Keesing's Record of World Events (formerly Keesing's Contemporary Archives), Volume 15, November, 1969 China, Soviet Union, Chinese, Soviet, Sino, Page 23642 © 1931-2006 Keesing's Worldwide, LLC - All Rights Reserved. Chinese and Soviet Statements on Frontier Question.

The Chinese Government issued on May 24 a comprehensive statement setting out its views on the frontier question, in reply to the Soviet Note of March 29 [see page 233314], and offering to enter into negotiations on the problem.

“The Communist Party of China and the Chinese Government,” the statement said, “have always held that boundary questions should be settled by negotiations through diplomatic channels and that, pending a settlement, the status quo of the boundary should be maintained and conflicts averted. This was our stand in the past and remains our stand at present…”

On the Chenpao Island question, the statement said: “Chenpao Island has always been China's territory. Before 1860 the Wusuli [ussuri] river, where Chenpao Island is situated, was still an inland river of China. It was only after the Opium War in the 19th century when the capitalist Powers, one after another, imposed unequal treaties on China that the Wusuli river was stipulated as forming part of the boundary between China and Russia in the Sino-Russian Treaty of Peking of 1860. According to established principles of international law, in the case of navigable boundary rivers the central line of the main channel shall form the boundary line and determine the ownership of islands. Situated on the Chinese side of the central line of the main channel of the Wusuli river, Chenpao Island indisputably belongs to China and has always been under China's jurisdiction….

“The map attached to the Sino-Russian Treaty of Peking was drawn unilaterally by Tsarist Russia before the boundary was surveyed in 1861. And in 1861 China and Russia surveyed and marked only the land boundary south of the Hsingkai Lake but not the river boundary on the Wusuli and Heilung [Amur] rivers, and a red line was drawn on the attached map on a scale smaller than 1:1,000,000 only to indicate that the two rivers form the boundary between the two countries. The red line on this attached map does not, and cannot possibly, show the precise location of the boundary line in the rivers, still less is it intended to determine the ownership of islands. Hence it can in no way prove that Chenpao Island belongs to the Soviet Union.

“In fact, after the conclusion of the Sino-Russian Treaty of Peking, the two sides always took the central line of the main channel for determining the ownership of islands and exercised jurisdiction accordingly. This was also repeatedly borne out by letters from the frontier official of Tsarist Russia to the Chinese side.” After quoting from two such letters the statement added: “It should also be pointed out that Chenpao Island was originally not an island but a part of the bank on the Chinese side of the Wusuli river, which later became an island as a result of erosion by the river water. To this day Chenpao Island still connects with the Chinese bank at low water, and the river-arm to the west of the island has never become a waterway….”

Turning to the frontier question in general, the statement continued: “Beginning from the fifties of the 19th century, Tsarist Russia colluded with the Western imperialist countries in pursuing the aggressive policy of carving up China. Within the short space of half a century it forced China to sign a series of unequal treaties by which it annexed more than 1,500,000 square kilometres of Chinese territory, an area three times that of France or 12 times that of Czechoslovakia.” As examples of such treaties the statement cited the Treaty of Aigun (1858), the Treaty of Peking (1860), the Tahcheng Protocol (1864), and the Ili Treaty (1881). After quoting passages from Marx, Engels, and Lenin condemning these treaties, it declared:

“There exists a boundary question between China and the Soviet Union not only because Tsarist Russia annexed more than 1,500,000 square kilometres of Chinese territory by the unequal treaties it imposed on China, but also because it crossed in many places the boundary line stipulated by the unequal treaties and further occupied vast expanses of Chinese territory…. In the Pamir area Tsarist Russia occupied more than 20,000 square kilometres of Chinese territory in violation of the stipulations of the Protocol on the Sino-Russian Boundary in the Kashgar Region of 1884. Again, in the sector of the Wusuli and Heilung rivers the Soviet Government, in violation of the Treaty of Aigun, the Treaty of Peking, and the established principles of international law, has gone so far as to draw the boundary lines almost entirely along the Chinese hank, and in some places even on China's inland rivers and islands, marking as Soviet territory over 600 of the 700 and more Chinese islands on the Chinese side of the central line of the main channel, which cover an area of more than 1,000 square kilometres.

