation in Laos? We have a general idea, but would want to have a better picture of the situation in this country.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: We agree with the formation of the coalition government in Laos. To this end we have exchanged some thoughts with the Vietnamese comrades, with those of Laos, and with the Soviets. Our reason is that we think that with the creation of a coalition government in Laos, the forces of the US will be forbidden to enter the country. The most important thing is to gain time for Pathet Lao to strengthen its work with the masses (it commands around 40% of Laos's land, without including here the area of [Prince] Souvanna Phouma). There are still a lot of difficulties with the formation of a coalition government, and that is why the achievement of an agreement on Laos does not mean the creation of a coalition government.
Now a question arises: Will the coalition government be approved by the traitorous parliament? In the next few days there will be a struggle on this point there, and in the future there will be struggle every day. The direction of the talks means that in reality a “cart with three horses” will emerge there. The UN also uses such a term, “a cart with three horses,” which means that each participant has the right of rejection (a veto) of the proposals of the other participants. The coalition government is an empty thing. Now each of the sides there is doing its own thing, and that is why there are and will be difficulties in finding a solution to the issues there. That is why the formation of the coalition government in Laos is the start of the new struggle, which will be even more complicated than the armed war, because all three sides will want to profit from this chance to increase their power; to strengthen as much as possible their position.
[….] There are only two solutions to the normalization of the situation in Laos. Should the conclusion of the situation be the elections, which is one of the solutions possible for the internal situation in Laos, [Prince] Souphanouvong will win, and not Souvanna Phouma or Phoumi Nosavan. But will they agree to such a conclusion? The greatest prestige in Laos is commanded by Souphanouvong, so a troika will only work there for a short time.
We must now strengthen our position there and then we can progress further; in other words, we must make the necessary preparations for the further strengthening of our position there and at the same time to boycott [sic] the entrance of the armed forces of the USA in Laos.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: We are now clear on the situation in Laos. Could you tell us anything about the non-aligned countries? You told us something about the attempts undertaken by American imperialism to move India away from neutrality, but there are also other non-aligned countries, who work under the guise of neutrality. I am talking about those countries that have a unified cause with American imperialism.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: I would like to say a few more words on Laos, before I speak about the issue you just asked about. Will the creation of the coalition government be achieved? This will become clearer in the next few days. Without the creation of this government, victory in Laos will not be worth very much. On this matter, our point of view is very different from that of N. Khrushchev. N. Khrushchev considered the agreement for the creation of the coalition government in Laos as an example of how to achieve agreements with the Western powers through talks. We are far apart from this point of view of N. Khrushchev. Either way, the distancing of the USSR from the attempt to solve the issue of Laos is in our interest.
As to the issue of the non-aligned countries, in some of the areas of the East, they have a good position; their relations with us are not bad. For example, Cambodia has good relations with our country. There are instances when they speak badly of us, but in general they behave well toward us, especially Sihanouk, who treats us well. He thinks that on the matter of the preserving Cambodia's independence he can rely on us and that we are friends of his. Cambodia is afraid of Ho Chi Minh, of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, because during the revolution the territory of Cambodia was under the control of Ho Chi Minh. But Cambodia is most afraid of the USA, and that is why they mostly scold the Americans.
The USA wants to create a defense line that would include Cambodia, Ngo Dinh Diem, and Thailand. These last two are trying to also include Cambodia in their group.
On a Western course, a non-aligned country is Burma, which has very good relations with us. The signing of the agreement for the border dispute was done by [Chairman of the Revolutionary Council and Prime Minister of Burma] Ne Win, and not by [Burmese Prime Minister] U Nu, who only signed the agreement at the end. Now Burma is ruled by a military government. The military coup that happened in Burma deposed U Nu, the friend of [Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal] Nehru. It may be said that for a while the military government will maintain good relations with China, better yet than what we had with U Nu. But in the future, this government will pose a danger for us. That is why, according to our analysis, this government is good, and is also not good. Either way, at the moment our country's relations with Burma are very good. There is division at the heart of the Burmese military; one side wants to follow a pro-Japanese orientation, another, including Ne Win, wants to continue on the path of neutrality and wants Burma to have good relations with us. The government of Ne Win does not get along well with Nehru and Thailand, and this struggle has already started. Now in Burma there are attempts to create a united party.
