Analysis, World

Multipolarity in capitalism? A lie, but a very useful one!

Leave a comment

We’ll start by ditching the anachronistic “Victorian Marxists’” theory of development of human history (which tended to map the pattern of historical development of Europe onto the whole world) in favor of the modern Marxist World-System theory.

Therefore, the modern World-System is a capitalist World-System, the roots of which go back to the beginnings of the 16th century. Previous – pre-capitalist – systems were only regional. The more advanced among them are called “tributary” (Amin), which refers to the systems of 300 BC – 1500 CE. What they have in common is that they extracted the surplus through peasant activities through transparent mechanisms in connection with the organization of the power hierarchy, which was reproduced (and legitimized) strictly by the dominance of ideology (state religion). Therefore, there the government was the source of wealth, while in capitalism the opposite is the rule.

The general capitalist market provides a framework in which economic laws (competition) act as forces independent of subjective will. No pre-modern society was based on such principles. Those did contain elements of proto-capitalism, but they succumbed to the prevailing tributary logic. Within and among them exchanges of every kind were intense and served as a means of significant redistribution of surpluses. However, the eventual “centralization” of the surplus was essentially linked to the centralization of political power, and this never crossed local, state or regional borders (except in two shorter periods: the Macedonian and Roman expansions, neither of which gave rise to mechanisms of continuous reproduction).

On the other hand, they gradually crystallized the preliminary elements of the capitalist mode of production; affirmation of modern forms of private property, protection of these forms by law and significant expansion of wage labor (in agriculture and crafts).

So, as shown in the illustration, multipolarity was inherent to pre-capitalist relations of production. The disruption of multipolarity was conceived by the colonization of the Americas and the slave trade, which greatly accelerated the expansion of the proto-capitalist elements mentioned above. Mercantile society, with the accelerated development of production forces, over time imposed the “factory” as the main form of production, a system based on the minimization of production costs in order to maximize profits, giving priority to the endless accumulation of capital (Wallerstein) and non-interfering forms of government.

The vertical expropriation of the surplus (which transformed the aristocracy-peasant polarization into the bourgeoisie-proletariat) gradually lost its primacy over the horizontal one (which, by universalizing the law of value, established the center-periphery antinomy) due to the need to extend the reach of the system to ensure a reduction in costs, thereby peripheral regions historically developed as complementary to the central ones. Capital’s search for unpaid costs and the organized allocation of elements of the production process according to the cheapest labor force are the basic elements of the global transfer of value (Heinrichs), and without global transfers of surplus there can be no world capitalism (Frank).

Therefore, we can define the capitalist world-system as a hierarchy of the center-periphery complexes through which the surplus is drawn from the periphery to the center, which makes it not homogenizing but polarizing (Cleland). Accordingly, imperialism is not a phase of capitalism (nor its highest stage), but capitalism was imperialistic and inherently polarizing from its inception. So, can capitalism be multipolar? If we allude to a more permanent version of multipolarity, the answer is definitely negative. Multipolarity within capitalism is possible only temporarily, during the process of restructuring the world economy, until the new division of cards is completed (the First and Second World Wars are the most recent examples).

Imagine the situation where we had several capitalist centers that simultaneously extracted value from the periphery – they would need at least one more planet. In reality, in order to form a new – parallel – center (like the East-West bipolarity in the 20th century), it is absolutely necessary that the other pole exists outside the capitalist world-system, that is, in socialism. Precisely such conclusions are imposed on Russia today, which, due to the necessity of economic efficiency under sanctions and military pressure of imperialism, has no alternative to the application of at least some socialist policies and a more internationalist approach to international relations than it practiced in previous decades.

However, as our perspective is always the perspective of the most oppressed social strata, whether in a national (proletariat) or world framework (Global South), every struggle for restructuring the World-System is our chance for further revolutionary advances. The struggle for the establishment of new capitalist metropolises also requires political means to disrupt that complementarity, which meant submission to the hegemonic capitalist power (Aglietta). The Bolshevik revolution, national liberation and unification of the Southern Slavs, the rise of anti-colonial struggles, etc. are just some of the examples of using these contradictions, and there is no doubt that for now West Africa and the progressive countries of Latin America use the given advantage most effectively.

