page 8

China's Foreign Policy: 'Minor Reasons Should [unclear: obey] Big Reasons'

The 'Three Worlds' concept is referred to as Mao Tse-tung's thesis. Where could we find any of his writings on this?

The scientific conclusion about the 'Three Worlds' was first made by Chairman Mao in an interview with President Kaunda in 1973. It was not made at random, but based on long-term observation and analysis of the world situation.

After the end of World War II, there emerged the Soviet-headed socialist camp and the capitalist camp, headed by the US. In between, Mao said, there existed an intermediate zone for which the two camps strove. This zone developed into two parts — the first intermediate zone (Asia, Africa and Latin America) and the second intermediate zone (the Western capitalist countries). The socialist camp tried to unite with the first of these in order to oppose US imperialism. The Soviet socialist state degenerated into a capitalist state and practised a policy of expansion into other countries. It was not much different from the US imperialists in nature. So the socialist camp disappeared and split.

After long observation of this world situation, Chairman Mao put forward the Three Worlds concept as follows: the Third World means Asia, Africa and Latin America. They are politically oppressed by neo-colonialism and imperialism, to which they are naturally opposed; they want to maintain and safeguard their independence and sovereignty. Economically they are developing countries. Therefore we say that the Third World is the main force in opposing the two superpowers. China belongs to the Third World and is also a developing socialist country. The 'Second World' includes Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan. These countries have a high level of industrialisation. They are controlled by the two superpowers, to different degrees. The attitude of the Second World countries towards the Third World is that they want to recover their economic interests as before. This shows the dual characteristics of the Second World and that is why we say that the Second World is a force that we can win over.

The Third World today has a much bigger population than in the years after World War I. The total world population today is nearly 4,000 million. In Asia the population is 2,200 million, Africa 400 million, Latin America 300 million: 2,900 million belonging to the Third World. Mao's concept is to oppose the two superpowers and organise a broad united front to isolate them. Mao has always held the opinion, 'The more friends the better, the fewer enemies the better'.

As to where there are any writings by Mao on this concept, in 1974, at the 6th Special Meeting of the United Nations, Teng Hsiao-ping made a complete and systematic speech on the Three Worlds. His speech was personally examined and revised by Mao. There is no doubt about the concept of the Three Worlds being put forward by Mao.

If both superpowers are together the main enemy of the world's peoples, is it ever correct to unite with one against the other?

Our approach is like this. We have a general policy to oppose both superpowers: they are enemies of the people of the world. We haven't raised the concept of uniting with the US to oppose the USSR. Technically, we say we utilise the contradictions between them; we put stress on opposing social- imperialism but we have no idea of uniting with the US. (Under certain circumstances and certain conditions it is allowed to unite with one enemy to oppose another. This was remarked on by Marx who said, 'You can even unite with the devil under certain circumstances, but you should lead and not follow'.)

Is it true that China's policy is to oppose those who support Russia, and support those who oppose Russia?

We think this absolute statement is not fitted to the realities: we don't support or oppose anything unconditionally.

We don't make friends with all opponents of Russia. Take Israel for example. Israel was one of the earliest members of the UN to recognise China; but with US support Israel has pursued a policy of expansion and aggression. We support the Palestinians and Arabs, so we resolutely refuse to establish diplomatic relations with Israel or have any intercourse with it. (Of course we don't oppose the Israeli people, but the aggressive policy of their government.) Southern Africa is another example. The Smith and Vorster administrations not long ago said they were opposed to the Soviet Union and asked for some understanding on China's side, but we sympathise with the armed struggle of Azania, Zimbabwe and Namibia, and are firmly opposed to the white administrations headed by Smith and Vorster. We have no relations with them.

Why does China support NATO?

There's a stand of principle, also of reality. On principle, we oppose the Warsaw Pact and NATO. Resolutely we ask three organisations to close.

The two superpowers clamour about reducing arms. With the Warsaw Pact in being, we can't ask for unilateral disarmament and dissolation of NATO. Superpower contention is in Europe, and Europe is the key to world hegemony. If either side only occupies Africa or China, they will not reach their desire. China couldn't unite with any single country of Europe, but could support a united, unified and strong Europe. Under those circumstances the Soviet Union would not dare launch an offensive in Europe, whereas if Europe is weak and loosely- organised, it's easy prey. Our policy toward NATO originates in reality.