Further west of us is Nepal. This is an anti-Indian country. The King of Nepal keeps good relations with us; he is not bad, and at his own initiative we solved the Sino-Nepalese border issue definitively. In Nepal they will build a paved road toward our Tibet. In other words, Nepal is looking to disengage itself from Indian control. Nepal is also getting along well with Pakistan. The Nepalese know well that we have nothing against them and that the threat to their country comes from the Indian direction.
We keep neutral relations with Iraq; they are neither warm, nor cold. The problems in the Arab world are very complicated. Both [Egyptian President Gamal Abdel] Nasser and Iraq are trying to establish their own hegemony over the Arab world. The Soviet Union has made considerable investments in Iraq, but Iraq's relations with us are not bad either.
The United Arab Republic also has good relations with us. The new Syria's relations with us are not bad either. We have neutral relations with all these countries. Our policy with these countries is to not interfere in their internal matters. I also want to point out that Nasser does not have very good relations with the Soviet Union.
Some African countries have very good relations with us, such as Guinea, Mali, Ghana, etc. [Ghanian President Kwame] Nkrumah is not a leftist element; Mali and Guinea. […]
Also, those countries in Africa that have some form of formal independence keep good relations with us. The peoples of these countries trust that China is anti-imperialist, that it actively supports their struggle for full independence, and that China does not undertake subversive actions against them.
In general, these are our relations with non-aligned countries.
Our relations with Indonesia are very good, because the Communist Party of Indonesia has done a lot of work in this direction. The problems left to us by the past, such as the issue of the Chinese immigrants in Indonesia, were solved through efforts by both sides. Our country is one of the first that came out in support of the Indonesian people's national liberation war.
As to the relations with the European countries, you already know the situation.
In Yugoslavia, some time ago, a meeting of the chairmen of the non-aligned countries was held. There were also a few leftists in this meeting, such as Sukarno, the representatives of Mali, of Cuba, and of Guinea, though [Guinean President] Sékou Touré did not go there himself. Nasser and the representative of Ghana also took a good position at that meeting. The worst position taken there was by India and Burma of U Nu, who is a pro-Indian element. The relationship of U Nu and Nehru was like the relationship between the student and his teacher. U Nu would ask for Nehru's opinion for all the most important matters. Despite this, U Nu has not interfered in Sino-Indian relations. But Ne Win is different from U Nu; Ne Win is anti-Indian. [Next in line] after Ne Win in Burma is the Brigadier General An Ti, who is not of good character, he is pro-Japanese.
This is what I had to say.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: We consider as very interesting this analysis of comrade Deng Xiaoping and will make sure to transmit it to our Central Committee. I wanted to add that there is plenty of interest in our country by the Arab countries; in fact some countries in Africa are also interested in our country.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: You are a Muslim country, so you could do a lot of good work with the Muslim countries of Africa.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: We are getting a few requests for experience-sharing from some of the African countries; they ask for help with specialists and want to send students in our country. We will see what kind of assistance we could give these countries within our capacity, always keeping in mind the objective of strengthening the relations with these countries following a correct course. We also keep in mind those that comrade Deng Xiaoping said to us about not interfering in the internal affairs of other countries; we do not have diversionary objectives. Having as a starting point our common objectives in the struggle against imperialism, we have used this point of view and continue to do so in our relations with the Arab countries, as well in those with the African countries. As far as the Yugoslav revisionists' position toward these countries, it is well known that they are trying to be active in them. We always keep this in mind in our work. Wherever it is possible, we fight, with our staunch position, against the activities of the Yugoslav revisionists in these countries. They are waging a struggle in general in Africa, but also against us in particular, but we are working hard with these countries so that they may understand what our true position is.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: You are standing on correct ground. It may be possible for us to increase our work in Africa, because we do have bases there, such as in Algeria. Our relations with Yemen are also very good. The King of Yemen is better than the revisionists.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: In our work in these countries we are finding difficulties with propaganda tools. We will look more carefully at our capacity for activity and if necessary, we will also come and talk to you and if this is something that is of interest to both of us, you might even help us in this area. In fact, you already help us very much with propaganda tools, not only with radio equipment, but with plenty others, such as magazines and other literature of ours, which is published for distribution to other countries.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: It has been our experience that when working with African countries, one thing is of great importance: the people in Africa are very sharp, because they have been feeling the yoke of imperialism for a long time. That is why it is not an easy thing to gain their trust. First of all, the African trusts only [people] who do not interfere in his internal affairs; then trust is added if one does not take anything from them. I am talking here especially about us as a great power. That is why we do not rush in our actions toward them; we do not make many gestures, and always take into account their difficulties. We also wage our propaganda activity at such a level as it may be acceptable to them, at a level which they themselves will accept. We feel that it is correct to work this way. If one rushes in his work, if one shows a lot of activity toward them, they may develop doubts about you.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: It is so, we agree.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: That is our opinion on these issues.