Missing a chance for an alliance with a block of countries challenging the global hierarchy would mean remaining stuck in the current – complementary – role in each of the combinations of the future world order.

 

Abdelraheem Kheirawi

 

Analysis

Westernization is not modernization!

Leave a comment

If on social media, you have often had the opportunity of seeing photos comparing fashion trends in various Islamic countries dating from the period of secularization, with today’s period of Islamization. This is usually accompanied by a comment, as: “Such and such country in 1966 versus the same country in 2016”, below which you find a merry woman in a miniskirt, opposite a woman with a hijab, sad or angry, perhaps chanting slogans amidst some sort of anti-Western protests. The idea, of course, is to lure the liberal minded folks into supporting military actions against these “barbarians” till the skirts are done justice.

Isolated from anti-imperialist practice, or more importantly, the suffering that imperialism causes, left liberals do not possess the mechanism of class analysis to explain the social dynamics at the periphery, outside the framework of “liberal mind”. Thus, according to them, it is about reactionary forms of exploitation of women, by no means about resistance to cultural imperialism, about restraining emancipation, by no means about abandoning passivity. The Third world is waking up and, what hurts the liberal left the most, it recognizes that the so-called superiority of Western civilization and its values is based on constructed lies and myths; and that the contradictory nature of European self-understanding is completely cut off from their practice. And yet, it is obvious they never bother to ask themselves how many people in the world see five centuries of European hegemony as continuous ordeal.

Simply put – no one desires to be a cut-haired Indian in a suit and tie anymore, to whom racial and class divisions will be sold as progress, and land, resources and culture taken away at will. Or as the great Frantz Fanon said: “The colonized is elevated above his jungle status in proportion to his adoption of the mother country’s cultural standards. In the colonial context, the breakdown of the natives is complete only when they, clearly and loudly, recognize the superiority of Western values.”1

Under the influence of First-Worldist Marxism, for a long time there was a misconception among the Communists of the periphery that in the ideological sense only the Western right, and in the class sense only the Western bourgeoisie, promoted cultural racism; as if the Indians and other indigenous peoples were exterminated, displaced, stripped of their land and had their culture destroyed only by the bourgeoisie, and not by all classes of Western European settlers, and as if today the Western left does not lead the way in asserting cultural superiority as a means to “modernize” Islamic countries. Today, not only the communists but also many peoples of the world’s periphery get to see more and more clearly the origins of such ideas, but also the basis of cultural racism – that westernization is subsumed under modernization.

This subterfuge would remain largely misty had contemporary China and the DPRK not provided the indisputable proof that modernization and Westernization are not the same; that their combination inevitably leads to (neo)colonialism; that the transition from a traditional to a modern society not based on an endless accumulation of capital is possible; that it is equally effective while accepting the existence of different models of development, without the need to impose one’s own particularity as a supposedly universal value; that it can be carried out with the coexistence of man and nature, nurturing spiritual civilization, without huge class differences and destruction of the environment. It is, in fact, one of the basic engines of Western aggressiveness and hysteria when trying to discredit the Chinese model of development, since it is inconceivable to a person whose consciousness is deeply embedded with the idea of Western exceptionalism that he is actually not needed (nor desired) as a participant in that process.

A speech by the great Malcolm X comes to mind, where he says: “Until recently, all the power was concentrated in Europe. In London and Paris, Brussels and Washington, etc. Now the power bases are changing. As these power bases increase, in Europe they shrink. And that’s what causes trouble. The white man is worried. He knows he didn’t do right when all the power was in his hands, and if the power base changes, those who get it might know how to actually do the right.”2

Moreover, the westernization of traditional societies is directly in the service of integration into the global liberal economic structure and the global division of labor, and as such brings the peripheral peoples nothing but economic dependence, and only modernizes the West, providing it with an additional economic basis for the further development of its own technologies and economic dominance. Global polarization and the insurmountable gap between the First and Third World are the result of such a model of Westernization posing as “modernization”. It is harmful and “arrests”, even “paralyzes” the development of the productive forces of the colonized or economically dependent people.3

***

The photo below was taken in 1874 during the Government of Canada’s program of forcibly removing children from Native American parents, after which they would be placed in “residential schools” to, as they called it, “kill the Indian in them. “This program was implemented for more than a century and continued until the second half of the 20th century. It is estimated that at least 150,000 Metis and Inuit children went through this education system, which was compulsory for Native Americans and funded by the Department of Indian Affairs and Development of the North.

