Memorie.al publishes an unknown document extracted from the Central State Archive in Tirana (fund of the former Central Committee of the ALP), which belongs to 1962, where the minutes of the meeting and talks held between a the delegation of the Albanian Labor Party led by the members of the Politburo and the secretaries of the Central Committee of the ALP, Hysni Kapo and Ramiz Alia, with a delegation of the Communist Party of the People’s Republic of China led by Ten Hsiao Pin and Van Tse Zian. The full minutes of the talks between the two delegations held on June 10, 1962 at the headquarters of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, (which was the fifth official meeting between them), where after the first item of the agenda which was also a priority, a possible meeting with Mao Zedong and finding opportunities and the itinerary of the Albanian delegation to return home by air and sea, was also discussed about the bilateral relations and economic assistance that official Tirana sought through the two leaders of Hysni Kapo and Ramiz Alia, such as the Nitrogen (Phosphate Fertilizer) Plant to be built in Fier, the Warsaw Pact talks, the KNER, NATO, Nikita Hurshov, China’s relations with its neighbors and other Asian countries, such as: Soviet Union, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Mongolia, Taiwan, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Nepal, Burma, India, Pakistan,Burundi, etc., to those of the Middle East and Africa, such as: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Algeria, Guinea, Mali, Ghana, etc.
Minutes of the meeting of the delegation of the Albanian Labor Party led by Hysni Kapo and Ramiz Alia, with the delegation of the Communist Party of China, led by Ten Hsia Pin and Van Tse Zian, held in Beijing on June 10, 1962
The fifth official meeting between the delegation of the Albanian Labor Party and the delegation of the Chinese Communist Party (Held at the headquarters of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, at 9 am on June 10, 1962)
Followed by the last number
Comrade Ten Hsiao Pin: We have no opposing views on these issues; we agree with your point of view. Our position, as you mentioned, has been and will remain the same: without an invitation for Albania to participate, we will not participate in these meetings either. If there are meetings where the participants include other countries, such as Yugoslavia, we will not participate in them either.
You said that if they invite you, you will attend these meetings. Then it is easy to tackle this issue together. If, as in the case of the Friendly Army Sports Society, they do not invite you, or do not invite Yugoslavia, or India, we will not attend.
Another question you raised was that of international issues being discussed between our countries and Western countries. We have a general opinion on these issues. Among them are three issues: disarmament, the cessation of nuclear weapons testing, and the Berlin issue.
The socialist countries have not reached an agreement with the western countries on any of these three issues. This of course does not mean that there can be no agreement on partial issues, but for the main problems the positions of Western countries, especially the US, are very clear. They will not withdraw even a bit from their position.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: That’s right.
Comrade Ten Hsiao Pin: Nikita (Khrushchev), on the other hand, makes concessions at every turn. But due to the fact that the Soviet Union is a great power, it only makes concessions up to a certain point. He cannot go further, because further concessions will not be approved by the Soviet people, by the peoples of the whole world; some of its concessions will not be approved by Eastern European countries either.
Moreover, the US is also limited to a certain degree because they have their differences with the British, French and West German leaders. But there are some issues on which no agreement can be reached, such as, for example, the issue of disarmament, especially on so-called complete and general disarmament.
We have never fallen for it. It seems simply strange to think that the imperialists will ever agree to disarm.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: In other words, to hand over their weapons.
Comrade Ten Hsiao Pin: Only with a fist will the proletariat ever destroy imperialism.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: (With sarcasm) But the imperialists are kind-hearted and will disarm.
Comrade Ten Hsiao Pin: So disarmament is an impossibility. They can make any noise in some way or form, or in some partial deal. For example, (if) the Soviet Union (would) reduce its military by about hundreds of thousands of soldiers, it is possible that the US, too, could do the same, but such a thing would be a symbolic move; in reality this would not mean a reduction of armaments, on the contrary, it would be an increase of armaments, because they would reduce the army by a certain number of people, but would increase the quality of their armaments. It is therefore impossible to reach an agreement on disarmament.