What must we talk about now, the relations between our two parties?
Comrade Hysni Kapo: We want the communication between our two parties to be more frequent, because it would be that much better.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: That is correct. We have no opposing points of view on that. We have had plenty of contacts through our ambassadors. The difficulty with us is in the exchange of visits by the leaders of the two parties, but little by little we will also create the conditions for this too. It will be that much better when we solve the problem of communication [travel] and we are actively working on it. When we thought about this, we were not thinking only in terms of the need for better relations with Albania, because, aside from you, we also have the issues of Africa, Europe, and of Latin America. It is necessary for us to also have an air route in the southern direction. Either way, it will take some time for the establishment of such a route.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: What comrade Deng Xiaoping said is correct; the best course for relations between our two countries at the moment is through our ambassadors. Nonetheless, many issues can be better solved through direct contact.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: That is why it is better to have direct meetings.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: Not only should we have them, but these meetings should be as often as possible. Who would not like to meet face-to-face?! First of all, because it is good for work matters, but also because it gives us a chance to see each other.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: These are precisely our feelings, too.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: I also had another question. We do not know anything about the conclusions of the latest meeting of the Economic Council [COMECON] and of the Warsaw Pact of the socialist countries of Europe.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: We do not know anything either. They have only communicated a few unimportant things to newspaper correspondents. We were expecting that they would discuss, for example, the letter that the CPSU Central Committee would send to us. They must, of course, have discussed economic cooperation amongst them. This is indicated by a short notice we received from them in Russian. We just received it, and it has yet to be translated. We will give you a copy of it. But this material was only sent to us as a formality. Something of interest from that meeting is that Mongolia took part in the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance [COMECON] meeting.
Comrade Ramiz Alia: How do the comrades see this; what were the objectives for it?
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: The intention is to open a door for the socialist countries of Asia in the East as well and to exclude Albania. But it must be noted that the Economic Council [COMECON] is not the same thing as the Warsaw Pact. We have not said anything about this matter; we are turning one deaf ear and one blind eye toward it. They have also extended an invitation to us to take part in the meeting of the Economic Council [COMECON] at an observer level.
Comrade Ramiz Alia: And despite this you did not take part in it. It seems that they are inviting you to prepare the terrain and so that they are able to say later, whenever the time is most profitable, look who is not on the side of cooperation.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: We do not pay much attention to that, but you have a right to protest because you are members of COMECON.
Comrade Ramiz Alia: As you have seen, our government has made a declaration on the meeting of COMECON, as well as on the Warsaw Pact.
Comrade Deng Xiaoping: Our position toward these things is not to pay much attention to them, and we have only published a very small and unimportant note in the newspapers about these meetings. If you give them more attention, their importance increases.
I think this is sufficient conversation on these matters for today; we will have more time to converse. You will talk to our comrades about your plans in China, in other words, whether you would like to make visits outside or remain in Beijing. As you return from your visits, we will invite you for a dinner.
(Recorded by stenograph)