Sino-Soviet Split Document Archive
Source: Workers of All Countries Unite, Oppose Our Common Enemy. Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1962; pp.
1-21. The article originally
appeared in Renmin Ribao on December 15, 1962.
Transcription and HTML Markup: Juan Fajardo, for marxists.org, April 2010.
At the very time when imperialism and the reaction-aries of all countries are using every conceivable method to oppose the socialist countries, to disrupt the inter-national communist movement and to suppress the revolutionary struggles of all peoples, and when the Communists of all countries urgently need to strengthen their unity and oppose the enemy together, it is distressing to find an adverse current appearing in the ranks of the international communist movement, a current which is opposed to Marxism-Leninism, opposed to the Communist Party of China and other Marxist-Leninist parties, and which is disrupting the unity of the international communist movement.
In the past month or so, the Eighth Congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party, the Eighth Congress of the Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party, the Tenth Congress of the Italian Communist Party and the Twelfth Con-gress of the Czechoslovak Communist Party were held in Europe one after another. Unfortunately, the ros-trums of these party congresses were used as platforms for attacking fraternal parties. This adverse current, which is disrupting unity and creating splits, reached a new high at the Italian and Czechoslovak Communist Party Congresses. Comrades of certain fraternal parties not only continued their attacks on the Albanian Party of Labour, but also openly attacked the Communist Party of China by name, and they even censured the Korean Workers’ Party for disagreeing with the attacks on the Chinese Communist Party. This is an utterly outrageous violation of the 1957 Moscow Declaration and the 1960 Moscow Statement, which had been unanimously adopted by the Communist and Workers’ Parties of all countries. It is an event of the utmost gravity in the international communist movement.
The Chinese Communist Party Delegation which was invited to attend the Czechoslovak Communist Party Congress solemnly pointed out in its statement of December 8: “A practice of this kind is not in conformity with the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement, is not in the interest of the unity of the socialist camp and the unity of the international communist movement, is not in the interest of the struggle against imperialism, is not in the interest of the struggle for world peace, and is not in conformity with the fundamental interests of the people of the socialist countries. . . . An erroneous practice of this kind can only deepen differences and create splits; it can only grieve those near and dear to us and gladden the enemy.”
The Communist Party of China has consistently held that the unity of the socialist camp and the unity of the international communist movement are fundamental interests of the people of the whole world. It is at all times the sacred duty of all Communists to defend and strength-en this internationalist unity unswervingly. The occurrence of different opinions among fraternal parties is often unavoidable, because the problems of common concern are extremely complicated and the circumstances of various parties very different, and also because the objective situation is constantly changing. And the occurrence of such differences of opinion is not necessarily a bad thing. In order that unity may be securely guaranteed, the important thing is that we must start from the position of defending and strengthening internationalist unity and of standing together against the enemy, we must abide by the guiding principles for relations among fraternal parties and countries, as set forth in the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement, and we must reach unanimity through consultation.
The erroneous practice of using the congress of one party to launch an attack on another fraternal party first emerged a year ago at the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Chinese Communist Party resolutely opposed this erroneous practice at that time. At that congress and subsequently, too, the Chinese Communist Party made many earnest appeals to the fraternal parties having disagreements and differences to reunite on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and on the basis of respect for each other’s independence and equality, and made the special point that the party which launched the first attack ought to take the initiative. However, it is to be regretted that this sincere effort on our part has not succeeded in preventing a continued deterioration in the situation. Instead of giving thought to changing this erroneous practice, the leaders of certain fraternal parties have intensified it and gone further along the road towards a split, and as a result this erroneous practice recently occurred at four successive congresses of fraternal parties in Europe.
Here we wish to say something about what happened at the Congress of the Czechoslovak Communist Party.
At that congress, some comrades of the Czechoslovak Party and comrades from certain other fraternal parties wantonly vilified and attacked the Communist Party of China for its “adventurism”, “sectarianism”, “splittism”, “nationalism” and “dogmatism”. The Chinese Communist Party Delegation in its statement resolutely opposed this practice that creates splits. The statement pointed out that “this erroneous practice has already produced serious consequences, and if continued, it is bound to produce even more serious consequences”. However, the attitude of the Chinese Communist Party, an attitude treasuring unity, has not yet succeeded in causing a change of heart in those persons who are persisting in this erroneous practice. Certain leaders of the Czechoslovak Communist Party stated that they “cannot agree” with the view of the Chinese Communist Party Delegation, insisted on “going further” in this practice, even went so far as to ask the Chinese Communist Party to “reconsider” its position on major international problems, and they made their slanders and attacks on China public to the whole world. In these circumstances, we have no alternative but to make the necessary reply.