“With regard to the unequal treaties imposed on China by Tsarist Russia,” the statement went on, “the great Lenin always stood for their annulment. On Sept. 27, 1920, the Government of Soviets led by Lenin solemnly proclaimed that it „declares null and void all the treaties concluded with China by the former Governments of Russia, renounces all seizure of Chinese territory and all Russian concessions in China, and restores to China, without any compensation and for ever, all that had been predatorily seized from her by the Tsar's Government and the Russian bourgeoisie.‟ Furthermore, the „Agreement on General Principles for the Settlement of the Questions between China and the Soviet Union‟ signed on May 31, 1924, stipulates that at the conference agreed upon by both sides they are to „annul all conventions, treaties, agreements, protocols, contracts, etc., concluded between the Government of China and the Tsarist Government and to replace them with new treaties, agreements, etc., on the basis of equality, reciprocity, and justice‟… and „to re-demarcate their national boundaries… and pending such re-demarcation to maintain the present boundaries.‟

“In pursuance of the 1924 agreement, China and the Soviet Union held talks in 1926 to discuss the re- demarcation of the boundary and the conclusion of a new treaty. Owing to the historical conditions at the time, no agreement was reached by the two sides on the boundary question, no re-demarcation of the boundary between the two countries was made, and no new equal treaty was concluded….

“The above facts,” the statement commented, “fully show that the treaties relating to the present Sino- Soviet boundary are all unequal treaties, that they should all be annulled, and that the Sino-Soviet boundary question remains an outstanding issue. In its statement the Soviet Government… uttered the nonsense that the 1924 agreement did not „consider the boundary treaties as being among the unequal treaties‟ and that „there was no talk of their being annulled.‟” It went on to accuse the Soviet Government of having since 1960 “directed Soviet frontier troops to push their patrol routes into Chinese territory, build military installations within Chinese territory, assault and kidnap Chinese border inhabitants, sabotage their production, and carry out all sorts of provocative and subversive activities.”

“Since the founding of the People's Republic of China,” the statement declared, “the Chinese Government has satisfactorily settled complicated boundary questions left over by history and concluded boundary treaties with neighbouring countries such as Burma, Nepal, Pakistan, the People's Republic of Mongolia, and Afghanistan, with the exception of the Soviet Union and India. China does not have a single soldier stationed in any foreign country. China has no territorial claims against any of her neighbouring countries, and has not invaded or occupied a single inch of territory of any foreign country.

“Today the Soviet Government is not only forcibly occupying the territories of other countries and refuses to return them, but has under new conditions advanced new theories for aggression–the theories of „limited sovereignty,‟ of „international dictatorship,‟ and of the „Socialist community.‟ It has already turned some East European countries and the People's Republic of Mongolia into its colonies and military bases. It flagrantly sent several hundred thousand troops to occupy Czechoslovakia and brutally suppress the Czechoslovak people. It regards heroic Albania as a thorn in its flesh. It menaces Rumania and Yugoslavia. It has dispatched its fleet to the Mediterranean, trying hard to control the Arab countries by taking advantage of their difficulties. Its aggressive designs are even more ambitious, and its claws have stretched out even farther, than those of Tsarist Russia….

“As early as Aug. 22 and Sept. 21, 1960,” the statement continued, “the Chinese Government twice took the initiative in proposing to the Soviet Government that negotiations be held. Furthermore, on Aug. 23, 1963, the Chinese Government put forward to the Soviet Government a six-point proposal for maintaining the status quo of the boundary and averting conflicts. Sino-Soviet boundary negotiations finally took place in Peking in 1964. During the negotiations the Chinese side took the reasonable stand that the treaties relating to the present Sino-Soviet boundary should be taken as the basis for settling the boundary question…. However, the Soviet Government… not only wanted to keep under its forcible occupation the Chinese territory which Tsarist Russia had seized by means of the unequal treaties, but also insisted that China recognize as belonging to the Soviet Union all the Chinese territory which it had occupied or attempted to occupy in violation of the treaties, and as a result the negotiations were disrupted….