The aim of the program was to separate the children from the influence of their families, culture and language, and assimilate them through a very early European education. At least 6,000 children died after being forcibly separated from their parents, and many children were exposed to sexual abuse and forced sterilization during the early 20th century, due to the eugenics notion that members of inferior races should be prohibited from reproducing.

The context is the same, only the form is different. Today, the “liberal mind” is a tool for killing both the traditional “savages” in Serbians and among Islamic nations. True modernization lies elsewhere, and now we know where.

Photo: Library and Archives Canada

 

Abdelraheem Kheirawi

  1. https://princip.info/2017/01/26/franc-fanon-o-nasilju/  ↩

  2. https://princip.info/2017/09/05/malkolm-x-novi-odnos-snaga/  ↩

  3. https://princip.info/2017/08/28/amilkar-kabral-oruzje-teorije/  ↩

Analysis

Third-Worldist position on police violence

Leave a comment

Here we’ll talk about the attitude towards police violence. Since many of you are wandering in search of a position to adopt, we are here to help from a Marxist perspective, which treats the world economy as singular, with its sectors (center, semi-periphery, periphery) just performing different functions.

Accordingly, at the start, we reject the First-Worldist approach that tends to universalize every issue, and so ideas like those that “all cops are bastards” (ACAB) and sadists or, contrary to them, that the police are “working class”, have no political significance to us.

The police is a repressive apparatus of the state (which is an institutionalized form of class and identity relations), so it is clear that it cannot be viewed in isolation from it. It follows that the attitude towards a given state also determines the attitude towards its police.

Therefore, position of the state in the world-system also shapes the primary function of its police. The higher the state is positioned in the hierarchy of the world capitalist economy, the more it is able to invest in its own society and thereby ensure social peace, so police repression is less pronounced (in some of them the police are not even armed). Such an internal organization is more often defended from the outside, so the role of repression is taken over by the army (or military alliances), which, by engaging abroad, ensures an unhindered flow of profits to the states of the center (you’ve all heard of the name “world policemen”); and by the border police that seek to prevent labor mobility.

Those states of the center with a relatively high rate of immigration deviate from this pattern; and so do those built on settler colonialism (e.g. USA, Israel, Australia, South Africa, etc.) where the repressive apparatus was in the service of maintaining the colonial order, and where the internally colonized were subsequently integrated into society as the most oppressed class (with the exception of Canada, in which case the natives are reduced to a statistical error).

On the other hand, the lower the country is positioned in the world-system hierarchy, the more pronounced the police brutality. In the peripheral states, the comprador bourgeoisie perform management and supervisory functions in the process of exploitation of their own lands and the transfer of value to the states of the center. In addition to the police (in the fight against social unrest or high crime rates), they often rely on the army, which suppresses regional rebellions or simply establishes military dictatorships when the civil authorities prove to be insufficiently stable.

Before we address the capitalist semi-periphery (of which we ourselves are a part), let’s also mention the states of real-socialism, where state repression is mainly aimed at reactionary forces that advocate the restoration of capitalism, separatism, etc. The image of a Chinese policeman wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt (illustration) standing with his colleagues for the decolonization of Hong Kong and carrying out violence against pro-imperialist protesters is still remembered by many.

To address the attitude towards the police of semi-peripheral countries, one should note that those states could be progressive or reactionary, which primarily depends upon their attitude towards our principal contradiction – Imperialism. It does not take much wisdom to conclude that the police of Venezuela and Haiti do not play the same political role.

