‘No one can remove us fo Mars... We live on one planet’ -- Krushchev

Coexistence only alternative

Following is the text of the
speech made at Bombay on
November 24 by Nikita Krush-

* chev, secretary of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union, at a

reception given by the Indo-
Soviet Cultural Relations Society.
= ...Sometimes, in beginning a
speech, you feel somewhat flus-
tered until you settle into the
right groove and get your speech
rolling along. It seems to me
that the groove most apposite
to this occasion would be the
subject
peoples.

of friendship between /|&®

There is friendship and friend- |;

ship. There is a friendship when
people see eye to eye, but there
is. also a “friendship” when
- people are neighbors, live next
to each‘ other but are never at
home to one another. It so hap-
pens with some nationals. There
is no friendship lost between them
but they live on the same planet
and, willy-nilly, have to make
the best of it.

It was such a life that our
great Lenin called coexistence
The thesis of coexistence is a
very important one. There are,
however, peoplg@ who ask: can
there be coexistence? It would
seem that this is unquestionable
for countries do in effect coexist.

I want to tell you this. The
birth of a child depends on the
father and the mother. But it does
not depend on them, when, on
what day and at what hour the
child is to appear and whether
it will be such as they would
like it. to be. How then can
anyone attempt to arrest the
march of history, to prevent the
emergence of new social systems ?
As the sun rises every morning
so the obsolescent social systems
are superseded by new, more pro-
gressive ones.

And that is how our Soviet
State was born. It was the
world’s first proletarian state,
a state of workers and peasants.
When it was born the other states
did not rush to ring the bells.

Since the old tsarist system
in Russia had rotted, the October
coup was almost bloodless. But
we were told afterwards—not
verbally, naturally without any
protocol, but by deeds: how is it
and on what grounds has the
Soviet state appeared ? By what
right have the workers . and
peasants assumed power ?

And they not only said it, but
threw their forces against the
young Soviet state. The French
invaders landed in Odessa, the
British in Arkhangelsk, the

Americans in Vladivostok, and |

the Japanese soorm followed them

What came of it is well
kknown. The invaders were
swept out by the Soviet people
‘as a good housewife sweeps out
her home. But this was not

forces of Hitlerite Germany.
What came of it is equally well
known. The Soviet Union again
routed its enemies. And far from
becoming weak in course of the
war, the USSR grew even more
powerful. The Soviet people have
‘already healed their wounds in-
 flicted by the war, rehabilitated
their economy, successfully
completed the first postwar
five-year plan. Our country is
‘making rapid progress and is

blossoming luxuriously. “

I remember the first days of
the October Revolution, the years
of the Civil War, when only

developments — how mighty the
newly-born Soviet state would
become.

The overwhelming majority of
those present here are intellec-
tuals. I should like to share with
you, in this connection, my recol-
lections of how Russian intel-
Iectuals met the revolution at
that time. Many of them wel-
comed it and began to serve
loyally the young Soviet state.

But others argued as follows:
what is going to happen? Lenin
and the Communists have rallied
the workers and peasants to ad-
minister the state. Illiterate
workers and still more illiterate
peasants have come to the helm!
What will become of Russian
culture? Who will be the con-
noisseur of Russian art ? It seems
that the famed Russian ballet,
which had a world-wide repu-
tation even before the revolu-
tion, will be no more! It seems
that the operatic art, which had
also attained a high level before
the revolution, will also disappear!
It seems that the other forms of
art, too, will not be supported !
There will be no true con-
noisseurs !

Life, however, has refuted these
doubts. Soviet culture stands at
a much higher level than the
culture of old Russia. Many of
you have been to the Soviet Union
in these years. You have seen
for yourselves that. art in the
Soviet Union is appreciated as
it had never been appreciated
before the revolution. The work-
ers and peasants have chosen
the best among them and sent
them to universities, to institutes,
and have themselves managed
to acquire culture at their
machine-tools. We are proud of
this. :

Whether our enemies like it
or not, the Soviet Union exists,
and not only exists but grows
and develops successfully. Our
economy is consolidating, our
culture is developing, the well-
pane of the people is increas-

g. ‘

And all this in spite of the fact
that we have to take iffto con-
sideration the existence of hostile
forces that have not yet aban-
doned their idea of strangling our
country. We have to spend con-
siderable sums on the country’s
defense. If we could use the
means spent on armament for

peaceful purposes only, the well-

Soviet Communist party secretary N. S. Krushchev addresses a luncheon given for. the
Soviet guests in the famous Indian city of Arga.

Lenin well foresaw the future{ being of our people would have

still further increased.

Our enemies are aware of this.
That is why some political leaders
abroad - are afraid to speak
seriously of disarmament now,
do not want to abolish tension in
international relations. They are
afraid that we shall be able to
release the means now spent on
defense and to channel them to
peaceful construction.

Despite all this, however, we
are convinced that in present
conditions, too, in the peaceful
competition between the
capitalist and the socialist sys-
tems the victory will be on our

‘side on the side of socialism.

I once said this publicly at a
reception in the Kremlin. The
bourgeois correspondent then
hastened to inform the whole
world that Khrushchev had ”let
the cat out of the bag,” that Bol-
sheviks had not abandoned their
political plans. No, it was not a
slip of the tongue and I did not
let’ the cat out of the bag, I said
what I think and of what we
are convinced. We never aban-
don and will not abandon our
political line charted for us by

‘Lenin; we did not abandon and

will not abandon our political
program.
As our popular saying goes
“Let well alone.” ee
Why then should we renounce
that which has raised our country

from age-old backwardness to

the level of the most advanced
countries, industrially and eco-
nomically ! Why renounce it ? In
the name of what ?