“The development of the Sino-Soviet boundary question to its present state is not the responsibility of the Chinese side. Nevertheless, the Chinese Government is still ready to seek an overall settlement of the question through peaceful negotiations, and is against resort to the use of force. The Chinese Government holds that it must be confirmed that the treaties relating to the present Sino-Soviet boundary are all unequal treaties imposed on China by Tsarist Russian imperialism. But taking into consideration the fact that it was Tsarist Russian imperialism which compelled China to sign these treaties… and that large numbers of Soviet working people have lived on the land over a long period of time, the Chinese Government, out of the desire to safeguard the revolutionary friendship between the Chinese and Soviet peoples, is still ready to take these unequal treaties as the basis for determining the entire alignment of the boundary line between the two countries and for settling all existing questions relating to the boundary. Any side which occupies the territory of the other side in violation of the treaties must, in principle, return it wholly and unconditionally to the other side, and this brooks no ambiguity.”

The statement concluded: “The Chinese Government maintains that what should be done is to hold negotiations for the overall settlement of the Sino-Soviet boundary question and the conclusion of a new equal treaty to replace the old unequal ones, and not to hold „consultations‟ for „clarification on individual sectors of the Soviet-Chinese State border line‟…. The Chinese Government hopes that the Soviet Government will make a positive response to the above proposals….”

The Soviet Government replied in detail in a statement of June 13, in which it also expressed readiness to enter into negotiations. After welcoming the Chinese offer to negotiate, the statement said: “The Soviet-Chinese frontier is the result of historical development over a long period. When the Russian State and China opened their relations with each other, they were separated by vast, sparsely populated or uninhabited expanses of semi-desert and taiga. At that time China's northern State boundary, for instance, was limited by the Great Wall of China,… more than 1,000 kilometres to the south-west of the Rivers Amur and Ussuri. By the time Russians had settled on the reaches of the Amur in the first half of the 17th century Manchuria was a State independent of China and inhabited by people ethnically different from the Chinese…. China herself lost her independence and became a part of the Manchurian State… after the Manchus had seized Peking in 1644…. Up to the end of the 19th century Manchuria remained a separate entity, a fief of the Emperors, where Chinese were not allowed to settle or to engage in economic activities…. Late in the 17th century and early in the 18th century the Manchu rulers conquered Mongolia… and imposed their rule on the Uighurs‟ State in Eastern Turkestan…. The Manchu-Chinese Emperors who oppressed the Chinese people actively pursued a predatory colonialist policy, annexing bit by bit the lands of other countries and peoples. The formation of the Chinese territory within its present frontiers was accompanied by the enforced assimilation of oppressed nationalities….

“Having taken shape many generations ago,” the statement continued, “the frontier between the Soviet Union and China reflected, and continues to reflect, the actual populating of lands by the people of these two States along natural demarcation lines, mountains and rivers. Throughout its length this frontier is clearly and precisely determined by treaties, protocols, and maps,” such as the Treaties of Aigun (1858), Tientsin (1858), and Peking (1860), which “retain their force as inter-State documents of both countries to this day.” Denying that the map attached to the Treaty of Peking had been drawn up unilaterally, the Soviet statement maintained that the protocol on the exchange of maps had been signed and sealed by both Russian and Chinese representatives, and that this map showed Damansky Island as Russian territory. It also contested the assertion that under international law the frontier on border rivers automatically passed along the middle of the main stream, citing examples to the contrary, and pointed out that the Soviet-Chinese agreement of 1951 on navigation on frontier rivers said that the navigation of vessels of both sides on these rivers was effected along the main stream “irrespective of where the line of the State frontier passes.”

“During consultations in Peking in 1964,” the statement went on, “the Soviet side expressed its readiness to meet half-way the wishes of the Chinese side, which were concerned with the interests of the Chinese population along the banks of rivers, and to reach agreement on the demarcation of the frontier line between the U.S.S.R.and the People's Republic of China along the Rivers Amur and Ussuri on the basis of mutual concessions…. Agreement was not reached at that time, because the Chinese representatives complicated the consultations by making unfounded territorial and other claims which questioned both the line of the existing frontier and all the treaties determining the Soviet-Chinese border.”