As for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we think there can be no concrete achievement. This can only happen when more socialist countries possess nuclear weapons and when they have absolute superiority over imperialist countries; only then can the imperialists accept such an agreement, but that now no agreement can be reached on the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
In fact, at present, even a cessation of nuclear weapons testing cannot be achieved. Look what happens: when they stop their testing, the Soviet Union starts them. Now even the US has started them. How can talks on ending the testing of such weapons move forward in these circumstances?
On the issue of Berlin we also have the problem of the old borders of the East. On the issue of Berlin, N. Khrushchev has made many concessions, but the US insists on two points: on the occupation of West Berlin by Western forces (they will not accept on this point), and we also have the issue of crossing the corridor in West Berlin (The imperialists will not make concessions on this point either, while Nikita Khrushchev has already admitted to some extent on it).
Comrade Ten Hsiao Pin: Nikita Khrushchev’s concessions will go as far as an agreement on an occupation regime in West Berlin by the military forces of Western countries. In fact, such an occupation regime already exists there at the moment. Even if the US government agrees to lift the occupation regime in Berlin, West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer will not agree to it.
At the same time, the issue of the old borders in the East is even more complicated. Can Poland and Czechoslovakia agree on a change of borders (which were) set in the Potsdam agreement? The USSR itself would not want the borders of Kaliningrad and its region to change.
But Adenauer will not make concessions at this point. There is also a party in West Germany, the refugee party. There are about three million refugees who have left the eastern part of Germany and they are organized.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: Three million are only those in Germany and do not include those of Poland and Czechoslovakia, etc.
Comrade Ten Hsiao Pin: In the rest of the world the fiercest aggression is represented by American imperialism, while in Europe, on the issues of Berlin and West Germany, Adenauer is fiercer.
Comrade Ramiz Alia: We want to exchange views on this issue. Is it possibly possible for Nikita Khrushchev to come to a compromise with the Americans, just over the Berlin issue? West Berlin, for example, could be allowed to become an UN-occupied area, which would in fact mean Americans, and control of the corridor could be entrusted to the German Democratic Republic.
From a political point of view, this would be considered a success by Nikita Khrushchev. With such a move, imperialism would make a concession to Nikita Khrushchev, to gain his support, while, as a solution to this issue, it would be only partial, as it would cover only Berlin, and the problem of a the peace treaty for Germany will be postponed. Could such an opportunity ever happen, for example?
Comrade Ten Hsiao Pin: Cannot be ruled out, though it would not be easy. Adenauer would disagree with him and moreover, the General Secretary of the Socialist Party of the Union of Germany, Walter Ulbricht, most likely disagreed. But again, such a possibility cannot be completely ruled out. If it were ever realized, such an opportunity would not be a success for Nikita Khrushchev. Jo! He thinks that West Berlin should become a free city and the peace treaty for Germany should be signed. Without the signing of a peace treaty, Nikita Khrushchev will not be able to see good days. In what position would this put East Germany? If this opportunity were to happen, the prestige of the USSR would suffer greatly in the eyes of the world.
So while this possibility cannot be completely ruled out, the fact that the USSR is a large and powerful country means that it will not be easy for this to happen. Nikita Khrushchev and his friends want to make concessions, but they do not have it easy. On the other hand, even making concessions does not mean that issues would be resolved; does not mean that the imperialists would give them much in return.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: (With sarcasm) And the ‘Peace Treaty’ can wait, as far as Nikita Khrushchev is concerned; he has enough time to resolve this issue; and the measures taken at the Berlin Wall, according to them, showed their great power.
Comrade Ten Hsiao Pin: His view is completely different from the rest of the world, including the capitalist world. By doing so, the capitalist countries will create a picture of the USSR as weak. If he continues to make persistent concessions, Nikita Khrushchev will automatically and continuously be unmasked.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: We have similar views on the issue of disarmament, the cessation of nuclear weapons testing and Berlin. Although we know it is political blackmail, the proposal by Nikita Khrushchev for a non-aggressive pact between NATO countries and those of the Warsaw Pact has attracted our attention. And although it is only a political maneuver, the proposal by the Poles to the UN to ban those countries that now do not have nuclear weapons from holding them – in other words, to maintain the status quo and allow only those countries that already have – also attracted our attention.
