zation stands for. It is a call to change world order by force and violence in a period where force and violence can lead to the most disastrous consequences for the entire world. It leaves no room for difference of tradition, of culture, or of national aspiration, or for the legitimate right of every people, large and small, to choose their own social and economic order their own way. It leaves no room for genuine selfdetermination. It seeks to squeeze every nation and every people within the grip of Chinese Communist conformity. It should be read-I know it has been read and pondered by everyone in this Assembly.

this point. Peiping has made its views unmistakably clear.

Last month [September 291 the Foreign Minister of Communist China, Mr. Chen Yi, held an outspoken news conference. Nearly 300 newsmen were present, including many foreign correspondents. For reasons of its own, Peiping itself did not publish the text of the news conference until a week later. However, we now have an official Chinese version of what was said, a transcript reviewed and approved by the regime. So there can be no doubt as to the authenticity of Peiping's views.

Chen Yi was emphatic about the conditions Communist China poses before it will join the United Nations. He said:

The United Nations must rectify its mistakes and undergo a thorough reorga nization and reform. It must admit and correct all its past mistakes. Among other things, it should cancel its resolution condemning China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as aggressors, and adopt a resolution condemning the United States as the aggressor; the U.N. Charter must be reviewed and revised jointly by all countries, big and small; all independent states should be included in the United Nations; and all imperialist puppets should be expelled.

If (he continues) the task of reforming the United Nations cannot be accomplished, conditions will no doubt gradually ripen for the establishment of a revolutionary United Nations.

The revolutionary concept of the Chinese Communists has been clearly defined by an exceptionally important Chinese Communist document that appeared less than 2 months ago. It was written by Lin Piao, the Minister of National Defense of Communist China. He is also the Vice Chairman of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and a Vice Premier of Communist China. The article is 18,000 words long but despite its length was published in full in all the Peiping papers, was carried in all the provincial and municipal newspapers throughout China, was broadcast over both the domestic and international services of Peiping radio, was published as a pamphlet by the People's Publishing

House of China and translated into many languages.

There can be no doubt that the Communist Chinese themselves regard it as a document of the highest importance.

It spells out in unmistakable clarity and detail the Communist Chinese doctrine of world revolution. Its significance is similar to that of Mein Kampf. It states unequivocally what the intentions of Communist China are, what sort of world it wants, and how that world is to be created.

It is a document that everyone should read but particularly those who disagree with our Government's policy toward Communist China or are critical about our policy in VietNam.

Lin Piao begins with a detailed analysis of the Communist revolution in China and goes on to state:

It was on the basis of the lessons derived from the peoples' wars in China that Comrade Mao Tse-tung, using the simplest and most vivid language, advanced the famous thesis that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' He clearly pointed out: The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and highest form of revolution. This Marxist-Leninist principle of revolution holds good universally, for China and for all other countries.

He then explains that the Chinese Communist revolution had one essential difference from the Russian revolution. The Russian revolution, Lin notes,

began with armed uprisings in the cities, and then spread to the countryside; while the Chinese Revolution won nationwide victory through the encirclement of the cities from the rural areas, and the final capture of the cities.

This leads Lin to his central theme. The "rural areas of the world" today, he states, are Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The "cities of the world" are Western Europe and North America.

Hence, he concludes, just as communism in China succeeded by capturing first the countryside, and then encircling and defeating the cities, so the world Communist movement will succeed by first capturing Asia, Africa, and Latin America-thereby encircling Western Europe and North America-and then by finally and decisively defeating the United States and its Western allies.

And how is the countryside of the world-Asia, Africa, and Latin America-to be captured? It is to be captured, says Lin, by waging "wars of national liberation."

"In the last analysis," says Lin Piao bluntly, "the Marxist-Leninist theory of proletarian revolution is the theory of the seizure of state power by revolutionary violence, the theory of countering war against the people by people's war."

"Today," he adds, "the conditions are more favorable than ever before for the waging of people's wars by the revolutionary peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America."

Thus the blueprint of Communist China is unmistakable. Win Asia, Africa, and Latin America through "wars of national liberation," and the United States and its Western allies will be encircled and eventually overwhelmed.

And the whole "focus" of the revolutionary movement against the United States today, he states, is in Viet-Nam. Not matter what action America may take in Viet-Nam, the Communist Chinese determination "to support and aid the Vietnamese people" is "unshakable"; and "the Chinese people will do everything in their power to support the Vietnamese people until every single one of the U.S. aggressors is driven out of VietNam.”

He has another interesting thesis. And that is Peiping's view of the present leaders of the Soviet Union.

He calls them "Khrushchev revisionists" and says plainly that "they have completely betrayed the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory of war, and have become betrayers of people's war."

Indeed, Lin Piao is almost as vitriolic in his denunciation of the present leaders in Moscow as he is of the United States. He accuses the Soviet Union of "working hand in glove with the United States," commenting:

The Khrushchev revisionists regard imperialists like Kennedy and Johnson as "sensible" and describe us together with all those who dare to carry out armed defense against imperialist aggression as "bellicose." This has revealed the Khrushchev revisionists in their true colors as the accomplices of imperialist gangsters.

lion people to you against their will, then the conversations become rather difficult, and they take the line of the publicly known positions of both sides over the years. When the question of disarmament comes up, when the question of Southeast Asia comes up, when the question of exchanging some newsmen comes up, or exchanges of doctors, this is the reply: "Nothing to discuss until you're prepared to surrender Formosa."

