Record of Meeting between Prime Minister Fukuda and Vice Premier Deng (First Meeting)

Record of Meeting between Prime Minister Fukuda and Vice Premier Deng

(First Meeting)

October 23, 1978

China Division

On 23 October, in the Small Dining Room of the Prime Minister's Official Residence, from 3:30 to 5:25 in the afternoon, for one hour and 55 minutes, there took place the first meeting between Prime Minister Fukuda and Vice Premier Deng. Following is a record of the meeting. (Participants; Japanese side: Prime Minister Fukuda, Foreign Minister Sonoda, Chief Cabinet Secretary Abe, Ambassador Sato, Deputy Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Takashima, Asian Affairs Bureau Director-General Nakae, Private Secretary to the Prime Minister Owada, China Division Director Tajima, [name blacked out]. Chinese side: Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping, [5th National People's Congress (NPC) Standing] Committee Vice Chairman Liao Chengzhi, Foreign Minister Huang Hua, Vice Foreign Minister Han Nianlong, Ambassador Fu Hao, State Council Deputy Secretary-General Li Liyin, Asian Affairs Department Director Shen Ping, Asian Affairs Department Deputy Director Wang Xiaoyun, Protocol Department Deputy Director Gao Jianzhong, Japan Affairs Department Director Ding Min, Deputy Director Wang Xiaoxian (interpreter), Sun Ping, official (recorder)

Record

Prime Minister Fukuda: Compared to the Great Hall of the People, this room of the Prime Minister's Official Residence must feel very small to you.

Vice Premier Deng: I like this kind of room. When excessively large, on the other hand, a person has a sense of dissatisfaction.

These are Panda cigarettes. Would you care for one? (Pulling a pack of Panda cigarettes from his pocket and passing it to the Prime Minister)

Prime Minister Fukuda: Thank you (in Chinese).

(In the same way, Vice Premier Deng offered cigarettes to Foreign Minister Sonoda, Chief Cabinet Secretary Abe, and others.)

Vice Premier Deng: I have served as the host.

Prime Minister Fukuda: Following Japanese custom, do you mind if I offer the opening remarks?

Vice Premier Deng: Please go ahead.

Prime Minister Fukuda: Vice Premier Deng, China-Japan Friendship Association President Liao Chengzhi, Foreign Minister Huang, and other prominent guests who have come together to visit Japan, I am truly happy that today's ratification and exchange ceremony for the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China, which is both historic and of global importance, took place successfully. I also sincerely welcome everyone's coming to Japan and am grateful for it.

Japan and China have a history of friendship and cooperation extending across two thousand years but, in this century, there was a succession of unfortunate incidents. On reflection, this was deeply regrettable. In reflecting on this, I am resolved that such acts must never be repeated. Representing the Government of Japan and the Japanese people, at the start of this meeting I wish for Japan and China to go forward, in name and in reality, henceforth and forever with good-neighborly and friendly relations.

It goes without saying that prewar Japan was a military country. Although a small country, Japan was one of the three major naval countries and one of the five major military countries. With the end of that unfortunate war, Japan altered its posture and completely changed its system. Having resolved that our country would not again become a military nation and determined to adhere to the path of peace, we have accumulated world-class economic strength and become an economic power.

The scale of the Japanese economy today has reached 25 times that of the 1930s. For example, speaking of steel production, which is related to military power, it was 4 million tons in the 1930s. Today, speaking in terms of plant capacity, it is 150 million tons, although actual volume has reached 100 million tons.   When we review the history of the world, a nation that has acquired economic power has without fail become a military power. Nevertheless, we are resolved that our country will not again choose the path of military power. Since the war, we have consistently and firmly maintained this system, which is also stipulated by our country's constitution. I would like your country, too, to understand this point.

I have just said that our country does not have great military power. What, then, do we do to maintain our country's security? First, the world must be at peace. For the world to be at peace, our country has adopted a posture of working, not by military power but by our economic power, for the peace and stability of the world.

Second, we do not have hostile relations with any country in the world. We are on good terms with all countries.

I call this omnidirectional peace diplomacy. However, by no means does omnidirectional peace diplomacy mean an omnidirectional and equidistant diplomacy. In our relations with other countries, the various environments and conditions are different. Accordingly, it would not do for our relations with various countries to be equidistant. As the basis for our country's diplomacy, we do not take a hostile attitude against any country.