Some comrades of the Czechoslovak Communist Party and comrades from certain fraternal parties attacked the Chinese Communist Party for having committed what they called errors of “adventurism”. They charged that on the Cuban question China had opposed a “sensible compromise” and wanted the whole world “plunged into a thermonuclear war”. Are matters really as they charged?
Like the peoples of all the socialist countries and all countries in the world, the Chinese people love peace. China has always followed a foreign policy of peace. We have vigorously and unswervingly fought for the relaxation of international tension and in defence of world peace. China was an initiator of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. We have consistently advocated the peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems in accordance with the Five Principles, we have advocated the settlement of international disputes through negotiation, and we have opposed recourse to force.
The Communist Party of China has always maintained that in order to preserve world peace, to realize peaceful coexistence and to relax international tension, it is necessary, above all, to oppose resolutely the U.S. imperialist policies of aggression and war and to mobilize the masses of the people to wage a tit-for-tat struggle against U.S. imperialism. We believe, as the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement point out, that the U.S. imperialist plans for aggression and war can be frustrated and that world war can be prevented by the joint struggle of the forces of socialism, the forces of national liberation, the forces of democracy and all the forces of peace.
On the question of how to deal with imperialism and all reactionaries, the Chinese Communist Party has always maintained that one should despise them strategically but take full account of them tactically. That is to say, in the final analysis, strategically, with regard to the long term and to the whole, imperialism and all reactionaries are sure to fail, and the masses of the people are sure to triumph. Without this kind of understanding, it would not be possible to encourage the masses of the people to wage resolute revolutionary struggles against imperialism and the reactionaries with full confidence; nor would it be possible to lead the revolution to victory. On the other hand, tactically, on each immediate, specific problem, it is necessary to deal seriously with imperialism and the reactionaries, be prudent and carefully study and perfect the art of struggle. Without such understanding, it is impossible to wage successful revolutionary struggles, there is the danger of incurring setbacks and defeats and, again, it is impossible to lead the revolution to victory. This viewpoint of despising the enemy strategically and taking full account of him tactically, which the Chinese Communist Party has adhered to throughout its history, is precisely our oft-stated viewpoint that the imperialists and all reactionaries are paper tigers; it is entirely Marxist-Leninist. We are opposed both to capitulationism and to adventurism. Everyone who wants to make a revolution and win victory must adopt this attitude, and no other, when dealing with the enemy. The reason is that if one does not dare despise the enemy strategically, one will inevitably commit the error of capitulationism. And if one is heedless and reckless tactically in any specific struggle, one will inevitably commit the error of adventurism. If one dares not despise the enemy strategically and at the same time, one is heedless and reckless tactically, then one will commit both the error of capitulationism in strategy and the error of adventurism in tactics.
As far as the question of how to cope with nuclear weapons is concerned, we Chinese Communists have always stood for a complete ban on nuclear weapons, which are enormously destructive, and have always opposed the imperialists’ criminal policy of nuclear war. We have always held that in a situation in which the socialist camp enjoys great superiority, it is possible to reach an agreement on banning nuclear weapons through negotiations and through the constant exposure of and struggle against U.S. imperialism. But Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary people have never been paralysed with fear by the nuclear weapons in the imperialists’ hands and so abandoned their struggle against imperialism and its lackeys. We Marxist-Leninists do not believe either in the theory that weapons decide everything, nor do we believe in the theory that nuclear weapons decide everything. We have never believed that nuclear weapons can determine man’s fate. We are convinced that it is the masses of the people who are the decisive force in history. It is they alone who can decide the course of history. We are firmly opposed to the imperialist policy of nuclear blackmail. We also hold that there is no need whatsoever for socialist countries to use nuclear weapons as counters for gambling or as means of intimidation. To do so is really committing the error of adventurism. If one blindly worships nuclear weapons, does not recognize or trust in the strength of the masses of people, and so becomes scared out of one’s wits when confronted by the imperialists’ nuclear blackmail, then one may jump from one extreme to the other and commit the error of capitulationism.
