Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, China, Volume XIX

110. Telegram From the Embassy in the Soviet Union to the Department of State⁰

Moscow, September 19, 1958, 8 p.m.

634. Following is text of Khrushchev’s reply to President’s letter of September 12, which Kuznetsov handed me this afternoon.¹

“Mr. President, Having received your letter of September 12 and studied it, I was grieved that you, as it seems to me, did not understand the essence of my message to you. The essence of that message was to show the danger which threatens humanity if the USA does not renounce its aggressive policy, which is constantly creating hotbeds of serious conflicts first in one and then in another region of the world and has led to the creation at the present time of an especially tense situation in the Far East.

Recognizing in your answer that in the region of the Island of Taiwan a dangerous situation has been created, you at the same time try to remove from the Government of the USA responsibility for the tension in that area threatening the cause of peace. In this connection the justifications for the aggressive activities of the USA in your message completely distort the actual position of things, drawing a picture which has nothing in common with actuality.

Anyone who soberly evaluates the situation which has arisen, having regard for the real facts, cannot but realize that the single and genuine source of tension in this part of the world is that the USA has seized age-old Chinese territory—Taiwan and a series of other islands, is supporting on it under the protection of its cannon the Chiang Kai-shek clique which has been thrown out by the Chinese people, is encouraging its attacks and provocations against peoples China. The recent events are one of the manifestations of this general aggressive course of the USA in relation to China. Your remark evokes surprise that I, addressing a message to you can not send a letter, as you say, to the Communist leaders of China, in relation to whom and to the Chinese Peoples Republic you repeatedly adopt a scornful and hostile tone in your message. First of all, Mr. President I would like to say to you the following in this connection.

In the whole history of China there has not been a party and its leaders nor a government that has enjoyed such trust and limitless support of the entire Chinese people as does the great Communist party of China and its leaders, and also the Government of the Chinese People’s Republic. Yes, really, the leaders of the Communist party are the recognized leaders of the Chinese people, and now they lead not only the Chinese Communist party, but the entire Chinese people, a new, peoples-democratic state—the Chinese People’s Republic.

I sent the message on the subject of the events in the area of Taiwan to the President of the USA and not to the government of the CPR for the simple reason that it is not China which is interfering in the internal affairs of the USA, but the USA, defying all the norms of behavior of civilized states, which has grossly interfered in the affairs of China and is trying by force of arms to install in another’s home its order, creating thereby a serious threat to the cause of peace in the Far East. How is it, Mr. President, that you summon us, as you do, to exert some kind of influence on the government of the CPR in connection with the events in the area of Taiwan—that means to try to push the Soviet Union into interference in the internal affairs of China. The Soviet Union will never be a party to such a shameful affair, for that would fundamentally contradict its peace-loving foreign policy, would be incompatible with the relations of unbreakable friendship and brotherly cooperation which unite the Soviet and Chinese peoples.

As you found it necessary to note in your letter, I recently was in Peking and had the opportunity to exchange with the leaders of the government of the CPR opinions about all questions in which the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China are interested. I can say straightaway and frankly that during our talks in Peking that complete unanimity of the USSR and CPR was confirmed again in the most important thing—that it is necessary also henceforth with all resoluteness to carry out the struggle against aggressive forces and to support the forces defending peace in the whole world. The Chinese people are filled with the urge to develop their economy, to raise their living standards, which is possible only in conditions of peace and security. Therefore, it is natural that the people of China manifest serious alarm in connection with the situation which has developed in the area of the island of Taiwan.

If on the island of Taiwan over a period of years continues to sit a General discarded by the Chinese people, not subordinate to the lawful government of China and holding certain Offshore Islands which are several kilometers from the major centers of the maritime provinces of China, this intolerable position became possible only because the government of the USA, having interfered in the internal affairs of China, took under military protection the corrupt Chiang Kai-shek clique.

