There are three notable consequences of China`s concept of peaceful coexistence. First, unlike Soviet concepts of the mid-1970s, Chinese concepts involve the promotion of global free trade. Secondly, the Chinese concept of peaceful coexistence attaches great importance to national sovereignty and territorial integrity, and therefore the measures taken by the United States to promote its interests within this framework are considered hostile. Since the PRC does not consider Taiwan sovereign, the concept of peaceful coexistence does not extend to Taiwan, and the efforts of other nations, especially the United States, to participate in prC-Taiwan relations are seen as hostile actions within this framework. The fact is (and this is the one that has been painfully imprinted on us over the past four decades) that there are more possibilities than direct military aggression or formal political intervention by which the fate of small peoples can be subject to the will of the larger ones, and more means than those of classical colonialism of the nineteenth century, can be maintained in this state by the peoples. After all, there is a science of insurrection – the science of the seizure of power by conspiratorial minorities, the conquest of vital centers of power, the control of streets, the manipulation of civil wars. Who would deny that this science had a very fundamental part and part of communist thought and formation of a previous day? Revolutions cannot be “made on command,” but the fact that they usually arise only from the spontaneous impulses of the masses and are never influenced by the organizational and military activities of the political “vanguards” is something that would hardly be compatible with the communist doctrine of an earlier day, and something that we certainly cannot demand in the light of historical evidence. to accept. More recently, beyond its use in communist phraseology, the term has become more relevant and has been adopted by the wider diplomatic world. In his Christmas address in 2004, Pope John Paul II called for “peaceful coexistence” in the Middle East.
[5] Another part of the claim made by the communist side in the name of peaceful coexistence refers to what Lord. Khrushchev called for an “increase in extensive and absolutely unrestricted international trade.” Ideological differences, it is argued, should not be an obstacle to the development of trade. Without such trade, international life cannot be expected to develop normally. Mr Khrushchev is right to regard the arms race of the time as incompatible with any satisfactory form of coexistence. But the prospects for an improvement in this situation will not be promising as long as Moscow insists on considering the military policy pursued within the Western coalition in recent years exclusively as the product of the lust of Western financiers and manufacturers thirsty for greater profits after another war, and refuses to acknowledge that this policy, As misunderstood or exaggerated as they may be, they are to a large extent the natural and predictable reactions of the great peoples to a situation to which Moscow itself has contributed greatly. The thesis that the political power in power in the Soviet Union has always been on the side of coexistence as defined by Mr Khrushchev also calls us to forget the long and sinister history of relations between Moscow and foreign communist parties in the Stalinist era. There are many documents that show for what purposes foreign communist parties were used during these years, by whom and by what methods. Many of us in the West want to ignore these memories when it comes to the political discussion of the present. But it is quite another to insult one`s own intelligence; and if the people of Moscow want this unfortunate history to be forgotten outside Russia, they must not upset the facts of history and demand that the resulting configuration be accepted as proof of the inevitable commitment of Russian communism to the principles of coexistence.
In the public debate that marked the progress of the so-called Cold War, no term has been used more vaguely and sometimes unscrupulously than the word “coexistence.” In the article under his name, published in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Khrushchev gave us an interesting definition of what he means by this term. Peaceful coexistence, he says, essentially means rejecting war as a means of resolving controversial issues. It presupposes the obligation to refrain from any form of violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of another State. This implies the renunciation of interference in the internal affairs of other countries. This means that political and economic relations must be placed on the basis of full equality and mutual benefit. It is, he says, the elimination of the danger of war itself. This is something that should “evolve towards peaceful competition to best satisfy human needs.” As Marxists, we have affirmed that peaceful coexistence among nations does not include coexistence between the exploiters and the exploited, between the oppressors and the oppressed. In the communist discussion on coexistence, there is a lot of talk about the military disposition of Western countries, especially the United States. The U.S.
government is accused of maintaining bases in various parts of the world; because they are not prepared to accept the complete abolition and renunciation of nuclear weapons and the definitive prohibition of nuclear tests; for non-compliance with unilateral measures to reduce conventional weapons that the Soviet government claims to take (without very sufficient evidence); for the rearmament of the Germans within the framework of NATO, etc. All these facets of the U.S. government`s behavior are cited as incompatible with a genuine desire to adhere to the principle of peaceful coexistence. Recent international developments, coupled with the growing recognition of the terrible consequences of nuclear and hydrogen war, have penetrated the term “peaceful coexistence” into almost every discussion of the relationship between the free world and the communist world. A long series of Soviet overtures led Western governments to revise their assessments of communist intentions and to review their own foreign policy positions. At the same time, the West is pursuing its plans for swift ratification of the London and Paris agreements on European security, while the Kremlin continues to warn against German rearmament. Each side remains vigilant, but each hopes to find ways to avoid general war and, ultimately, shape the world according to its own conception. It is not only the fact of this situation that is important for Western peoples; the question also arises as to how it was created and how it is maintained. The truth is that it did not appear because the majority of people in the affected region were convinced that communism, like the Lord…