The statement denied the Chinese allegation that Russia had occupied over 20,000 square kilometres of Chinese territory in the Pamirs in violation of a protocol of 1884. This protocol, it contended, had nothing to do with the area referred to; the delimitation in the Pamirs had been carried out by exchanging Notes in 1894, and the line then laid down still existed.

In reply to the Chinese contention that the Soviet Government had abandoned Lenin's policy on the frontier question, the statement said: “Lenin's decrees cancelled all unequal and secret treaties concluded by Tsarist Russia with foreign States, including China…. On July 25, 1919, the Government of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist RepubLic addressed the Chinese people and the Governments of Southern and Northern China and pointed out what particular treaties between Russia and Chinese were considered by the Soviet Government to be unequal. Treaties dealing with spheres of influence in China, with rights of extra-territoriality and consular jurisdiction, concessions on Chinese territory, and the Russian share of the indemnities imposed by imperialist countries on China after the suppression of the Boxer Rising were declared to be annulled…. These proposals were confirmed in the Note of Sept. 27, 1920…. The abolition of unequal treaties was Juridically recorded in the agreement on common principles for the settlement of questions between the U.S.S.R.and the Chinese Republic of May 31, 1924.

“Neither the appeal of 1919 nor the agreement between the Soviet Union and the Chinese Republic of 1924 contained, or could contain, indications that the treaties is laying down the present Soviet-Chinese borders were regarded as unequal or secret. Naturally there was no question of annulling or revising them. Until recently the leaders of the People's RepubLic of China had themselves stressed that the Soviet State had abolished unequal treaties with China. Mao Tse-tung stated at the seventh congress of the Communist Party of China in 1945, and repeated again on Dec. 16, 1949, that „the Soviet Union was the first to denounce unequal treaties and conclude with China new equal agreements.‟”

On future negotiations the statement said: “The Soviet Union proposes that the unanimity of the two sides on the undisputed stretches of the frontier be recorded; that an understanding be reached on individual disputed stretches of the frontier line through mutual consultations on the basis of treaty documents; that the two sides should proceed on the basis of the treaties in force, observing the principle of mutual concessions and the economic interests of the local population when delimiting the frontier line on stretches which have undergone natural changes; and that the agreement reached should be recorded by the two sides signing appropriate documents…. The Soviet Government suggests that the consultations broken off in 1964 should be resumed in Moscow within the next two or three months…. The Soviet Government expects the Government of the People's Republic of China to inform it shortly whether the above proposals on the date and place for the continuation of the consultations are acceptable to it….”

Following the incident of Aug. 13 on the Sinkiang border, the tension between the two countries increased in the second half of August to a point at which a Soviet attack on China was believed to be under consideration.

Earlier reports had indicated that in March and April 1969 the Soviet Union attempted to obtain promises of support from the other Warsaw Pact countries in the event of war with China. Yugoslav sources reported on April 15 that at the meeting of the Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Treaty Organization on March 17 [see 23261 A] the Soviet Union had proposed that Mongolia should be brought into the alliance, thus allowing troops from its other members to be stationed on the Sino- Mongolian frontier, but had dropped the suggestion after Rumania and Czechoslovakia had strongly opposed it. Several Viennese newspapers reported on April 10 that the Bulgarian Foreign Minister, Mr. Ivan Bashev, had told Austrian journalists that intervention by the Warsaw Pact countries was “conceivable” if incidents on the Sino-Soviet border “threatened the security of the Socialist camp.” A Rumanian Government spokesman said on the same day that Rumania did not consider herself bound by Mr. Bashev's statement, and rejected “any action or declaration inspired by considerations of a military nature.” The Bulgarian Government denied on April 11 that Mr. Bashev had made the statement attributed to him.