Finally, let’s also mention Serbia, which in post-socialism, due to its various specificities, has not yet been brought to a stable course, so it contains a lot of – some progressive, some reactionary – political expressions. In this case, when police violence is directed against communists, anarchists, labor strikes, forced evictions, etc. it is, of course, reactionary; yet when it is directed against fascists, the so-called “alt-right” and pro-Western liberals it is quite tolerable.

Here we could also follow up on the current issue of mandatory military service. Unlike liberals (who are anti) and conservatives (who are pro), we will by no means isolate that question from the question of imperialism. Therefore, as long as Serbia is militarily (but also politically) neutral, and is not formally part of the imperialist alliances (EU/NATO) that carry out structural and military violence against oppressed nations, we consider mandatory military service positive and useful. If at some point it joined those alliances, our position would change. Accordingly, we believe that comrades in Croatia or Macedonia should oppose such tendencies, while in Serbia they should support them.

Abdelraheem Kheirawi

Analysis

Two anti-totalitarianisms: imperial and anti-imperial!

Leave a comment

“The concept of totalitarianism is itself a false concept, invented in the contemporary era for the purpose of confining social analysis and critique within the horizon of so-called liberal, democratic, and insurmountable (the “end of history”) capitalism.” – Samir Amin

***

In the early 2000s, with the expansion of the European Union (EU) over the countries of the former Eastern Bloc, the narrative of “two totalitarianisms” spread throughout Europe. Jean-Pierre Faye’s book with his Horseshoe Theory seems to be most responsible for popularizing this narrative. According to this theory, the political spectrum is presented not as a linear continuum with the radical left or communism at one end and the extreme right or fascism at the other, but as a horseshoe where these two extremes, “two totalitarianisms” meet as two sides of the same totalitarian tendencies. Thus, a completely different conceptualization of the political sphere is realized, according to which on one side there is a (neo)liberal center with a certain, limited space for maneuver (left or right) and on the other side totalitarianism with its two faces – fascism and communism.

This way, totalitarianism as an antithesis to liberalism becomes the defining term of 20th century politics because the brutal demonization of so-called totalitarian systems indirectly generates unconditional support for neo-liberalism. We encounter symptoms of this tectonic shift in political thinking in every corner of public life. When support for Hillary Clinton, as the embodiment of American imperialism and right-wing neoliberal politics, is presented as a moral imperative in the fight against the fascist evil of Donald Trump, behind such a statement hides a view of politics based on the opposition between liberalism and totalitarianism. The same setup is used when it is necessary to justify American aggressions in the Third World. When a more aggressive policy towards left-wing governments in Venezuela, Cuba or North Korea is advocated, it is justified by the fight against totalitarianism, and leftists and right-wingers both in the West and in countries that are targeted by imperialism fall into this given matrix.

The anti-totalitarianism of Western liberals, leftists and conservatives is the basis of their anti-Russian and anti-Chinese hysteria. In other words, wherever Western-style liberalism isn’t established, the anti-totalitarian card is drawn, which then consolidates the entire political spectrum in the fight against what is labeled as totalitarian. The horseshoe theory is so deeply embedded in the matrix of political opinion in the West that it is enough to label the target of Western aggression and hysteria in the media as totalitarian, and the leftists and the rightists start competing in demonization of that totalitarian threat. Leftist media outlets in the West such as The Guardian or DemocracyNow are more likely to broadcast articles criticizing North Korea or China than many conservative media outlets. Thus, in the countries of the imperial core, the term “totalitarianism” and the associated Horseshoe Theory represent the key point and mobilization password that gathers all imperialist forces and directs them towards the external enemy. At the same time, totalitarianism functions as the main justification of the liberal order of the countries of the imperial core against which they are positioned as the “lesser evil”.

