Comments of N.S. Khrushchev (Concerning a Statement of China)

COMMENTS OF N. S. KHRUSHCHEV

(concerning a statement of China)

6 September 1963

(Present were:  A. A. Gromyko, V. V. Kuznetsov,

I. I. Il’ichev, and L. N. Tolkunov)

Before starting on the questions because of which we have gathered I would like to return to the TASS statement on China. I think that the statement is completely unsuitable in such a form. I finished reading [it] yesterday; I have eight pages left [SIC].

See what is the matter – the statement was drafted at such a low level of bickering. The Chinese just want this; here is what they say: you are such-and-such, you said such-and-such. This is a dispute of merchants trading in rotten fish, and they are throwing mud on one another in front of the buyers. Why should we do this? The dispute needs to be waged on a principled basis. Take the contentious questions of principle which they raise.

They say: you accuse us of wanting war; we don’t want war, we are for disarmament. You take this and show the discrepancy. If you want this, then we also want this; then, why do you oppose us and allow impermissible forms [of language] even for discussion between fraternal peoples, socialist countries, and Communist Parties [?]

Because we speak not for the Chinese, but for the other Communist Parties.

Here [we] published an article; a serious article, well-drafted by Ehrenburg on a principled basis. We slipped into petty abuse. What is it? It is a squabble at a well.  If [one] talks this way, there was a very accurate expression at the mine, but I cannot repeat who did nothing and they began to sling [mud] on one another from indolence. This cannot be done, it is not suitable.

I told Ponomarev, he drew up a plan, and I advised him. We need to clarify our position on these questions and not get drawn into verbal abuse. China is drawing us into unprincipled verbal abuse because their position is weak.

They say that they are for the statement. It is asked, we also are for the statement, which was adopted – what is the dispute about? We are for the Bandung agreement, for these five points – we are also for this.

You do some work.

A. A. Gromyko We proceeded from the intention of drawing a line and dismissing concisely.

N. S. Khrushchev Then they reply to us with verbal abuse for this, and it will turn out that we have simply switched to verbal abuse. It is better not to reply, so then it will be understood that we have not yet replied. But to not reply on the substance, but with verbal abuse – this means the position is weak because they will say to us that there are no arguments, they are simply swearing.

It is necessary to work well right now, and not just the MFA, but also for Andropov’s department and Ponomarev’s department to be included, because this is properly not just an MFA question, but a question of a political nature. The dispute is going between Parties, between ideologies, and therefore it needs to be approached accordingly. You approached this matter lightly, and this might have passed; this is not good. 

It is impossible to draw a line, this is a lengthy dispute, and time will solve it. No one here – neither we nor they can – agree. Therefore if we continue to press forward [bit’ na kurs] here with the idea that it is reasonable to stop the polemics, they will not do agree to this. But this will find sympathy in the other fraternal Parties.

But this is an abusive question, no one likes it. I am not talking about China, China will like it.

Repeat our position. They [?will respond with?] verbal abuse, but you [repeat] our position. They will say: you have said this already but you are saying again; because there is only one truth, there cannot be two truths in some question. They might say: you are repeating [yourselves]; yes, we are repeating [it], because this is the truth, but you want to knock down and replace the truth with your views because you don’t understand this truth or it is being distorted, etc.

I talked to Cdes. Andropov and Ponomarev; before my trip to Yugoslavia they gave me a plan, but I did not have a chance to look it over.

L. N. Tolkunov We have an addition to this note.

N. S. Khrushchev There is already an addition, it means nothing has been done.

So work on this.

5ng

6 September 1963