A Chinese Note of Aug. 19 alleged that in June and July the Soviet Government had been responsible for 429 border incidents; that Soviet gunboats had seriously threatened the safe navigation of Chinese vessels on the border rivers; and that Soviet military aircraft had frequently intruded into China's airspace. Mass protest demonstrations by Chinese soldiers and civilians took place along both the Far Eastern and the Sinkiang frontier on Aug. 20. A statement issued by the Tass agency on Sept. 10 alleged that the Chinese had violated the Soviet frontier 488 times between June and the middle of August, and quoted diaries and official documents said to have been captured after the Goldinsky Island incident of July 8 and the Sinkiang border incident of Aug. 13 as evidence that both incidents had been planned beforehand by the Chinese authorities.

The Soviet Press launched a violent anti-Chinese propaganda campaign at the end of August. Half of the issue of Literaturnaya Gazeta published on Aug. 27 was devoted to articles on China, which alleged inter alia that over 25,000,000 Chinese had been exterminated between 1955 and 1965; that one concentration camp in Sinkiang contained 32,000 people; and that the Chinese leaders were “repeating the cruel history of feudal despots who ruled by fire and sword.” A long editorial in Pravda on Aug. 28 suggested that “the expansionist ambitions of Peking” might lead to a world-wide nuclear war.

Pravda declared that “the border provocations engineered by the Peking leaders are part and parcel of their political course aimed at accomplishing far-reaching great-Power schemes…. The Chinese leaders are undertaking these actions in an attempt to seek for a way out of the political and economic blind alley into which they have led the country. The policy of the „Great Leap‟ and its failure, the pogrom against the party and against the organs of people's power, and the establishment of the terrorist military-bureaucratic regime of Mao Tse-tung and his entourage in the course of the so-called „Cultural Revolution‟ have created in China an atmosphere of political crisis, and have done great harm to the country's economy. Diverting the anger of the masses of the people away from themselves and poisoning their consciousness with jingoistic passions–that is what lies at the bottom of the rabid anti- Soviet campaign whipped up in Peking….

“The adventurism of the Peking leaders and the atmosphere of war hysteria which they are fomenting are complicating the entire international situation,” the article continued. “The methods of threats, blackmail, and provocations in relations with the Socialist and developing countries, increasing international tensions, making advances to the forces of imperialist reaction, issuing calls, not for peace, but for war–all this is arousing the legitimate anxiety of many peoples and States. Not only in countries neighbouring on China, but in other countries as well, anxiety is being expressed over the expansionist ambitions of Peking. The military arsenals of the Maoists are filling up with more and more weapons. Yet a war, if it were to break out in present-day conditions, with the existing weaponry and lethal armaments and with modern means of delivery, would not spare a single continent….”

It was reported from Washington on Aug. 28 that information from Communist sources indicated that the Soviet Government was seriously considering a pre-emptive air strike against China's nuclear installations, and had sounded the other members of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, as well as the leaders of other Communist parties, on their attitude to such action.

According to the Washington Evening Post, these reports had been passed on to the Press by Mr. Richard Helms, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who had acted without the State Department's consent, and in Western diplomatic circles in Moscow they were received with scepticism. The Daily Telegraph stated on Sept. 1 that the source of the reports was apparently a letter which the Soviet Communist Party had sent to other Communist parties stating that “Peking, not risking to begin a big war, is calculating on turning the Soviet-Chinese frontier into a bleeding wound…. The Soviet Union cannot permit events to develop in such a way as to bring about protracted frontier wars, and will undertake additional measures to safeguard the interests of the Soviet people and the frontiers of our country…. The Soviet Union will continue its line for normalization of its relations with China and for solution of differences over the negotiating table.”

The central committee of the Chinese Communist Party issued on Aug. 23 a directive declaring that war with the Soviet Union might break out at any time, which was broadcast by loud-speakers in the streets of Peking. According to reports reaching Hong Kong on Aug. 29, large troop reinforcements were being sent to the border regions, air raid practices held in the cities, factories moved out of towns to the countryside, and the civilian population evacuated from a number of towns in Sinkiang. An Indian External Affairs Ministry spokesman said on Sept. 12 that the movement of nuclear installations from Sinkiang to remote areas of Tibet had begun about a year before, and had been speeded up in recent months.