The power of anti-totalitarian ideology also lies in the fact that it gathers auto-colonial forces in peripheral or semi-periphery countries. Russia and China are probably the main targets of this ideology. The Russian opposition uses the epithet tyrant or totalitarian ruler to describe Vladimir Putin on a daily basis. Without going into whether such a description is adequate, what is crucial is that the term itself acts as a certain kind of moral blackmail that leaves the interlocutor without arguments. Any attempt to oppose such an appellation automatically leads to defeat because anyone who opposes this characterization is immediately described as a fascist or a totalitarian. The power of this rhetorical strategy is very well known to people in Serbia, where many politicians and intellectuals who opposed the Western policy towards Yugoslavia at the end of the 90s were automatically described as fascists, even if they self-declared as leftists. Being a leftist and opposing the Western imperial policy towards the FRY had them labeled as “National Socialist” or Nazi due to the supposed fusion of nationalism and socialism. Politically illiterate collaborators of imperialism who carried out their political activities on the ground to the greatest extent through cooperation with open and direct Nazis and fascists who were ready to confront the police, routinely labeled leftists who opposed imperialist aggression on the FRY and open interference in its political processes as the “Nazis”.

Currently, a very similar dynamic is developing in China, primarily on the topic of the so-called persecution of the Uyghurs or the Muslim population of central and southwestern China. The element of ethnic intolerance that is thus added to China, which has already been labeled totalitarian, completes the image of this society as proof that communism and Nazism are ultimately one and the same, and all of this gives justification to the Western power centers to implement as aggressive a policy as possible towards China.

For any even remotely objective witness of the history of geopolitical events from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the present day, it is quite clear that the anti-totalitarian narrative played unmistakably into the hands of Western politics throughout this period. From the overthrow of Milosevic and the aggression against Iraq, over the attack on a series of left-wing governments in Latin America, to the offensive against China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, the fight against totalitarianism was a war cry that rallied conservatives, liberals and pro-imperialist leftists behind NATO interventions. However, the mere fact that this narrative served the benefit of the US and NATO does not constitute direct evidence that it is an ideological subterfuge. “What if the US was really led through all these processes by a sincere struggle against total state power?” could be asked by those who advocate imperial policy. In order to prove that the US is really committed to the fight against totalitarianism, it is first necessary to demonstrate that it actually implements an anti-totalitarian and liberal policy on the internal and external level. However, the facts show that the internal policy of the US more often corresponds to the description of a totalitarian state than many regimes that it accuses of totalitarianism, as well as that the regimes installed in countries that undergo Western interventions fulfill the anti-totalitarian criteria of the West exclusively through the accommodation of their economic interests, so as such do not pose a threat to the hierarchical division of the world economy.

We would not have to go beyond the fact that the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel are European settler colonies that were initially established by totalitarian methods of enslavement, often genocide of the indigenous population. However, as this fact is lightly passed over, because through the perspective of Eurocentric history and the international legal order, each of the mentioned occupations is legalized, critics are expected to ignore the past and devote themselves exclusively to the present image of the mentioned societies, and even separately from the rest of material reality and current world conditions. Thus, it is often overlooked that liberal and anti-totalitarian policies in the countries of the core of the world system are made possible by both historical and contemporary political circumstances, which are the direct consequences of totalitarian, i.e. colonial and neo-colonial policies and the absence of economic hardships due to the hierarchical structure in the world economy.

American political philosopher Sheldon Wolin, who identifies as a consistent liberal democrat (so, not a communist or an anarchist), exposes the totalitarian nature of American corporate capitalism. Wolin coined the term “inverse totalitarianism” to characterize the US political regime. According to his diagnosis, that political system has all the practical and essential characteristics of totalitarianism, although it retains the formal framework of democracy. Unlike classical totalitarianism, which is reflected in the absolute power of an individual who rules thanks to his charisma and ability to manipulate the masses, inverse totalitarianism ensures the total power of corporate networks and the complete powerlessness of the individual to influence the decisions of the government, even though there is a formal possibility of political organizing. Wolin observes that the US does not meet any of the criteria of the liberal system on which it formally rests. The murders of African-Americans by the police are only the most recent manifestation of the police state, which in poor neighborhoods has long been acting as an occupying force and not as an organ of law and order. Related to this is the highest percentage of prisoners per capita in the world. The US has 5 times more prisoners per capita than China. Of course, the vast majority of prisoners belong to colonized populations, so there is definitely an ethnic and racial dimension in American totalitarianism.