In the event of a war between the two superpowers in Europe, how do the Chinese view the role of the European working-class? Should they unite with their own bourgeoisie and the US imperialists? In the event of such a superpower war, would such a united front be comparable with the Chinese Communist Party's united front with the Kuomintang, bearing in mind the general weakness of European Marxist- Leninist parties and no independent armies?

This is a complicated question. One should judge a situation not from possibilities but from realities. Some of us have lived through World War II. Hitler's war was a war between imperialists. The nature of the war changed when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. In the first state of war, the working people were obliged to adopt 'defeatism' — ie., not supporting their own government, because the nature of the war was aggressive on both sides.

Britain and the US then became allies of the Soviet Union. If the working classes of Britain and the US had opposed their own governments at that time, it would have been beneficial to Hitler. So, we think one must act according to the circumstances.

Wars can be divided into just or unjust wars. A Soviet war against Europe would be unjust and aggressive. The working class must adopt an appropriate course of action, according to the nature of the war, supporting the just, and opposing the unjust, concretely.

The question mentions our Anti- Japanese War. Chiang Kai-shek and Japan were both enemies, but it was a class contradiction between us and Chiang, and a national contradiction between us and Japan. Whichever contradiction is bigger is the main contradiction. We had had 10 years' civil war against the Kuomintang; if we had continued, it would only have benefited the Japanese. There is a Chinese saying —'Minor reasons should obey big reasons'. It was not possible to light both enemies simultaneously. So we page 9[unclear: hanged] our stand (at the Sian incident) and defeated our main enemy. We [unclear: defeated] our enemies one by one, just [unclear: ke] eating a meal one mouthful after [unclear: nother]. We still think our policy was [unclear: orrect].

[unclear: low] do you explain the warmth and [unclear: vspitality] shown towards the [unclear: vnscnative] Party leaders Heath and [unclear: atcher] — (British socialists see this as [unclear: upport] for the bourgeoisie)? [unclear: in] several south-east Asian countries, [unclear: uch] as Burma and Thailand, there is [unclear: irmed] revolt by Communists and there [unclear: re] revolutionary bases. When diplomatic [unclear: lations] were established between China [unclear: nd] the governments of those countries, [unclear: lie] governments hoped China would [unclear: jive] up support for those armed [unclear: juggles] Chairman Mao made the [unclear: estion] clear — if China didn't support [unclear: icm], how could it call itself a [unclear: ommunist] Party? He also said, relations [unclear: tween] countries and parties aren't the [unclear: tine].

We have five principles of peaceful [unclear: to]-existence, and we don't interfere with [unclear: her] countries' internal affairs. We [unclear: rt] support the British bourgeoisie, [unclear: we] support the struggles of the British [unclear: orking]-class. We have published quite [unclear: lot] on this to show our sympathy and [unclear: upport]. We publish articles in our [unclear: ewspapers] about demonstrations, [unclear: trikes], etc. We consider that Conserva- [unclear: tve] and Labour are both bourgeois [unclear: arties]; but the Conservatives have a [unclear: Icar] stand towards the Soviet Union — [unclear: ney] oppose its policy of expansion. After the end of World War II, [unclear: hairman] Mao didn't agree with the [unclear: oncept] that Russia and America would [unclear: pen] war soon (see his article 'Analysis [unclear: if] the situation after the war'); but he [unclear: lid] it was a matter of time. This is still [unclear: ue] today. If Thatcher or Heath want [unclear: to come] we can't refuse. It's protocol, [unclear: we] appreciate their public denunciation [unclear: if] the Soviet Union, but this doesn't [unclear: lean] we support their bourgeois [unclear: otides].

[unclear: Do] you see any contradiction between[unclear: upport]for the liberation movements in[unclear: he]Third World and support for their[unclear: Wkiiments]?

[unclear: f ] the main force against imperialism [unclear: ind ] the superpowers is the armed [unclear: eople ] , why emphasise the role of [unclear: leads ] of state?

[unclear: The] Third World countries are the main [unclear: ice] for opposing the two superpowers. [unclear: This] doesn't mean that all Third World [unclear: entries] oppose them though — some [unclear: re] reactionary. We need to make a class [unclear: alysis] of them. In most countries, the [unclear: eminent] and the people have the [unclear: me] demands. In some others, the [unclear: ernments] go counter to the will of [unclear: the] people. (Take Chile: Allende was [unclear: ith] the people, but the present [unclear: lnary] regime is reactionary and goes [unclear: nter] to the people's will.)