We do not consider it right to propose a status quo on the issue of military bases, because it is well known that only the US has such bases in other countries. Are these proposals perhaps intended to cause imperialism to shift its focus to hitting another area, Asia? That’s why we brought up this issue. What are the aims of imperialism in Asia, where we know its main goal is the People’s Republic of China?
These thoughts have crossed our minds when we consider the concessions and proposals we see being made that soften imperialism in other areas but push it to shift its focus towards Asia. We ask this question only in order to be clear, because for us no matter where the attack against socialist countries takes place, the pain will continue to be the same. That is why we want to discuss this issue.
Comrade Ten Hsiao Pin: We agreed on the proposal to sign a non-aggression pact between NATO and Warsaw Pact countries, but that does not mean that it will ever happen. We have also proposed signing such a pact with Japan.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: But we consider this proposal along with the other issues I mentioned.
Comrade Ten Hsiao Pin: It is impossible for this non-aggression pact to ever be signed. We agree with Nikita Khrushchev on the issue of the non-aggression pact only for the fact that this proposal is a means of unmasking imperialism, when he responds that he disagrees.
I think neither the Soviets, nor the Americans, ever seriously considered that such a thing could ever be achieved. The Americans themselves say that if other issues can be resolved, this can also be resolved; in other words, they are setting conditions. It is also difficult to reach, is an agreement that nuclear weapons should not be given to others.
Comrade Hysni Kapo: We are convinced of that.
Comrade Ten Hsiao Pin: For example, France will not agree to such an agreement. It has begun testing nuclear weapons and is asking the US and the UK to provide it with new technologies for developing such weapons. The concessions that France makes to the United Kingdom, on the issue of inclusion in the Common Market (European Economic Community), are made with the aim of acquiring new technology for the development of nuclear weapons.
West Germany, too, requires technology for the development of these weapons. But even if they do not give West Germany this technology, it is capable of developing it itself. The English did the exact same thing; The Americans did not give them the technology, they developed it themselves. Of course there will be many states in the capitalist world that will possess atomic weapons, including West Germany; in fact, in addition to countries such as Sweden and Switzerland, Japan and Italy will own them as well.
Everyone is actively working to achieve such a thing. Small countries, such as Sweden and Switzerland, will of course not be able to fully achieve it, but they will have some success in selling it to others because they were born sellers with minority. In their world you cannot limit them to do such things.
And why shouldn’t something like this happen in our world? We are also actively working to achieve this. We told the Soviets a long time ago that on the issue of nuclear weapons we would not become part of the obligations they could impose on themselves. In the international peace organization we have stated that we will not respect the obligations that others will impose on themselves on this issue.
Comrade Van Tse Zian: We also stated there that if countries that already have nuclear weapons do not withdraw from their production, why should we take on such obligations? We are in favor of the complete liquidation of such weapons, but we will stop producing them, only if everyone ceases as well.
Comrade Ten Hsiao Pin: Now I would like to talk about the situation in Asia. In our opinion, the main focus of the US is now on Europe. This position of theirs has not changed and will not change; their main arrows are trained in the USSR. When we last spoke about this issue, we said: this is an objective issue and it will not change. The US-led missile bases are aimed mainly at the USSR, although some of them, of course, are aimed at our country.
We are a country that has no nuclear weapons, while the Soviet Union has them. If a war breaks out, the main danger to capitalist countries would be the Soviet Union, as long as China does not possess many nuclear weapons. This is what defines the US strategy. Of course, after the Soviet Union, the greatest danger to capitalist countries comes from China. The bases in the East are not all destined for us, but (are) also against the Soviet Union, while at the same time they are also against us (as). This is the general situation.
This does not mean that American imperialism will not increase its aggression and will not take various concrete measures against China. It can be said that the process of siege of the USSR by the US is completely over, while in Asia, in our opinion, work is still going on to achieve the same results. Such a system is not yet complete in Asia. /Memorie.al
The next issue follows