The revelations of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning show that this totalitarian government possesses such an apparatus of internal espionage that would pose an envy to widely denounced and demonized regimes such as the one in East Germany with its famous secret police. Furthermore, it has long been shown that the US Government does not adhere to its Constitution when it comes to the rights of prisoners and the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. There are many political prisoners in Guantánamo prison who have been denied almost all human rights without ever being charged. There is also concrete and irrefutable evidence that the US authorities have carried out the murders of their own citizens, which is the grossest violation of the Constitution. Anwar al-Awlaki is perhaps the most famous example of an American citizen killed by a drone in the so-called War on terror. In the end, studies show that the policies of the American authorities do not have any correlation with the wishes and beliefs of almost two-thirds of the citizens of that country, while they are almost one hundred percent aligned with the wishes and political beliefs of the richest one percent. In other words, as Wolin explains, the US has all the elements of a totalitarian regime even though it retains a formally democratic framework.

Inverse totalitarianism is in a very certain way more dangerous than what they perceive as classical totalitarianism precisely because of the fact that in this form of government power is less concentrated. In the classic totalitarianism of the Nazi or fascist type, the leader holds all the power in his hands and his associates make only parts of the pyramid at the top of which he stands. In inverse totalitarianism, the president or head of state is essentially a puppet or chief manager of a corporation that has a slightly larger board of directors that includes the owners of major corporations from the military-industrial complex, the financial industry, the energy sector, the media, the pharmaceutical industry, etc. Because of this distribution of power, classical totalitarian systems often collapsed after the death of a dictator, or regimes fell after the leader was removed from office by a military coup, or sometimes even after defeat in an election. What makes totalitarian rule in the US particularly frightening for citizens who see its essence is the fact that it is impossible to imagine a scenario in which the corporate state could be reformed. On the other hand, Putin’s opposition in Russia, for example, has only one goal and that is to replace Putin, which makes its narrative much more powerful and dangerous.

Some apologists of imperialism may say that even such a form of government as the USA has is better than all other forms of government in the world. However, many of those regimes that the US and its allies call totalitarian have far fewer elements of totalitarianism than the US itself. Let’s just take the example of Bolivia, whose previous president, Evo Morales, was accused of being an autocrat and often a totalitarian leader, even though elections were regularly held during his entire reign, in which he convincingly won, and even though the media and financial power of the opposition was at least on par with his party, very likely even bigger. Morales himself was removed from the presidency with a huge effort by the US propaganda machine despite winning the election and replaced by a proven racist and Christian fundamentalist. Let’s also mention that the socialist regimes that the West considers totalitarian are organized on the principle of participatory democracy, which means that the share of working people in managing their own workplace or electing their local and central political representatives is far greater than is the case in parliamentary democracy, where  voters are only offered to choose once every five years which subgroup of the ruling class they will give free rein to arbitrarily lead state policy.

Finally, what the so-called critics of non-Western totalitarianisms are unable to do is broaden their horizons to a global perspective. In that case, it would become more than obvious that the very way of organizing the global economy – which is based on the transfer of value from impoverished to enriched countries, and which we call imperialism – was established and maintained by totalitarian methods (from monopoly on telecommunications and technology, through access to resources and global finance, to means of mass destruction). Such a perspective would very easily expose the totalitarian nature of precisely those countries that they represent as democratic, while even those that, at the expense of formal democracy, build a system potentially resistant to imperialist domination and exploitation, would be amnestied from the label of totalitarianism. Also, through such a perspective, the transfer of formal democracy of the Western model to oppressed, peripheral countries, and the restrictions it imposes in terms of pretensions to more independent development, would become an easily noticeable handicap.

We have seen so far how the anti-totalitarian narrative serves to justify imperialism around the world, regardless of the fact that the USA and other Western countries have far more characteristics of a totalitarian system than the numerous countries that they try to demonize with that label.

