President Gonzalo on Peace Talks

Rubyg580 at aol.com Rubyg580 at aol.com
Sun May 12 11:12:25 MDT 1996


In a recent post, Chris has raised questions about whether there
are any conditions under which the PCP would negotiate with the
old state power.  This is the passage from the "Interview with
Chairman Gonzalo" (El Diario, 1988) where he answers the question
about conditions for peace talks:
-----------------------------------------
E.D.: Chairman, would you accept talks with Alan García Pérez?
(President of Peru in 1988)

Pres. Gonzalo: The idea of talks is being bandied about, and it is
also part of the superpowers' game, especially the social-imperialists.
We see the situation this way: there is a time in the development
of a people's war when relations and diplomatic dealings become
necessary and do occur.  For example, the meeting between Chairman
Mao and Chiang Kai-shek.  This is something people are familiar with.
We also saw it in the case of Vietnam.  It is a facet in the development
of a revolutionary war and, even more so, of a people's war.

But we must start from the understanding that in diplomatic meetings
agreements signed at the table only reflect what has already been
established on the battlefield, because no one is going to give up what
they have not obviously lost. That is understood.  Well, one could ask,
has that moment arrived in Peru?  That moment has not arrived.  So
why raise the issue of talks?  Such talks are simply aimed at halting
or undermining the people's war, that's what they are aimed at and
nothing more.  So I repeat, the truth is that the time for meetings and
diplomatic dealings has not arrived, it makes no sense.

As for the rest, I think it is a demogogic matter that they have been
stirring up since the time of Belaúnde's government, when due to a
proposal from someone from the United Left that was accepted, the
then-president stated that there was no suitable interlocutor.  Words!
At bottom it was nothing but cheap demogoguery without rhyme or
reason, and it's still the same today.

And who talks about talks?  The revisionists, the opportunists, and
those who have hope for APRA, for this demo-bourgeois order, for
this reactionary order.  They are the ones.  But are they not at the
same time the ones who are promoting pacification, our destruction?
Are they not the same ones who make proposals about how to pacify
better, which means how to sweep us away, because such are their
sinister dreams to satisfy their appetites?  They are the same ones.
What a coincidence!  So then, these talks are a sinister betrayal.
Furthermore, one could ask: how can they talk about dialogue, those
who even made an amnesty pact with García Pérez, which he never
honored?

So for me all this jabbering about talks is nothing, I repeat, but looking
for a way to undermine the people's war, because it doesn't correspond
to reality.  When the time comes, the people's war will necessarity
have to undertake diplomatic dealings.  But our diplomacy will be
aimed at seizing Power countrywide, fully and completely.  We don't
want a North Vietnam and a South Vietnam, we don't want a North
Korea and a South Korea.  We don't want a North Peru and a South
Peru, we want only one Peru.

This is our condition: full, complete and absolute surrender.  Are they
ready for that?  No.  What they are plotting is our destruction, and so
talks are nothing but a part of that same plan despite all their demagogic
and philistine cackling.
----------------------------------------------------
So you see, Chris, the aim of negotiations that may be associated with
a People's War is the complete and full surrender of the old state, not
sharing power with that old state.  Until the old state has been completely
defeated on the battlefield, there is no basis to hold peace talks with
representatives of that old state.

Gina/ Detroit


     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list