This is why we tell the
gentlemen who are awaiting to
see whether the Soviet Union will
change its political program: wait
for the pigs to fly! And you
know when pigs fly.

Thus, there is only one alter-
native — coexistence. Coexis-
tence of the two systems. Co-
existence of the socialist and
the capitalist systems.

I personally dislike the eapital-
ist system very much. I speak of
coexistence not because I want
capitalism to exist, but because
I cannot but fail to admit that
this system does exist.

The other side, however, can-
not reconcile itself with the exis-
tence of the socialist system, al-
though not only we have built
a socialist state, but this road
has been taken by many other

| states as well. Socialism is being

a

built by our great friend — the
great Chinese people — a state
which, so to say, cannot be passed
by unnoticed. Socialism is being
built by a number of nations in
Europe and Asia, which are com-
ing out together with the Soviet
Union. 4

Prime Minister Nehru said that
India would also advance along
the road to socialism. This is
good. Of course, our understan-
ding of socialism differs. But we
welcome such a statement and
such a line.

Thus, the socialist system exists
without asking anyone’s permis-
sion. We not only exist, but we
are able to defend our existence
worthily.

If we only asked for coexis-
tence, we would have been des-
troyed long ago. “ee

No matter how much our
enemies want our ruin, it is
beyond their power.

Therefore, no matter whether
they want it or not, whether
they like it or not, the socialist
and the capitalist states have
to live side by side on one
planet. :

If you do not like us, we tell
the capitalist states, do not play
host to us, we will do without it.

So, this is how the situation
‘has developed in the modern
world.

We are for a coexistence which
would promote the normal
development of mutual contacts
between all states; we specifically,
are for trade between all coun.
tries. Let them buy from us,
and we will buy from them.

Today they are trying to carry
on trade discrimination against
us and do not want to exchange
a number of important export
items. Nevertheless our country
is growing and developing and I
will let you in on a secret. Their
discrimination has made us. ex-
ert efforts in order to produce
those goods which the capitalists
do not wish to sell us. We manu-
facture them ourselves now and
are steadily going ahead. Thus,
the trade discrimination policy
has not injured us, but, on the
contrary, it has helped us some.

We are for broad cultural ties
between states. We want more
people to come to our country
from the capitalist states and
more of our people to travel
there.

We

were accused of having

created some sort of an “iron
curtain”. But this year alone
the Soviet Union played host to
many American senators, no lit-
tle number of American scien-
tists, pressmen, as well as Amerl-
can and British farmers, and
American war veterans.

We do not refuse visas to those _
who wish to visit our country.

You probably know the biblical
legend about Noah’s Ark. When
Noah chose the animals for his
ark, he took seven pairs of cewery
clean beast and two pairs of |
every beast that was not clean. ‘
So that I can tell you that it 1s
more of the unclean that came
to us, but we received all of them
without fear.

We thought that if one of the
unclean comes, he would not soil
hy ee
This shows that if the in-
ternational cultural intercourse
does not develop at, the desired
pace, we are not to be blamed
for it. ;

Such are some aspects of
peaceful coexistence. I think that
if a classical example of co-
existence is needed, it can be
furnished by our relations with
India. We not only coexist, but
we are friends, despite the dif-
ference in our political outlooks
on a number of questions. This
friendship is based on our com
mon struggle for peace. This 1
why we must not relax our efforts
‘in this direction. Let us continue —
to smash everything that stands
in the way of peaceful coex!S-
tence. Let us strengthen every-
thing that helps to promote
peaceful coexistence among the
states. ) :

Very insignificant, I would say
even microscopic, progress has
been made in this direction a5
a result of the Geneva meetings:
The Four-Power Foreign Minis-
ters’ conference has recently
concluded. It did not yield the
results which could have bee?
expected. But we are not very
disappointed. Evidently the time
has not come yet. The question —
is not ripe enough to be solved.
And our partners have not given
up the idea of negotiating with
us from the so-called “positions
of strength.” ~

I must make a frank warn-

ing again. Anyone who tries

to talk with us from “positions
of strength” will attain nothins-
_ On the whole it seems that

for the time being the decisio?

of the questions brought up i”
Geneva has to be postponed. Well,
we can wait, we are not in 4
hurry. Let us wait for a better
climate. Let us wait for.a time
when these questions. will be
solved in the interests of the
people. He

Since I have been in India, !
have read statements by a num-
ber of statesmen who gave theit
appraisal of the Geneva com-
ference’s results. I am ple
that the statements by the Genev#
conference participants “wer —
constrained. This shows that they, —
obviously, do not want to give
play to their feelings, ww.
would only strain the inter
national situation.

I am concluding my speech.
Coexistence must prevail. We 4°
not ask for or demand it —
we really exist, just as
capitalist states exist. No one
can remove us to Mars—the
scientists have not yet invented
means for this. The capl
countries too, obviously, do 1°
want to move there. This means

the

that we will have to live on OD&

planet. And to live means to ©”
exist. ;

“In such conditions, it is oUt
task -to prevent the aggressive
from unleashing a new war

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — DIRCRVITEN se lam” — PAGE

put A ,