We maintain that in their struggle against U.S. imperialism the heroic Cuban people have committed neither the error of capitulationism nor the error of adventurism. Like all other peoples in the world, the Cuban people ardently love peace and are working energetically for it. But, as Comrade Fidel Castro has said: “The way to peace is not the way of sacrifice of or infringement upon the people’s rights, because that is precisely the way leading to war.” The National Directorate of the Cuban Integrated Revolutionary Organizations and the Cuban Revolutionary Government solemnly declared in their joint statement of November 25: “The best form of settlement is through peaceful channels and discussions between governments. But we reiterate at the same time that we will never defect in the face of the imperialists. We will oppose the imperialist position of strength with our firmness. We will resist the imperialist attempt to humiliate us with our dignity. We will oppose the imperialist aggression with our determination to fight to the last man.”
Under the firm leadership of the Cuban Integrated Revolutionary Organizations and the Cuban Government headed by Fidel Castro, the Cuban people have waged in unity a resolute struggle against U.S. imperialism under the most complex and difficult conditions; far from being terrified by U.S. nuclear blackmail, they have insisted on their five just demands; and, with the righteous support of the people of the whole world, they have won another great victory in the struggle against U.S. aggression.
The Communist Party, the Government and the people of China resolutely support the correct line of the Cuban Integrated Revolutionary Organizations and Government, the five just demands and the heroic struggle of the Cuban people. In so doing, China is fulfilling her bounden duty under proletarian internationalism. If China’s support for the Cuban people’s just struggle against the U.S. aggressors is “adventurism”, we would like to ask: Does this mean that the only way for the Chinese people not to be called “adventurist” is to abstain from doing everything in their power to support Cuba in her struggle against U.S. imperialist aggression? Does this mean that the only way to avoid being called adventurist and capitulationist would have been to force Cuba to surrender her sovereignty and independence and to give up her five just demands? The whole world has seen that we neither requested the transport of nuclear weapons to Cuba nor obstructed the withdrawal of “offensive weapons” from that country. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, there can be absolutely no question of “adventurism”, still less of “plunging (the whole world) into a thermo-nuclear war”.
Some people have censured China’s correct position on the Sino-Indian boundary question as if China had precipitated a disaster. But what are the facts?
China has consistently stood for the settlement of boundary questions with her neighbours through peaceful negotiation and, on the basis of the Five Principles, has successfully settled her boundary questions with Burma, Nepal and others through friendly consultation and in a spirit of mutual understanding and mutual accommodation. As far as the Sino-Indian boundary question is concerned, it has been clear for a long period who in fact has rejected peaceful negotiations, who has occupied whose territory, who has conducted armed provocations and who has mounted massive attacks. In dealing with the vain attempts of the Indian reactionary group to alter the situation on the Sino-Indian frontier by force and in dealing with their ever-increasing encroachment on China’s border territories, the Chinese people have for years exercised forbearance, striving time and time again to find a fair and reasonable solution through peaceful negotiation. Nevertheless, the Nehru government has completely rejected negotiations. They have taken China’s forbearance as a sign that she is weak and can be bullied. On October 12, Prime Minister Nehru of India brazenly gave orders that an attack should be launched on China and that Chinese territory should be “freed” of Chinese frontier forces. It was at this point that the Chinese frontier forces were compelled to strike back in self-defence. China is a peace-loving socialist country, but we will never allow others to bully us at will. Confronted with the massive attacks of the Indian troops, China launched a counter-attack in self-defence; this was a minimum, legitimate measure that any other sovereign state would have taken. Having repulsed the attacks of the Indian forces, China immediately proposed the cessation of fighting, disengagement and the reopening of negotiations, and then, on her own initiative, ceased fire and withdrew her troops. Facts have proved that it was precisely because the Chinese people waged the necessary struggle against the expansionist ambitions of the reactionary Indian nationalists that the situation on the Sino- Indian frontier has begun to ease and a de facto ceasefire has been realized.