Third, our country maintains a system of peace, but it is not necessarily the case that there is no country in the world that is not mistaken in its thinking or system. If there were an invasion of our country, we would resolutely repel it. We will certainly not threaten other countries, nor will we invade them. However, in order to resolutely repel a likely invasion, our country has the power of self-defense. It is for our own self-defense. We are resolved for an exclusively defensive defense. Our country is working to strengthen its power of self-defense for the exclusive defense of our country, and henceforth as well we will continue these efforts. Even so, our country cannot protect its own security by the power of self-defense alone. Therefore, our country has concluded a security treaty with the United States with the thought that, in an emergency, Japan and the United States together would take up defense.

I have now reiterated the basic policy of our country's diplomacy, which Foreign Minister Sonoda stated in Beijing on his recent visit to China for negotiations on the treaty. I would like you to understand this, the basic policy of our country's diplomacy. Now, that unfortunate period between Japan and China was relatively long, but six year ago the Japan-China Joint Communiqué was issued and relations were restored. This time, the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China to protect the peace into the distant future has been concluded and the foundation has been laid for Japan and China to have relations into the future. Japan and China keeping friendly relations into the distant future will contribute to peace not only in Asia but to world peace. I hope to use this treaty that way.

This is the first time for me to meet Your Excellency Deng Xiaoping, but I do not feel like this is our first meeting. I feel like we have known each other for many years. Today I would like to hear your country's view regarding the world situation and the situation in Asia. In addition, I would like to state for my part my thinking. As I said this morning (at the time of the courtesy call), it would be good if we are able to comfortably exchange opinions.

Vice Premier Deng: First, I sincerely express appreciation for the warm welcome that Your Excellency Prime Minister Fukuda, the Government of Japan, and the Japanese people have extended to us.

Prime Minister Fukuda, you spoke just now in appreciation regarding the meaning of the China-Japan Treaty of Peace and Friendship's conclusion. I feel the same way in appreciating it. This treaty, as written in its name, is a treaty for peace and friendship. China and Japan must go forward in relations of peace and friendship. As to the meaning of this treaty, I entirely agree with what you said, Prime Minister Fukuda. China and Japan's going forward in relations of peace and friendship has an important meaning not only for friendship among the people of the Asia-Pacific region, but broadly for friendship among the people of the world.

From the founding of the People's Republic of China, relations between our country and your country were not normalized for a considerably long period, but from the start we have always said that between China and Japan is a history extending for two thousand years. In this period, those unfortunate few dozen years are no more than an unfortunate episode within the flow of history. In 1972, China and Japan issued a joint statement and carried out a normalization of relations. With this joint statement, it should be said that an end was made to the unfortunate period between our two countries.  

Of course, even before relations between China and Japan were normalized in 1972, there were many non-governmental contacts between our two countries. Particularly from Japan there came many friends to visit China, and contacts on the non-governmental level developed greatly. Relations since normalization have seen on the government level, too, a great development in exchanges between China and Japan.

By your determination, Your Excellency Prime Minister Fukuda, Foreign Minister Sonoda visited Beijing and signed the China-Japan Treaty of Peace and Friendship. It has now come into effect. This is a summary, effectively, legally, and politically, regarding the past between China and Japan. In particular, the important thing is that we have resolved to develop friendly relations ceaselessly between China and Japan in their political aspect. I firmly believe that developing relations between our two countries is not only the demand of the people of China and Japan but that of the people of the Asia-Pacific region's countries and of the world. In this visit, while staying in Japan, I have repeatedly wished to say that, "China and Japan should maintain friendly relations." Developing relations between our two countries is not a measure of expediency. Frankly speaking, I think that China needs Japan's friendship and, similarly, Japan also needs China's friendship. I think that, for your country, China is a poor neighbor but a useful one. China understands Japan's national policy. Maintaining friendly relations with all the countries in the world is Japan's national policy. We, too, as it is with your country, wish to be on good terms with each and every country in the world. For example, to put it frankly, relations with the Soviet Union are not going smoothly, but we would like to keep normal state-to-state relations, even if those with the Soviet Union are rough. Accordingly, we think that it would not be good for our country to intervene with remarks with a country wishing to develop relations with the Soviet Union. We should not say this or that in regard to that.  