Following the death of President Ho Chi Minh, Mr. Chou En-lai flew to Hanoi on Sept. 4, returning to Peking on the following day. His failure to attend the funeral, which was criticized by Moscow Radio as disrespectful to President Ho's memory, was generally attributed to his wish to avoid Mr. Kosygin, who headed the Soviet delegation at the funeral; it was afterwards suggested, however, that he returned to Peking to consult Mao Tse-tung on North Vietnamese proposals for a meeting between them. Mr. Kosygin flew to Hanoi via Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and Burma, avoiding Chinese territory, as did most of the other Communist leaders who attended the funeral. An exception was Mr. Maurer, the Rumanian Premier, who travelled via Moscow and Peking and had a brief meeting with Mr. Chou in the Chinese capital.

President Ho's political testament, in which he appealed for the restoration of unity among Communist parties, was read at his funeral on Sept. 8 [see 23581 A]. The joint communique issued in Hanoi after Mr. Kosygin's visit, which was published on Sept. 11, said that the North Vietnamese leaders had assured him that “the Vietnamese people, faithful to Ho Chi Minh's testament, and guided both by reason and by their hearts, will work for and contribute by deeds to the reestablishment of unity among the fraternal Communist parties.” The communique on the visit of the Chinese delegation to the funeral, published on the same day, made no reference to this question.

Mr. Kosygin left Hanoi for Moscow on Sept. 10, travelling by the route by which he had come. After reaching Dushambe (the capital of Tajikistan) on Sept. 11, however, he turned back and flew east to Peking, where he met Mr. Chou En-lai at the airport; their meeting was variously reported by unofficial sources to have lasted about an hour and four hours. Mr. Kosygin was accompanied by Mr. Konstantin Katushev (the member of the Communist Party secretariat responsible for relations with other ruling Communist parties) and Mr. Mikhail Yasnov (vice-president of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet), and Mr. Chou by Mr. Li Hsien-nien (a Vice-Premier who had headed the Chinese delegation at President Ho's funeral) and General Hsieh Fu-chih (a Vice-Premier and security Minister). The official Soviet communiqué said that they had met “by mutual agreement” and had “openly explained their positions and held a conversation useful for both sides”; the Chinese communiqué, issued six hours later, said that they had had “a frank conversation,” but did not say that they had met by mutual agreement or that the talks had been useful.

According to unofficial sources in Moscow, Mr. Kosygin put the following five-point peace plan before Mr. Chou at their meeting: (1) The two countries should agree to reopen border talks. (2) They should withdraw their troops from the border.(3) Troops on each side of the border should be instructed to avoid opening fire on each other.(4) Both countries should end attacks on each other in the Press and on the radio. (5) They should agree to work towards the restoration of trade and other economic ties. The Chinese statement of Oct. 7,[see below] however, claimed that it was Mr. Chou who had proposed the holding of talks and the withdrawal of the armed forces of both sides from the disputed areas.

Mr. Senzo Nosaka, chairman of the Japanese Communist Party, afterwards stated that a Soviet proposal for a meeting had been passed on to the Chinese Government by the North Vietnamese leaders. Other Communist leaders were also believed to have influenced the Chinese decision to agree to talks, including Mr. Nosaka himself, who had had close contacts with the Chinese leaders in the past, and Mr. Maurer. The route taken by Mr. Kosygin on his return journey, however, suggested that the Chinese agreed to talk only after he had left Hanoi.

After the talks no further frontier incidents were reported, and the number of attacks on China published in the Soviet Press was greatly reduced, although anti-Soviet propaganda continued unabated in China. In a speech on Sept. 30 Mr. Chou accused the Soviet Union and the United States of “collusion” in a bid to launch “aggressive wars against our country,” and said that China was developing nuclear weapons for self-defence. An editorial published in the leading Chinese newspapers on the same day in connexion with the 20th anniversary of the Communist revolution also accused the Soviet Union of “plotting to launch wars of aggression,” of employing “nuclear blackmail” against China, and of attempting to organize rebellions by the national minorities in the border areas.