China’s consistent and sincere efforts for a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian boundary question are universally acknowledged. But what is truly strange is that some self-styled Marxist-Leninists have cast Marxism-Leninism to the winds; they never use the Marxist- Leninist class standpoint to analyse the Nehru government’s reactionary policy of provoking the Sino-Indian boundary conflict and stubbornly refusing conciliation. These people shut their eyes to the fact that this policy arises from the need of India’s big bourgeoisie and big landlords to oppose the Indian people and progressive movement; they are likewise blind to the fact that this policy perfectly suits the needs of the imperialists, and especially of the U.S. imperialists, and enjoys their support. As a matter of fact, in recent years the Nehru government has repressed the people at home with increasing brutality and become more and more obsequious towards U.S. imperialism, acting as its accomplice in many important international issues, as in the Congo. The Nehru government’s persistent opposition to China is the precise outcome of its domestic and foreign policies, which have become more and more reactionary. Those who accuse China of having pushed the Nehru government to the West are exactly reversing cause and effect. Throughout the Sino-Indian boundary dispute, these people have failed to distinguish right from wrong, have pretended to be “neutral”, and have called China “brother” in words, while actually regarding the Indian reactionary group as their kinsmen. Should not these people examine their conscience and ask themselves what has become of their Marxism-Leninism and what has become of their proletarian internationalism?
At the Congress of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, some people made many violent attacks on the Albanian Party of Labour again, alleging that its leaders were “anti-Soviet”, that they were disrupting unity, and that they were “splittists” and “sectarians”. These people also condemned the Chinese Communist Party for its correct stand in opposing attacks on the Albanian Party of Labour and in upholding the guiding principles for relations among fraternal parties, and they charged the Chinese Communist Party too with the crimes of “splittism”, “sectarianism” and “nationalism”. But slanders and attacks of this kind, calling white black, can be of no avail whatsoever.
The criteria for deciding who upholds unity and who is guilty of splittism and sectarianism consist of the principles for guiding the mutual relations among fraternal parties and among fraternal countries which were set forth in the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement unanimously adopted at the Meetings of the Representatives of the Communist and Workers’ Parties. These are the principle of complete equality, the principle of uniting with each other while retaining independence and autonomy, and the principle of reaching unanimity through comradely consultation on the basis of equality. Experience has proved that so long as these correct principles are followed, the unity of the fraternal parties and of the fraternal countries can be consolidated, and that even when this or that kind of difference occurs, a reasonable settlement can be reached. Conversely, if these principles are violated and if, in the mutual relations among fraternal parties and countries, pressure is used to impose one’s own views on others, or if the method of slander and attack is substituted for that of reaching unanimity through consultation, then unity will inevitably be impaired and mistakes of splittism and sectarianism will be committed.
A year ago, at the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Delegation of the Chinese Communist Party stated: “We hold that should a dispute or difference unfortunately arise between fraternal parties or fraternal countries, it should be resolved patiently in the spirit of proletarian internationalism and according to the principles of equality and of unanimity through consultation. Public, one-sided censure of any fraternal party does not help unity and is not helpful in resolving problems. To bring a dispute between fraternal parties or fraternal countries into the open in the face of the enemy cannot be regarded as a serious Marxist- Leninist attitude.”
It is precisely for the sake of upholding the principles which guide the relations among fraternal parties and fraternal countries and of upholding the unity of these parties and countries that the Chinese Communist Party is firmly opposed to attacks at the congress of one party on another fraternal party. What is wrong with our taking such a stand? Is it possible that it is we, who have done everything in our power to defend unity and to oppose actions that are not in the interest of unity, who are guilty of “splittism” and “sectarianism”, and that on the contrary, it is those who launched the first attack and disrupted unity who are not guilty of splittism and sectarianism? At the Congress of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, the Delegation of the Korean Workers’ Party was censured for disagreeing with the attacks certain people made on the Chinese Communist Party. Is it possible that the position of the Korean Workers’ Party in upholding unity is a crime? Is it possible that those who uphold the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement are in the wrong and that those who violate the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement are in the right?
The principles guiding relations among fraternal parties and countries set forth in the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement did not grant to any party, large or small, any right whatsoever to launch an attack at its own congress on another fraternal party. If such an erroneous practice is accepted, then one party can attack another party — this party today and that party tomorrow. If this continues, what will become of the unity of the international communist movement?
The principles guiding relations among fraternal parties and countries set forth in the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement are the very embodiment of the principles of proletarian internationalism concerning relations among fraternal parties and fraternal countries. If these guiding principles are violated, one will inevitably fall into the quagmire of great-power chauvinism or other forms of bourgeois nationalism. But have those very people who have accused the Chinese Communist Party of committing the error of “nationalism” ever given a thought to the question of the position in which they have been placing themselves in their relations with fraternal parties and countries? It is obviously they who have violated the principles guiding relations among fraternal parties and countries, who have launched attacks on another fraternal party and fraternal country and have followed the erroneous practices of nationalism and great-power chauvinism. Yet they insist that everybody else should do as they do, and those who do not listen and follow the conductor’s baton are accused of “nationalism”. Can it be that this conforms with the principles of proletarian internationalism? Is not such an erroneous practice exactly what splittism and sectarianism are? Is not this erroneous practice the worst manifestation of nationalism and great-power chauvinism?