Prime Minister Fukuda, you said just now that you would like to hear China's view on the international situation. I think, Prime Minister Fukuda, that you are well aware of the Chinese side's view.  I recently spoke of it with Minister Sonoda when he visited China, so I think that there was a report to you from Minister Sonoda on it. Generally speaking, China is more concerned than other countries in regard to the world situation. We see the world situation as not so stable.

Since the Second World War came to an end, people have been repeatedly talking about détente. For 34 years now, they have gone on about "arms reduction," "détente," and such. However, having repeatedly talked about it for 34 years, a period of a true relaxation of tensions or a real reduction in arms has never been seen. Only in arms reduction, your country alone has been the only one to have really done it. However, even your country has had to hold in its hands the power of self-defense. Frankly speaking, arms reduction and such are completely out of the question for China and for the great majority of countries in the world. The reason is that, in the face of this harsh international situation, many countries lack sufficient power to defend themselves. In particular, while calling each and every day for "arms reduction" and "détente," the two superpowers on the other hand worsen tensions, expand their armaments, and hasten preparations for war. Under such circumstance, naturally, a country without the power of self-defense has nothing it can say about arms reduction.

No matter how one looks at it, the two superpowers are engaged each and every day in arms expansion. Everyone can see the attitude of the United States on this. However, what requires still more attention is that the Soviet Union, the other superpower, is putting effort in expanding its armaments and making preparations for war. I have spoken in the past in regard to this with Japanese friends and with statesmen in Europe and the United States. I have been telling Americans coming to Beijing that, in the arms reduction negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union, the US side has obtained a favorable deal. It seems that talks between the United States and the Soviet Union on strategic weapons limitations will soon be concluded. We have been urging them (the Americans) to take heed. It is necessary to see to which side the deal will ultimately prove beneficial.  

When the Vladivostok agreements were reached in 1974, Dr. Kissinger via Tokyo came to Beijing and reported to China on the substance of the Vladivostok agreements. Dr. Kissinger gave a relatively cool appraisal of the meaning of this agreement, interpreting it as beneficial to the United States. However, he was emphatic that this agreement in no way restrained the two sides from future development of nuclear weapons.  

At that point I urged Dr. Kissinger to take heed. The United States and the Soviet Union have to this point conducted Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) three times. The first time, the talks took place in 1963. The United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union, at the center of the talks, concluded the Partial Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. With this treaty, the United States and the Soviet Union sought both to restrain each other's development of nuclear weapons and to restrain China's development of nuclear weapons. At that time, there was a considerably large gap between the nuclear forces of the United States and those of the Soviet Union. Consequently, the Soviet Union has been making full use of this treaty to attempt with considerable energy to overtake the United States.

The second time was the 1972 bilateral agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union (SALT I). The United States, in the same way as the Soviet Union, was working with considerable energy to develop nuclear weapons, but the United States had to recognize that in 1972 the power of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons had neared that of the United States. At the time that this agreement was reached, it was appraised as something contributing to the peace of mankind. Consequently, however, the United States and the Soviet Union have continued to compete in an arms race. The Soviet Union has made particular use of it.  

Two years after that, the third round of talks resulted in the Vladivostok agreements. At the time of the negotiations over these agreements, the United States had to recognize that the nuclear forces of the United States and the Soviet Union were nearly equal. Even at the time that these agreements were concluded, people praised the result as very good, but even the US government admitted that these agreements in no way restrained the Soviet Union. The limit to the number of nuclear weapons stipulated in these agreements was greater than the amount of nuclear weapons held at the time by the United States and the Soviet Union. In particular, there also was no reference to restrictions on the quality of nuclear weapons. The problem of quality is more important than that of the restriction on numbers. As even Dr. Kissinger admitted that the Vladivostok agreements were no restraint on the United States and the Soviet Union, I said to him half-jokingly, "Please continue competing with the Soviet Union." The result, not surprisingly, was competition.  

This time, talks are ongoing for the fourth agreement (SALT II). An upper limit has been reduced for the quantity of nuclear weapons, but I think the result will again be an arms race.

In this way, for several years now both superpowers have engaged in an arms buildup, each saying that it must not look only to the buildup of nuclear weapons but must pay attention as well to conventional weapons.