On the other hand, we have also seen that the very insistence on the notion of totalitarianism produces a very powerful line of criticism of the US policy. Since the West, as we have shown, has shaped its entire ideological narrative around the concept of totalitarianism, people who truly understand and consistently use this concept perceive the totalitarian essence of the West itself. So, if we return to the economy and class struggle and level the horseshoe again, we prove that one part of the spectrum (fascism) does not occupy the extreme position of this line, but the middle one – it is (economically speaking) not a digression but a necessary progression from liberalism, once liberalism becomes uncompetitive or is under pressure from other world (anti-imperialist) forces. Of course, it must not necessarily lead to a general consensus, so we can have, as we do in the US, a divided society into those who believe that the same economic goals of global domination can still be achieved with liberalism as with fascism, but at some point we could expect a two-party national strategy and the acceptance of fascism or liberalism as a national model, depending on world economic trends.

For our part, as Engels said (and we would have to apply it to the periphery and the internally colonized in settler colonies) the revolution (or, in this case, national/economic liberation) is the most authoritarian act there is, because it is about imposing the political will of the majority (in this case the world majority) over the minority. We, therefore, must not forget that development through stages is key to Marxist thought and, accordingly, we should not run away from authoritarianism, but accept it as one of the tools at our disposal, which (as history proves) give birth to more progressive social relations, more capable of giving birth to anti-authoritarian mechanisms. Also, it is important that we completely stop the practice of addressing imperialist and pro-imperialist critics, and start addressing our own peoples, status groups and classes with an interest in anti-systemic and anti-totalitarian action in the true sense of the meaning of the word.

Predrag Kovačević & Abdelraheem Kheirawi

Solidarity, Statements

Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP) sends solidarity to the Serbian people in the occupied Kosovo!

Leave a comment

The IRSP notes with increasing concern the confrontational behaviour of the NATO-backed authorities toward Serbians in the occupied Kosovo region of Serbia.

It is clear that NATO and its allies are intent on provoking conflict throughout the world where they feel that their control is being resisted.

After doing its utmost to break up Yugoslavia, committing heinous war crimes against the Serb people, followed by decades of demonisation against them, NATO will not relent until Serbia bows before them.

The IRSP stands in solidarity with the Serbian people, and call on NATO to put its rabid fundamentalists on a leash.

 

– Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP)

 

World

Conversation between Tito and Che Guevara

Leave a comment

On August the 18th, 1959, the President of the Republic, Josip Broz Tito, received the members of the Cuba Goodwill Mission with Ambassador Dr. Ernesto Guevara Serno at the helm. The reception was attended by State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Kocha Popovich, State Secretary for National Defense Affairs Ivan Goshniak, Secretary General of the President of the Republic Leo Mates, and adviser to the DSIP (Intelligence branch) Grgur Cvilichevich.

Comrade Tito:  I greet the comrades from Cuba and express joy that today our guests are representatives of a recently completed revolution, which is striving towards independence. I would like them to feel at home. If the comrades need to hear anything from me, I will be happy to answer.

Comrade Guevara: We came to Yugoslavia to witness your experiences and to learn from it in the best possible way. We came here only to greet you, not to discuss.

Comrade Tito: But, we are very interested in your struggle and experiences, especially your current experience.

Comrade Guevara: We thought that with our revolution we rediscovered America. However, if we had met a country like Yugoslavia earlier, we might have started our revolution even sooner. If we had the opportunity to study other people’s experiences, many things would be easier for us, the solutions of which we had to search for ourselves. Yugoslavia, of course, is not the only country we visited. We also visited other countries, for example Indonesia, where we found palm trees and the same color uniform.

Comrade Goshniak: At the reception in Belgrade, they particularly complained about the leaders of Burma, who did not wish to receive them at all.