Those who accuse the Albanian Party of Labour of being “anti-Soviet” and of disrupting unity should ask themselves who it was who first provoked the dispute; who first attacked the Albanian Party of Labour at their own congress? Why does one give only oneself the right to wanton attacks on another fraternal party, while that party does not even have the right to reply? If the Albanian comrades are said to be “anti-Soviet” because they answered the attacks levelled at them, what should one call those who first launched the attack on the Albanian Party of Labour and have attacked it time and time again? And what should one call those who have arbitrarily attacked the Communist Party of China?
For a Communist the minimum requirement is that he should make a clear distinction between the enemy and ourselves, that he should be ruthless towards the enemy and kind to his own comrades. But there are people who just turn this upside-down. For imperialism it is all “accommodation” and “mutual concessions”, for the fraternal parties and fraternal countries it is only implacable hostility. These people are able to adopt an attitude of “sensible compromise” and “moderation” towards the sabre-rattling enemy, but are unwilling to adopt a conciliatory attitude towards fraternal parties and fraternal countries. To be so “kind” to the enemy and so “ruthless” towards fraternal parties and countries is certainly not the stand a Marxist-Leninist should take.
The Moscow Statement affirms that revisionism is the main danger in the world communist movement at the present time. It points out: “After betraying Marxism- Leninism . . . the leaders of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (LCY) . . . set the (LCY) against the international communist movement as a whole . . . carry on subversive work against the socialist camp and the world communist movement.” In addition, the Statement calls on the Communists of all countries actively to combat the influence of the anti-Leninist ideas of the Yugoslav modern revisionists. Certain Communists, however, praise the renegade Tito to the skies, and they are carrying on so intimately with the Tito group. At the recent Czechoslovak Communist Party Congress, some people even opposed the Chinese Communist Party’s exposure of the Yugoslav modern revisionists. In a word, these persons want to unite with those one should oppose and they oppose those one should unite with. May we ask, isn’t this an open and crass violation of the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement? Where will such a line lead to?
All the facts show that the Chinese Communists, like true Communists everywhere in the world, have consistently abided by Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary principles of the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement. Those who are attacking the Chinese Communist Party are pressing the label of “dogmatism” on us. This only proves that the “dogmatism” they oppose is the very bastion of Marxist-Leninist theory and the revolutionary principles of the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement, which the Chinese Communists and all other true Communists are steadfastly upholding. These people think that if they just put up the signboard of “anti-dogmatism” and bellow about what they call “creativeness”, they can distort Marxism- Leninism and tamper with the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement as they like. This is absolutely impermissible. We would like to question these people: Are these two historic documents of the international communist movement, unanimously adopted and signed by all the Communist and Workers’ Parties, still valid? Do they still have to be observed?
Some people say: “We are the majority and you are the minority. Therefore, we are creative Marxist- Leninists and you are dogmatists; we are right and you are wrong.” But anyone with a little common sense knows that the question of who is right and who is wrong, and who represents the truth, cannot be determined by the majority or minority at a given moment. Truth exists objectively. When all is said and done, the majority at a given moment cannot turn falsehood into truth; nor can the minority at a given moment make truth turn into falsehood. History abounds with instances in which, at certain times and on certain occasions, truth was not on the side of the majority, but on the side of the minority. In the period of the Second International, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were in the minority in the international workers’ movement, but truth was on the side of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. In December 1914, after the outbreak of World War I, when a vote was taken on the war budget in the German Reichstag, the majority of the deputies of the German Social Democratic Party voted for it, and only Karl Liebknecht voted against it, but truth was on the side of Liebknecht. Those who dare to uphold truth are never afraid of being in the minority for the time being. Conversely, those who persist in error cannot avoid ultimate bankruptcy even though they are temporarily in the majority.