Who can deny that without the support from the side of the USA there would long since not have existed either the Chiang Kai-shek clique nor the so-called Taiwan problem, that if it were not for the interference of the USA, the peoples of this region would long since have lived in peace and quiet. It is clear to anyone that the US has unlawfully seized these islands because the preservation of the Chiang Kai-shek clique on Taiwan gives it the possibility of retaining in this area its armed forces and to threaten the CPR with war. Only a traitor and a betrayer of his people such as Chiang Kai-shek could permit a foreign power—the US—to concentrate armed forces against China, against the Chinese people. You try to prove that which cannot be proved, that the Government of the USA has some sort of moral and legal right to keep its armed forces in the area of Taiwan. Each tries to interpret facts according to the way his own morality allows him, but it is impossible to avoid facts. They speak for themselves. The facts are that the Government of the USA, by force, seized islands belonging to the Chinese people, which are separated from the American continent by 10,000 kilometers, and is trying to hold them. Moreover, you want China to disclaim this territory and to reconcile herself to the fact that it is in foreign hands and serves as a base for the spreading of aggression against the CPR and other peace-loving [countries] of Asia.

But isn’t it evident, and doesn’t the entire experience of the struggle of peoples for national liberation and independence show, that a great world power such as the CPR, never will agree to the cutting off of a part of its territory, and moreover, will not reconcile itself to the fact that on this territory foreign armed forces have been accumulated with the aim of aggression against it?

As is apparent from your letter, it is precisely the preservation of this situation which the Government of the USA is trying to achieve. Otherwise, what sense can there be in your words about the fact that I have not addressed myself to the leaders of the CPR with a letter appealing to them for moderation. If we agreed with your point of view, then in effect we would begin to cooperate in the preparation of war against China—our great friend and ally. It is sufficient to consider this suggestion only for a minute in order for its absurdity to become evident. How is it possible, Mr. President, to expect that we will lull the vigilance of our Chinese friends and cooperate with aggressive forces in the preparation for an attack on the CPR and thereby in the preparation for an attack on the Soviet Union? It is futile to expect this from us.

In your letter you announce that the island of Taiwan and the Offshore Islands never were under the control of Communist China. This declaration is made, apparently, in order to justify the attempt to sever these territories from the CPR. Incidentally, the USA solemnly recognized that these territories belonged to China in the Cairo Declaration of 1943.² This was also confirmed in the Potsdam Declaration of 1945,³ which the USA and certain other great powers signed. Under these declarations are the signature of your predecessors in the post of President—Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. But can it be that the aforementioned territories ceased to be Chinese after, in China, as a result of the victories of the peoples revolution, there was created a government which reflects the will of the whole Chinese people and which is governed by the ideas of Communism? Certainly not. To deny this means to interfere in the internal affairs of other peoples, means to take upon oneself the function of a gendarme. Your declaration bears witness to the fact that the Government of the USA, unfortunately, does not intend to renounce interference in the internal affairs of China and an aggressive course in relation to the Chinese People’s Republic. And just this is a very dangerous policy which creates a threat of an outbreak of military conflict in the Far East and in other regions. Certainly if you construct your policy proceeding from such conceptions, then England, were she in a position to do so, could, for example, begin war against the USA only on the basis that the US at one time did not exist and that its present territory was a colony of the British Empire.

It is impossible also not to note that, in your letter, the opposing of Taiwan and of the Offshore Islands to all of China is an undisguised attempt to create a situation of “two Chinas”. Similar attempts having the aim of dismembering the territory of China are decisively repudiated by the people and the Government of the CPR as well as by all who treat with respect the sovereign rights of peoples and the territorial integrity of states. Until now, Mr. President, you apparently proceed from the premise that Chiang Kai-shek represents something in China. In fact, for 600 million Chinese he is merely a hated shadow of the past, and they wish that this shadow would disappear as soon as possible and forever. In China, there is only one government—the CPR. Not to see this is to base your actions on illusions which, it goes without saying, cannot serve as the basis for the foreign policy of any state.

The allegation in your letter that the armed forces of the USA are acting in the area of Taiwan in pursuance of treaty obligations of the USA to a handful of betrayers of the Chinese people headed by Chiang Kai-shek is groundless. I am not even speaking about that handful of people whom, even in 1949, Acheson, then Secretary of State of the USA, characterized as people who were corrupt and who had lost the trust of their people, who have long represented no one but themselves. At the present time Chiang Kai-shek can assume the capacity of representative of China with no more basis than, for instance, Kerensky the capacity of representative of the Soviet people. And if the logic of your letter is followed, it derives that while Kerensky, who is maintained somewhere within the USA, is alive, and you could also conclude a treaty with him as head of the provisional government of Russia which existed at one time, the US, relying on that treaty as it now relies on its treaty with Chiang Kai-shek, could begin a war against the Soviet Union. Now doesn’t this example demonstrate how absurd are references to treaty obligations such as those which the USA has with Chiang Kai-shek? This kind of a treaty is invented and fabricated exclusively for concealment of aggressive aims.