Mao Zedong always spoke of the problem of "whether war in the future would be fought with nuclear weapons," saying that "in a situation in which both enemies and allies have many nuclear weapons, the result is that they can no longer be used lightly." Objectives in war are to occupy territory, dominate the people, seize property, and plunder resources. Accordingly, there is no value in occupying Beijing after destroying the city with nuclear weapons. So long are there are nuclear weapons, there exists the possibility of nuclear war taking place, but we should not forget that there is also a great possibility of war by conventional weapons. For a fairly long period of time, both the United States and Europe neglected the upkeep and strengthening of conventional weapons. Recently, they have finally come to pay attention to conventional weapons. However, the quantity of conventional weapons that the Soviet Union has is more than the total amount of the United States and Europe combined. Faced with such harsh reality, even if you speak to the people of the world of "détente," it has no power of persuasion.

As the Soviet Union is working with all its might to develop nuclear weapons, the concern is that it will someday use them. One cannot boil, eat or use nuclear weapons. If many of them are stockpiled, the result is that people lose the ability to control these weapons as they intend. We have always warned friends and statesmen of every country to face this harsh reality. We need to be mentally prepared for war. We should never forget that the danger of war is before our eyes.  

However, it is not that we are helpless. In the name of the China-Japan Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which we concluded today, is the word "peace." China, Japan, and all the world's countries wish for peace. However, the Soviet government is a different matter.

Regarding developments in the international situation, our expectations have been off the mark. In the cases of both the First World War and the Second World War, small things led to war's outbreak.  One cannot predict the day when a maniac goes crazy. Accordingly, there is always a need to prepare for that.   

China, as I have always stated, hopes for peace. War is unavoidable. However, we would like to put off war in using all means available. There is a means to postpone the outbreak of war, and it possible to take that means. That would be to heighten the vigilance of the people of the world. That is to say, the people of the world would smash the strategy of the country that would cause war. We should not choose appeasement. If we choose appeasement, those who are seeking to cause war will set their mind on it. At present, those seeking to cause world war are attempting to occupy bases and secure resources in order to advance strategic deployment. We need to face and smash their strategic deployment.

Some people may not understand China's attitude towards Somalia, Ethiopia and Zaire but I think that, looking at it from China's view of the world, which I just gave, we can have them understand it.   

Some people say that they cannot understand how China, which in the past opposed the US-Japan security treaty, now expresses understanding for it, but I think that they can understand it from the viewpoint I just mentioned.  

Even before relations between China and Japan were normalized, Chairman Mao said to Japanese friends that, for Japan, relations between Japan and the United States came first and those between China and Japan came second. Some people say that they cannot understand why China, while in the past opposing Japan's militarism, at present approves of the development of the Self-Defense Forces. However, I think that they can understand that as well from the viewpoint I just mentioned.

That is to say, it is because we think it is beneficial to postpone war and prolong the era of peace. It is all an attitude based on such a global strategic viewpoint.

Regarding the problem of the Middle East, as well as those of Western Europe, Latin America, and Africa, we determine our attitude from a global strategic viewpoint.  

Now, both China and Japan were enthusiastic about concluding a Sino-Japanese treaty. I think that this treaty is beneficial not only in regard to the resolution of issues between China and Japan, but to that of issues in the Asia-Pacific region as well. I see it as truly beneficial to peace in the world.

At present, there is no basis in fact to a Soviet withdrawal from various regions of the world. On the contrary, the Soviets are extending their reach even farther than it has been until now. Whether we look at the Middle East, North Africa, all of Africa or elsewhere, there is no region where the Soviet Union is not extending their reach. Even recently, in South Yemen and North Yemen the two presidents were killed by the Soviets. Thereafter, the Soviet Union strengthened its domination over the two Yemens. The Soviet Union is making use of Cuba to extend its reach in the Middle East and Africa. There are at least 50,000 Cuban troops in these regions. In the East are the Afghanistan Incident and the Vietnam problem. I think that the Soviet Union will from now as well continue to extend its reach. If there is so much as a gap, the Soviet Union will extend its reach and send in troops. Faced with this harsh international situation, we should handle it seriously.

This is our general outlook on the world situation.