The people in every country are [unclear: od]. But governments are different. [unclear: ne] represent and some oppose their people. We must distinguish between them. Take Zaire as an example — Mbutu has a bad name in African countries. However, in March this year when armed forces supported by the Soviet Union and Cuba invaded, Mbutu dared to mobilise people; he did not capitulate. He repulsed the Cuban attack and we support him. We emphasise the roles of the leaders — do they really represent the interests of the people? If not we will criticise and oppose them.

What do you see as the significance of movements like OPEC, and non-aligned movements?

Movements such as OPEC have displayed a certain role against the two superpowers. The 1975 'Oil War' was a powerful attack against the superpowers. Therefore it is reasonable for the OPEC countries to raise oil prices, although of course there are some problems, e.g. for those countries without any oil. They don't want to hurt friends while attacking enemies. We support non- aligned movements. They are not contradictory to the interests of the Third World; they oppose superpowers.

On what basis is military aid given to liberation movements and foreign governments?

Our purpose in giving military aid is to help struggles for liberation. Take the example of Angola. All three factions were liberation movements; we gave various kinds of aid (economic aid in the form of food and clothing, as well as munitions) to all three, and liberation from Portugal was won. We asked for no repayment. So-called 'aid' from the Soviet Union is different; they are the biggest ammunition-merchants in the world. The Soviet arms used by Chinese People's Volunteers in the Korean War were paid for.

We stopped aiding all three factions in Angola when Soviet aid fomented civil war — we didn't want to do the same. Here you see the principle in our aid.

We congratulated Angola but still haven't recognised their government. To establish diplomatic relations means recognising the government as lawful; which means we agree with the occupation by the Soviet Union and Cuba. If this becomes legal, then other African countries will get no peace.

What is China's policy towards Zimbabwe?

Before World War I, there were only three independent countries in Africa. Now there are 49. It won't be long before Southern Africa is liberated and independent. We clearly oppose the Smith and Vorster racialist regimes; we firmly support Zimbabwe, Namibia and Azania. Recently we invited Mugabe here, and we have satisfied all the wishes he expressed here. An armed struggle has been launched, but there are also several factions which we hope will be united. This depends on mutual confidence.

What is China s policy as regards Hong Kong?

In principle, Hong Kong is part of China's territory. It is not a colony: the situation is different. There is a lease to hire Kowloon for 99 years (1898-1997). When will we recover Hong Kong? It's a question for the future, not for the present.

What was the Gang of Four 's influence on foreign policy?

The Gang of Four did big damage in various respects, but as far as foreign policy was concerned. Chairman Mao and Premier Chou had firm control. There was some interference from them of course, expressed in foreign trade and in cultural exchanges. They had no role in our policy regarding the Three Worlds, the superpowers, or Europe. Since the smashing of the Gang of Four there has not been much change in our policies — our present policy and past policy are the same.

Has there been any change in the policy of self-reliance - a move toward greater exchange with foreign countries? (Rumours of buying arms from US)

The report that China is buying army supplies from the US is not true. As for foreign trade, we've returned to Mao's line.

The Gang of Four labelled our exports of oil and coal as 'selling the country'; they said the Ministry of Foreign Trade was a 'Ministry of Betrayal'; according to them, importing advanced techniques or materials was 'worshipping things foreign'. They hindered the publication of Volume V of Mao's works by seven or eight years, because the line they took was counter to Mao's. In Mao's 'Ten Major Relationships' the policy is for China to take self-reliance as the main force, and foreign techniques and help as subsidiary. We oppose one-sidedness: complete isolation would make us backward, while total reliance on foreign countries would be equally harmful. We think this appropriate for the 'four modernisations' till the end of this century.

China will never consider buying US arms. In dealing with aggressors, we don't rely mainly on weapons. People are the first factor in a war; weapons come second. We can solve the problem of weapons ourselves.

What is China's policy on nuclear weapons?

We firmly oppose the use of nuclear weapons.

The superpowers are competing with each other in nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are highly costly — they are developed by exploiting the people. People can't eat or wear weapons. We firmly believe that all weapons should be destroyed.

We think there are two prior conditions for the abolition of nuclear arms: firstly, all nuclear countries should solemnly declare they won't be the first to use them; secondly, the two superpowers' bases in other countries should be withdrawn or destroyed. If these two conditions are fulfilled, a world conference can be held on limiting and abolishing nuclear weapons.

Today, however, China has nuclear weapons. We have them in order to break the superpowers' monopoly, and make them pause before using nuclear arms. Every time we make a test, we declare that China won't be the first to use these weapons. □

This interview has previously appeared in "China Now", the publication of the Society for Anglo Chinese understanding.