The Chinese Embassy in Moscow reports on Soviet policy toward Vietnam after Khrushchev's removal.
April 17, 1965
Cable from the Chinese Embassy in the Soviet Union, 'Signs of the Soviet Union’s False Anti-Imperialism and False Support for Vietnam'
This document was made possible with support from Henry Luce Foundation
[Stamp] Foreign Ministry Soviet and East Europe Department
Soviet Union #1631
June 21, 1965
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Telegram
From Moscow Station
Foreign Ministry (65) No. Mao-1014
Signs of the Soviet Union’s False Anti-Imperialism and False Support for Vietnam
To the Foreign Ministry:
During the past week, the Soviet press, on the occasion of a Vietnamese worker delegation's visit to Moscow, has continued making phony propaganda against the U.S. And in support of Vietnam. Great effort has been put into organizing mass organizations and famous organizations and individuals to come out and make public declarations of support for or their own calls for support of the Vietnamese people, at least fifteen in all. The press has been widely carrying statements by the Vietnamese side including the publication of the full text of the June 10 Ho Chi Minh speech to the National Assembly as well as summaries of the government report of Premier Pham Van Dongand the call that the Vietnam National Assembly sent to the national assemblies of other countries and carried some forein reports criticizing Johnson's April 7 speech.
However, these are the important points to keep in mind:
1. The Soviet Revisionists have not yet issued an official comment on the Johnson's April 7 speech and are still blocking the publication of articles and statements by ourselves and the Vietnamese exposing Johnson and his tricks. Izvestia only published a summary of Chairman Ho Chi Min's interview with a journalist of Red Flag Digest, leaving out the parts exposing U.S. Imperialism and its tricks. Pravda, however, didn't even report on this talk by Chairman Ho.
2. On June 16, the Soviet and French labor unions published a joint declaration calling for “solution to the Vietnam problem through peace negotiations.”
3. Just when the schemes of the U.S. Imperialists about peace talks were failing to make progress, Soviet newspapers on April 9 published a statement that the Soviet Union had agreed to Geneva Talks to discuss the Cambodia issue. Later, the press boasted that the Soviet Union had also agreed to international negotiations to discus the Laos issue without any preconditions.
4. A most important point is that when the West stated that it wanted to use the international talks on Cambodia to discuss the Vietnam issue, Izvestia on April 16th [date underlined by hand] reported approvingly that U Thant had welcomed the Soviet suggestion to hold Geneva Talks on the Cambodia issue, saying that the statement “opened the door a little” and an international conference on the Cambodia issue “could also exchange views on other issues in the region”.
5. From these signs we can see that the Soviet Revisionists are, in the name of holding an international conference on the Cambodia issue, are back to their old sly tricks as they push forward their plot to hold peace talks on the Vietnam issue.
[Chinese] Embassy Moscow
April 17, 1965
Distribution: Members of the Standing Committee of the Politburo, Peng Zhen, Chen Yi, He Long, Kang Sheng, Luo Ruiqing, Central General Office Confidential Department, Foreign Affairs Office, Central Propaganda Office; Central Liaison Department, Central Investigation Department, Ministry of National Defense, Military Intelligence Office, Wu Lengxi, Zhu Muzhi
Liu, Zhang, Luo, [illegible], [illegible], [illegible], Gong, Dong, The General Office, Division of Soviet and European Affairs, Second Asian Division, Press, Ambassador, Confidential Office, Archive 67 copies printed
The Chinese Embassy in Moscow reviews the local press for signs of Soviet policy toward Vietnam and Cambodia.
The History and Public Policy Program welcomes reuse of Digital Archive materials for research and educational purposes. Some documents may be subject to copyright, which is retained by the rights holders in accordance with US and international copyright laws. When possible, rights holders have been contacted for permission to reproduce their materials.
To enquire about this document's rights status or request permission for commercial use, please contact the History and Public Policy Program at [email protected].