Prime Minister Fukuda: The remarks that Your Excellency Vice Premier Deng has just made regarding the international situation from a global viewpoint have made a great impression on me. What Your Excellency the Vice Premier is saying is that you think that the primary factory in the world's instability lies in East-West relations. I also think that the primary factor creating instability in the world lies in East-West relations.

When I was speaking recently with Chancellor Schmidt of West Germany, which is the center of NATO, the moment I told him that Vice Premier Deng would soon be coming to Japan, he told me, "By all means, please convey my regards to him." So, I am conveying them before I forget.

At the time of that meeting, we exchanged opinions on the world situation. There, too, when looking out on the world situation from now, we said that the major factor in global tensions lies in East-West relations.

The major concern of the countries of the West, other than the military problem, is the economic one. Countries around the world have suffered greatly since the oil shock of six years ago. In particular, it has brought turmoil to developing countries without their own oil. These countries have fallen into a situation of not knowing what to do, and unstable conditions have continued there. The advanced countries should aid such countries, but the advanced countries themselves are beset with inflation and deficits. Furthermore, the value of the US dollar has fallen and there has been currency instability.

If we do not quickly stabilize such economic turmoil in the West, it would likely cause political turmoil. In order for that not to happen, Japan, the United States and Europe should, as Premier Zhou Enlai used to say, seek common ground while putting aside differences. Japan, the United States and Europe have come to a common view that we have to stop finding fault with one another and stabilize the economy as quickly as possible.   

Our country, on the basis of this understanding and through cooperation among Japan, the United States and Europe, is making sacrifices amidst material difficulties and doing its best for the sake of global economic stability.

In particular, our country is doing its best to cooperate, even from a difficult position, in regard to the solidarity and independent efforts at nation-building of our neighboring countries in Southeast Asia.

When the United States withdrew from Vietnam, South East Asian countries were worried about a domino phenomenon taking place in this region, but the ASEAN countries showed a posture of making efforts to rise, cooperate among themselves, and stand on their own. The result was that a domino phenomenon did not take place. We are relieved at that.  

Last year, I visited countries in Southeast Asia, with ASEAN countries at the center. At that time, I encouraged the efforts of those countries to stand on their own. Our country, possessing not military power but economic power, wishes to actively help these countries to stand on their own.

South East Asian countries are showing good movement. The only thing that worries us is the problem of the Korean Peninsula. A single people are divided in two and stand in opposition each side to the other. This is a tragedy for the Korean people. We sincerely hope for their peaceful unification as soon as possible. In reality, it is probably unreasonable to expect unification to be realized quickly but, as the Korean Peninsula is close to Japan and also borders China, I think that we are in a position where Japan and China should cooperate and make efforts together to create an environment for the achievement of peaceful unification.

Hearing Vice Premier Deng's talk, I understood China's way of thinking in its desire for world peace. Our country, too, fixes peace and friendship as its line of national policy. I would like henceforth for Japan and China to work together hand in hand for peace in the world. However, Japan and China have different systems and different positions. Accordingly, our attitudes on cooperating for peace may differ but today, having concluded the treaty, I would like to resolve to cooperate with one another for the sake of world peace.

Vice Premier Deng:  I have just now heard your talk, Prime Minister Fukuda, on the problems of the Third World and of oil. The United States has chosen a policy of confrontation to resolve these problems, but Western Europe and your country have chosen one of dialogue. I think that the policy that your country and Western Europe have chosen is correct. Western Europe and Japan have enormous economic power. I think that, having such power, you can recover in several years what has been lost.

China supports Western Europe and Japan in their cooperating, in whatever form, with regard to the efforts of poor countries for economic and political independence. I think that is necessary. Asia, particularly Southeast Asia, given the history in the background, inevitably has misgivings about Japan. I think that, if Japan gives these countries aid, it will be possible to dispel these misgivings. We sincerely hope that Japan will do more work in this direction.  

I think that what likely interests everyone here today is the problem of Vietnam. I recently discussed with Minister Sonoda this problem's historic origins, the primary factor in its development, China's attitude towards this problem, and such.  

Frankly speaking, we were aware of the Vietnam problem's development but did not foresee it developing in this way. We ourselves find mysterious and do not really understand why Vietnam has chosen their present attitude.  