Marxism-Leninism holds that the one and only majority that is reliable in this world is the people, who decide the course of history and who constitute more than ninety per cent of the world’s population. Those who go against the interests of more than ninety per cent of the world’s population may raise a hue and cry at a certain place or meeting for a while, but they definitely do not represent a genuine majority. Their “majority” is only a fictitious, superficial phenomenon, and in essence they are in the minority, while the “minority” they are attacking is, in essence, the majority. Marxist-Leninists always penetrate phenomena in order to see a problem in its essence. We submit only to truth and to the fundamental interests of the people of the world; we will never obey the baton of an anti-Marxist-Leninist. However much the imperialists, the reactionaries and the modern revisionists curse and oppose us, we will never be shaken in our stand of upholding Marxism-Leninism and truth.
We would like to remind those attacking the Chinese Communist Party that unjustified abuse serves no useful purpose. Abuse, however scurrilous or violent, cannot detract from the glory of a Marxist-Leninist Party. From the very first day that a Communist Party came into existence, no one has ever heard of a genuine Communist Party which was not subjected to abuse, nor has anyone ever heard of a genuine Communist Party which was toppled by abuse. The Chinese Communist Party has grown, tempered itself and won victory after victory amid the curses of the imperialists, the reactionaries, the revisionists and all kinds of opportunists. Their curses have never hurt us in the least. On the contrary, this abuse merely shows that we are doing the right thing, that we are upholding Marxist-Leninist principles, and that we are defending the fundamental interests of the people of the world.
We also wish to remind those persons who are attacking the Chinese Communist Party that U.S. imperialism is now conducting an anti-China chorus, and Kennedy has come out in person to declare that a major problem now facing the Western world is how to cope with “the regime of Communist China”. At a time like this, don’t you think you should draw a line of demarcation between yourselves and U.S. imperialism and its lackeys?
The erroneous practice of creating splits which has appeared in the international communist movement can be beneficial only to the imperialists and the reactionaries. Don’t you see that the imperialists, the reactionaries of all countries and the modern revisionists of Yugoslavia are applauding, gloating over misfortunes and looking forward to a split in the international communist movement? Recently Dean Rusk said publicly that the disagreements between the Communists “are very serious and very far-reaching . . . the confusion that has been thrown into Communist Parties all over the world . . . has been helpful to the free world”. Those persons who are attacking the Chinese Communist Party and other Marxist-Leninist Parties should think this over: the enemy is hailing this practice as a great help to the “free world”; is this something to be proud of?
It is not at all surprising that there should be twists and turns of one kind or another in the road along which the international communist movement is advancing. From the beginning Marxism-Leninism has continuously developed through struggles to overcome opportunism of every type. From the beginning the international communist movement has constantly advanced by surmounting all sorts of difficulties. All imperialists, reactionaries and modern revisionists are destined to become the debris of history amid the torrent of the international communist movement and the torrent of great revolutionary struggles of the peoples of the whole world.
Communists of all countries share the same great ideal and the same noble cause and face a common enemy; we have a thousand and one reasons to unite, but not a single reason to create splits. Those comrades who are creating splits should come to their senses! The Communist Party of China sincerely hopes that the Communist Parties of all countries, who should value highly the interests of the international communist movement and of the common struggles of the international proletariat and the peoples of the world against the enemy, and who should value highly our glorious historic tasks and the ardent expectations of the revolutionary peoples of the world, will abide by the principles guiding the relations among fraternal parties and countries, set forth in the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement, and will adopt the correct method for eliminating differences and safeguarding unity.
If only we all have the desire to settle problems, it is not difficult to find the correct method for doing so. The Statement of the Delegation of the Chinese Communist Party at the Congress of the Czechoslovak Communist Party says:
With the object of settling the differences in the international communist movement on certain important questions of principle, the Communist Party of China and a number of other fraternal parties have proposed the convening of a Meeting of Representatives of the Communist and Workers’ Parties of all countries of the world in order to clarify what is right from what is wrong, to strengthen unity and to stand together against the enemy. We consider that this is the only correct method of settling problems.
The Communist Party of China desires to do its utmost — together with the fraternal parties of other countries and on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and of proletarian internationalism — to strengthen unity and to oppose splits, and to strive for new victories in the cause of world peace, national liberation, democracy and socialism. Let us unite and spare no effort to fight unremittingly in defence of the great unity of the international communist movement, the great unity of the socialist camp, and the great unity of the revolutionary peoples of the world and of all peace-loving peoples! Let us raise once again the great slogan of Marx and Engels: Workers of All Countries, Unite!