You assert in your letter that Chiang Kai-shek, who is supported by the Government of the USA, is recognized by the majority of states. I would not begin to employ such arithmetic, Mr. President, because it can lead to a serious error. However, I should point out that at the present time the CPR is recognized by more than thirty states, whose population comes to more than a billion persons. With regard to the recognition of the Chiang Kai-shek clique by a number of governments you yourself know well what efforts it has cost and costs the US to achieve retention of such recognition. This your State Secretary Dulles also knows well. I do not reveal a secret if I say that the countries retaining relations with the Chiang Kai-shekists are burdened by such recognition, and this recognition is approaching its end. It cannot be doubted that the majority of states which retain diplomatic relations with Chiang Kai-shek under pressure of the USA will be happy when there finally comes to an end the situation which is in open contradiction to common sense and goes contrary to the interests of the peoples of these countries, and when China occupies its just place in international organizations.

It is undoubtedly very well known to you that even those countries which do not dare to recognize the CPR because of the danger of incurring the displeasure of the USA are experiencing serious qualms about the possible results of the present policy of the US in relation to the CPR. This is understandable because the threats of the statesmen of the USA addressed to the CPR and also the concentration of American armed forces and other military preparations of the USA in the area of Taiwan actually create a threat of the eruption of an armed conflict with all of the dangerous consequences deriving therefrom. With regard to the blackmail and threats relating to People’s China, it is necessary to say that they have not achieved and cannot achieve their goal.

As I already pointed out in my previous message, some American military figures are even trying to threaten China with atomic weapons. In the press it is revealed that units of the American Air Force equipped with atomic arms are being transferred to Taiwan, that there are being delivered various missiles and guided missiles, in particular the type “Nike Hercules”, that sites for their launching are being constructed, and so on. Such activity of the Government of the USA cannot, of course, lead to a reduction of tension in this area, to a relaxation of the situation and to the creation of conditions for the strengthening of trust. On the contrary, these activities are directed toward the exacerbation of the situation and increase danger of the outbreak of war involving use of the most destructive kinds of modern weapons.

I should say to you in all candor, Mr. President, that atomic blackmail with regard to the CPR does not frighten either us or the CPR. Those who nurture plans for an atomic attack on the CPR should not forget that not only the USA but the other side as well possesses atomic and hydrogen weapons and also the appropriate means for their delivery, and if such an attack is made on the CPR, the aggressor will immediately receive a proper repulse with these very means.

War against China on the pretext of defense of the so-called interests of security of the USA or on any other such artificial pretext whatever will get the US nowhere. To unleash war against People’s China means to send to certain death the sons of the American people and to ignite the conflagration of world war. This means to take on one’s self a heavy responsibility before humanity and before history. Responsibility for this, Mr. President, also will lie personally on you.

It is especially necessary to emphasize that such a step of the Government of the USA would be unanimously condemned by the peoples of the entire world, among them I am convinced, also the American people.

I have already stated to you and I consider it necessary to emphasize it once more that an attack on the CPR is an attack on the Soviet Union. With the great friend, ally and neighbor of our country—with People’s China—we have concluded a treaty of friendship, alliance, and mutual assistance, corresponding to the basic interests of the Soviet and Chinese peoples, to the interests of peace and let no one doubt this: We will fulfill completely the obligations we have assumed.

Therefore, I would like once more to turn to you with an appeal not to overheat the atmosphere, not to create conditions which would disturb mankind which is thirsting for peace, to think over and weigh all the circumstances before undertaking any steps which might lead to catastrophic consequences.

The duty of governments and above all of the governments of our countries is to do everything necessary so that the development of international events should go in the direction of strengthening peaceful co-operation, so that trade should be developed among peoples, economic ties, cultural relations, so that all results of labor are directed toward the raising of the welfare of peoples and for the security of further progress.

After your election as President of the USA, Soviet leaders placed great hopes on you. Remembering the good experience of cooperation between the Soviet Union and the US in that period when you were in command of the armed forces of the USA, England and France in the war against fascism, against Hitlerite Germany, we calculated that this cooperation could be realized also after the war, in the present period, in the interest of the preservation and consolidation of peace. However, now the policy which you as President are conducting to a significant degree has undermined these good feelings and is ever more strengthening among us the opinion that Mr. Dulles’ “brink of war” policy in essence is not separated from your name, is linked with it. This is very regrettable.