The problem is not one of contact. The problem is that with contact, with contact, it's very difficult to find a basis for improvement of relations. Now, as far as Peiping's present attitude is concerned, a great deal, a great deal, turns upon what judgments they make about whether their present policy is successful or not. We feel that, in the absence of any indications from them or anyone else to the contrary, anything which makes them feel that they're getting along just fine confirms them in a policy and an attitude that clearly points toward war. Now, I was told by someone who could not be charged with being a capitalist, just a few weeks ago, that the number-one question in the world today is trying to turn Peiping to this path of peaceful coexistence. If I had said that, I suppose it would have been greeted as capitalist propaganda. But this is true. There's a lot in that.

Now, Peiping has found itself rejected in Africa, when its foreign minister comes to Africa and says Africa is ripe for revolution, because the governments of Africa know that Peiping is not talking about decolonization, they are talking about the governments of Africa." Peiping has received a setback in Indonesia. They were not able to pursue what seemed to be their threats against India in the India-Pakistan affair. They have some problems. I would hope that those problems would cause them to have some sober second thoughts about the difference between militancy and peaceful coexistence, and if they're prepared to embark upon the path of peaceful coexistence, there will be many around the world, including the people in this country, who would be glad to see them do it and not stand in the way.

84 See ante, doc. VIII-3.

same subject a few days later, adding some more baseless allegations to the old charges and issuing unwarranted warnings and threats to the Government of India. This has only confirmed what the Indian Government had stated in its note of 2 September, namely, that "the Chinese protest is intended to malign India and to cause confusion in the international world and also to prepare a pretext for any illegal actions directed against India which the Chinese Government might be contemplating".

On several occasions in the past the Government of India has informed the Government of China that the Indian troops have never crossed the Sikkim-Tibet boundary which has been formally delimited and is clearly distinguishable by well-marked natural features. Nor have Indian troops built any structures either on the Tibetan side of the border or on the border itselfthere is indeed no need for India to do so. Therefore the demand of the Chinese Government to dismantle structures and to withdraw troops is meaningless. But since the Chinese Government has been making these allegations and demands over and over again the Government of India is willing to allow an independent and neutral observer to go to the border in this sector in order to see for himself the actual state of affairs. Nothing could be fairer than this. In extending the area of false allegations to the Western sector, the Chinese note alleges that Indian troops intruded into the Kongka Pass and Hot Springs on five occasions. The Chinese note asserts that these places are in Tibet and Sinkiang respectively. It is necessary to point out that Kongka Pass and Hot Springs are neither in Tibet nor in Sinkiang, but in the Indian territory illegally occupied by China. Even though India does not recognize this illegal occupation and the socalled "line of actual control" in the Western sector (a phrase which surprisingly has not been used this time in the note under reply), the Indian Government, exercising restraint in the interest of peace, has given strict instructions to all its personnel not to cross this line. These instructions have always been scrupulously observed by Indian troops and personnel. The so-called five intrusions across the "line of actual control" in August are therefore fictitious. The Indian Government

[Doc. IX-25] 751

therefore rejects the protest of the Chinese Government.

88

The Chinese note under reply has made a reference to events in Kashmir and accused India of "armed suppression against the people of Kashmir” and “armed aggression against Pakistan". This is a complete distortion of facts. The world knows that it is Pakistan which committed aggression against India by sending out armed infiltrators into Kashmir across the ceasefire line and following it up by a massive attack across the international boundary in the Chhamb area of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Pakistan attack was supported by heavy artillery, heavy aircraft and other weapons acquired by Pakistan under military pacts of which it is a member. Pakistan has further extended the conflict by air raids on Indian cities and civilian population. These are facts which are well known to the world. The Chief Military Observer of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan in his report to the United Nations Secretary-General has unequivocally stated that it was Pakistan which violated the cease-fire line in Kashmir by sending thousands of armed infiltrators into Kashmir. In the face of these facts it is extraordinary that China should accuse India of "suppressing the people of Kashmir" and of "unleashing aggression" on Pakistan when India is actually defending the people of Kashmir and the integrity of India against unprovoked aggression by Pakistan.

The Chinese Government's attempt to connect the events in Kashmir with fictitious intrusions by Indian troops across the "line of actual control" in the Western sector is mischievous. The Kashmir question and India's unfortunate relations with Pakistan are a separate problem and has nothing to do with the SinoIndian border question. In trying to connect the two the Chinese Government is doing the opposite of what it had stated in its note to India of 31 May 1962, namely, that the attitude of the Chinese Government is one of "never getting involved in the dispute over Kashmir" and also in contradiction to the declaration in the joint statement issued in Peking by the Prime Ministers of China and

89 See post, docs. IX-63-82.

Poland on 11 April 1957 that the Kashmir issue "should not be allowed to be made use of by external forces to create new tensions". Involvement of external forces in the current unfortunate conflict imposed on India by Pakistan will only impede a peaceful solution at a time when India, the United Nations and the peace-loving countries of the world are urgently striving for restoration of peace between the two countries.

On the Sino-Indian border question to which the Chinese note makes a reference, any impartial observer would admit that India has striven her utmost to find a peaceful solution. In its ceaseless search for a settlement India has made a number of constructive proposals and also accepted mediatory proposals made by disinterested third parties friendly to both India and China. Notwithstanding China's mounting hostility, India still preserves the hope that a peaceful settlement of the border question can and will be arrived at between the two countries.

Document IX-26

Note From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the "People's Republic of China" to the Indian Embassy, Peiping, September 16, 1965 89

Chinese Communist Ultimatum
to the Indian Government
To Cease All Violations
Along the Sino-Indian Boundary
Within Three Days

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to reply as follows in refutation of the notes of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs dated 2 and 12 September 1965."

(1) In its notes the Indian Government continues to resort to its usual subterfuges in an attempt to deny the intruding activities of Indian troops along the Sino-Indian boundary and the China-Sikkim boundary. This attempt cannot pos

89 U.N. doc. S/6692, annex II. See supra.