At the time that Vietnam was engaged in resisting France and resisting the United States, we did everything that we could to aid Vietnam. We gave help in everything that was needed, from food and clothing to weapons. China itself was not wealthy. We gave aid while experiencing difficulties. Late in the war, the Soviet Union gave heavy weapons in aid. The value of the aid that we gave at the time was 10 billion dollars. Calculated at the dollar's present value, it would be over 20 billion dollars. At that time Vietnam was fighting for national liberation. From the standpoint of internationalism, it was our duty to aid Vietnam.

From the 1960s, Vietnam was already unfriendly towards China. For example, in their textbooks it was written that Vietnam historically was threatened from the north, implicitly criticizing China. We thought that such an attitude on the part of Vietnam was not good, but we continued giving aid.

The reason why Vietnam became completely pro-Soviet is that Vietnam wants to form an Indochina Federation. Establishing an Indochina Federation has been Vietnam's heartfelt desire these past few years. Vietnam has been attempting to control Laos and Cambodia as well as to extend its influence to other areas. Vietnam, stirred up by the Soviet Union, has been given the idea that China is the obstacle to the realization of an Indochina Federation. The Soviet Union continues to exert influence on Vietnam, and thus Vietnam went step by step over to the Soviet side.  

Since then, after reuniting the South, Vietnam seems to have grown a bit conceited. They have been saying that they have become, after the United States and the Soviet Union, the world's third military power. It is a bit ironic.

Within Vietnam, anti-Chinese propaganda has risen to great heights and incidents involving the overseas Chinese there have ultimately taken place. They have expelled a great many overseas Chinese.

Vietnam betrayed our bilateral agreement on the overseas Chinese problem. They have forced them to change their nationality, have not at all recognized their existence as overseas Chinese, and confiscated property from overseas Chinese in the name of socialist reform.

Vietnam is now called the Cuba of the East. In fact, that is what it has become. We have given the situation serious thought. At present, Vietnam is invading Cambodia. The scale of that war has gone beyond their war of resistance against the United States and the one waged against Nguyen Van Thieu. Under such circumstances, China's aid became completely meaningless. However, it was no easy thing to resolve to halt the aid. We halted the aid because we did not want the Cuba of the East to grow any more powerful. We did seriously consider the concern that, in so doing, we may on the other hand drive Vietnam over to the Soviet side. However, having examined the issue, we realized that Vietnam had long ago become a base for the Soviet Union. Accordingly, the problem of driving them to the Soviet side had already ceased to exist. When we spoke with US statesmen, too, we said that the problem of Vietnam building bases for the Soviet Union did not exist, because the United States had already built them. The problem that remains is how the Soviet Union will use these bases. In Vietnam an excellent military port and dozens of airports have been built. There is no need to construct more of them.  

Our view is one of making the Soviet Union bear the burden of Vietnam on its back. Vietnam was continuously taking aid from China with one hand while taking it from the Soviet Union with the other one. Let Vietnam from now on associate only with the Soviet Union. Then Vietnam's thinking in regard to the Soviet Union will likely change. Egypt, Somalia, India are examples of that. These countries, as the result of associating with the Soviet Union, changed their thinking in regard to the Soviet Union.  

At present Vietnam is encountering major difficulties. China has been calmly watching Vietnam's attitude since the aid halt. The Soviet Union has had to bear the burden of a Vietnam in difficulty.  The Soviet Union thus has made two arrangements to lighten its load. First, it has made Vietnam join COMECON and spread the burden among the countries of Eastern Europe. Second, it has incited Vietnam to seek aid from other foreign countries. Vietnam is trying to receive aid from not only Japan, the United States, and Europe, but even from relatively poor Southeast Asia. If not for the Soviet Union's directions, even Vietnam would probably not do such things.  

We think it fine to have Vietnam associate with the Soviet Union in order to grasp as soon as possible the lesson that we once learned. The more numerous Vietnam's difficulties become, the more quickly that country is likely to learn its lesson. Accordingly, even if one were to move quickly to help Vietnam in its problems, it would be no use.

Prime Minister Fukuda: It has been very helpful for me to hear your talk. I believe that friendly dialogue will aid us in understanding one another. Let us stop here today. Let us discuss the problem of the Korean Peninsula the day after tomorrow.

End