In our time a “position of strength” policy, a policy of balancing “on the brink of war” cannot be successful. In contrast to that period when Hitler unleashed a world war, now the forces of peace are immeasurably strengthened and what is especially important the relation of forces on the international arena has radically changed in their favor. History will grimly judge those state leaders who, not reckoning with common sense and with the interests of the peoples of the whole world, seek to follow the path of military adventures.

It is generally known that the Government of the CPR has repeatedly taken the initiative and come out with proposals directed toward the weakening of tension in the Far East, toward the peaceful settlement of international questions at issue in this region. Despite the assertion contained in your message, in the course of the negotiations between the CPR and USA on the level of Ambassadors in Geneva, the representatives of China repeatedly proposed that both sides on the basis of the principles of mutual respect of sovereignty and territorial integrity and noninterference in internal affairs should come out with declarations of their readiness to settle disputes between the CPR and the USA in the area of Taiwan by means of peaceful negotiations and not to resort to the application of force or to the threat of force. The Chinese-American negotiations in Geneva did not give positive results only because the USA refused to take such a position and as result of which unilaterally broke off the talks.

In your message you, Mr. President, declare that you welcome the renewal of talks between the USA and the CPR. We also welcome the initiative of the CPR and are glad that the efforts of the Government of the CPR in this direction have met a response on the part of the Government of the US.

We would like to hope that in these negotiations the USA will finally adopt a reasonable, realistic position. Reasonableness and realism of position can be expressed only if the Government of the USA will come to an evaluation of the situation which has arisen by taking into account the historical changes which have taken place in China, by ceasing to support the clique of Chiang Kai-shek and by forming the necessary conclusions from the fact that China is the Chinese People’s Republic whose government represents the Chinese state, the whole Chinese people.

If one does not conduct a line toward the preparation of war and indeed is guided by ideas of peaceful cooperation, then it is most important to recognize the Government of the CPR.

Such a step by the Government of the USA would at once improve the international situation and would everywhere be welcomed as an extremely valuable contribution to the cause of preserving peace. An approach toward the solution of international problems from the positions of peaceful cooperation dictates also the necessity to cease an obstructionist policy in the UN organization and not to put obstacles in the way of settlement of the pressing question about the restoration of the rights of the CPR in the UN. This undoubtedly would be met by satisfaction by all member states of the UN inasmuch as without the CPR the UN organization cannot be a full-blooded international organ for the support of international peace and security as the UN Charter demands.

It is necessary once and for all to finish with interference in the internal affairs of China. The American Naval fleet must be withdrawn from the Taiwan Straits and American soldiers must leave Taiwan and go home. Without this there cannot be lasting peace in the Far East. If the USA does not do this now, then no other way will be left to People’s China except the expulsion of the armed forces hostile to it from its own territory on which a base is being created for an attack on the Chinese People’s Republic. We are completely on the side of the Chinese Government, the Chinese people. We have supported and will support their policy.

If the Government of the USA will follow the path of respecting the sovereign rights of the great Chinese people and will base its policy in relation to China on the principles of peaceful coexistence, then one cannot doubt that this not only will permit the elimination of the current tension in the area of Taiwan but also will create the necessary conditions for the reliable strengthening of peace in the Far East and in the whole world. With respect (signed) N. Khrushchev.”

Davis

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 793.00/9–1958. Official Use Only; Niact. Transmitted in five sections. Received at 9:29 p.m. Also sent priority to CINCPAC for POLAD and repeated priority to USUN, London, Taipei, Warsaw, and Hong Kong.
1. Reported in telegram 631 from Moscow, September 19. (Ibid.) The Embassy commented on the letter in telegram 644, September 20. (Ibid., 793.00/9–2058; see Supplement) A translation of the letter differing from this one was published in Soviet News on September 22.
2. For text of the communiqué issued at Cairo on December 1, 1943, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, President Chiang Kai-shek, and Prime Minister Churchill, see Foreign Relations, The Conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p. 448.
3. For text of the proclamation by President Harry S. Truman, President Chiang, and Prime Minister Churchill issued at Potsdam on July 26, 1945, see ibid., The Conference of Berlin (The Potsdam Conference), 1945, vol. II, p. 1474.