The Chinese Government announced on Oct. 7 that it had been agreed to hold talks on the border question.

The statement said that the Chinese Government had “consistently stood for a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Soviet boundary question” through negotiations, and in its statement of May 24 [see above] had expressed its willingness to take the existing Sino-Soviet treaties as the basis for an overall settlement of the question, proposing at the same time that, pending a settlement, the status quo of the border should be maintained and armed conflicts averted. It was “regrettable that at the time this stand of the Chinese Government did not meet with a due response from the Soviet Government,” which in its statement of June 13 had “defended Tsarist Russian imperialism and wilfully slandered China” and had “continued to carry out, ceaseless armed provocations along the entire Sino-Soviet border.”

Nevertheless, the Chinese Government had sent a delegation to the meeting at Poli (Khabarovsk) of the Joint Commission for Boundary River Navigation, and at the meeting the Chinese side had “made great efforts” and “overcome numerous obstacles so that some agreements were finally reached….” After the Poll meeting, however, the Soviet side had “provoked a fresh incident of bloodshed” on the Sino-Soviet border, had at the same time “falsely counter-charged China” with border provocations, and had “insinuated… that China intended to launch a nuclear war against the Soviet Union.”

The statement went on: “China develops nuclear weapons for defence and for breaking the nuclear monopoly. The Chinese Government has declared solemnly on many occasions that at no time and under no circumstances will China be the first to use nuclear weapons. It is both ridiculous and absurd to vilify China as intending to launch a nuclear war. But at the same time China will never be intimidated by war threats, including nuclear war threats. Should a handful of war maniacs dare to raid China's strategic sites in defiance of world condemnation, that will be war, that will be aggression, and the 700,000,000 Chinese people will rise up in resistance and use revolutionary war to eliminate the war of aggression.

“The responsibility for the development of the Sino-Soviet boundary question to such an acute state does not at all rest with the Chinese side. The Chinese Government has never demanded the return of the territory Tsarist Russia had annexed by means of the unequal treaties. On the contrary, it is the Soviet Government that has persisted in occupying still more Chinese territory in violation of the stipulations of these treaties and, moreover, peremptorily demanded that the Chinese Government recognize such occupation as legal. Precisely because of the Soviet Government's persistence in its expansionist stand, many disputed areas have been created along the Sino-Soviet border, and this has become the root cause of tension on the border.

“The Chinese Government has never covered up the fact that there exist irreconcilable differences of principle between China and the Soviet Union and that the struggle of principle between them will continue for a long period of time. But this should not prevent China and the Soviet Union from maintaining normal State relations on the basis of the five principles of peaceful coexistence.

“The Chinese Government has consistently held that the Sino-Soviet boundary question should be settled peacefully and that, even if it cannot he settled for the time being, the status quo on the border should be maintained and there should definitely be no resort to the use of force. There is no reason whatsoever for China and the Soviet Union to fight a war over the boundary question.”

Mr. Chou, the statement continued, at his meeting with Mr. Kosygin had proposed an agreement “on provisional measures for maintaining the status quo on the border, for averting armed conflicts, and for disengagement.” He had repeated this proposal in letters to the Soviet Government on Sept. 18 and Oct. 6, leading to the decision of both sides to hold the negotiations in Peking.

The Soviet delegation to the talks, which arrived in Peking on Oct. 19, was headed by Mr. Vasily V. Kuznetsov, the First Deputy Foreign Minister, who had been Ambassador to China in 1953-55, with Major-General Vadim A. Matrosov, Chief of Staff of border troops at the State security Committee (K.G.B.), as his deputy. The Chinese delegation was led by Mr. Chiao Kuan-hua, a Deputy Foreign Minister, with Mr. Chat Chengwen as his deputy. The talks opened on Oct. 20.–(Soviet Embassy Press Department, London - Peking Review - Times - Daily Telegraph - Guardian - Le Monde - New York Times)(Prev. rep. 23313 A.)

© 1931- 2011 Keesing's Worldwide, LLC - All Rights Reserved.