Comrade Guevara: If this conversation will not be published in the press, I can tell you what happened to us in Burma, where we stayed for only two days. We informed the Burmese of our arrival by telegram from Cairo. When we arrived in Rangoon, we were received by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who told us that the Prime Minister was busy. We also visited the Minister of Trade and Agriculture to discuss trade and agrarian reform. In the capital of Burma, we had a discussion with the American attaché about our situation. I told him that we will go further in the implementation of the agrarian reform and the realization of our other plans, even though we are very much bothered by interference from the outside. It was a very nice conversation, even diplomatic if you will. However, after that, all lunches and visits that were scheduled in that country were cancelled. In connection with the supply of rice sugar, we were received only by some second-rate persons, and Burma did not accept this arrangement. We were very well received in Egypt and Indonesia. In India we were also well received, although a little quietly. We were well received in Pakistan as well. In Japan, you could say, we were not accepted at all. Because of the attitude of the Japanese, a trade agreement could not be reached. The chamber of commerce told us that Japan would be very happy to trade with Cuba, but that it is not in their power because there are also higher powers. We couldn’t even get a visa for Iraq. After Yugoslavia, we will visit Sudan, Ghana and Morocco.

Comrade Tito: It is the fate of all revolutions in small countries to have difficulties. Many are wary of them, some are against them, and very few support them. You will have a lot of trouble in your struggle. But when you have already thrown off the old regime, difficulties need not discourage you. It is more difficult to maintain power, but you will succeed if you are persistent. Of course, it is important not to make a major mistake now, and to proceed gradually, step by step, taking into account the international situation, internal possibilities and the balance of forces. Some things you will have to keep for better times. You need to stabilize now. In my opinion, it would be dangerous to rush into a full agrarian reform. It would be better to approach it gradually. The armed part of the revolution has been carried out in your country, the people expect something and you must implement a part of the agrarian reform. But you must also try not to allow yourself to be isolated abroad.

Comrade Guevara: What, in your opinion, would be a reasonable limit on the size of the property?

Comrade Tito: In implementing the agrarian reform, even we went gradually, although the situation was different in our country. I’m not sure what it’s like in yours. We first confiscated the land of traitors and war criminals, and then we gradually went on. I think that is the policy of your country as well. I am not familiar with the size of latifundias in Cuba, and so, it would be difficult to say how much they should be limited. It is certain that there are large, medium and small ones. Since there are mostly medium and small landowners, I would spare them for now and start with the largest ones.

Comrade Guevara: In Cuba, the agrarian reform is very mild, because ownership of 1,300 hectares of arable land is allowed. Nevertheless, the agrarian reform affects 99% of latifundistas, mainly five American companies, which have over half a million hectares of arable land.

Comrade Mates: Then it is no longer just an internal state problem, but also a problem of relations with the USA.

Comrade Tito: That is another matter. It should be announced in the form of a government declaration that these companies will not be confiscated without some compensation. By doing so, you would gain a lot in the world from a moral point of view.

Comrade Guevara: Actually, it is not a matter of confiscation but expropriation, for which compensation will be determined according to the amount of the tax return.

Comrade Tito: As Nasser did.

Comrade Guevara: The companies requested that the compensation for this land be paid immediately, and we proposed that it be done in 20 years, with 4.5% interest. We said that we can pay them immediately, if the war criminals from Cuba who are now in America are expropriated.

Comrade Cvilichevich: According to the constitution, it seems that they are obliged to pay immediately.

Comrade Guevara: The government has powers both under the constitution and from congress. We have changed the constitution and based on this change, we can undertake to pay the compensation within 20 years. Americans refer to the old constitution. We asked the Americans what the difference is between Cuba and Japan, where during the implementation of the agrarian reform it was adopted that the compensation be made within 20 years, with 2-3% interest.

Comrade Tito: The situation seems to be different here. Cuba is close to America and what happens there can affect other surrounding countries. In that part of the world, Cuba is becoming a role model, and the Americans are therefore afraid that there will be a disturbance in their neighborhood.

Comrade Guevara: Officially we cannot announce that difference.

Comrade Popovich: This is not about a statement, but about material interests.

Comrade Guevara: We know it well. The difference is that the Americans did not have land in Japan, but here they do. Regarding agrarian reform, there were differences of opinion between the communists in South America, us and our communists. We were only going to limit the latifundia for the time being, and not to implement a wider agrarian reform. However, we were forced to meet the peasants’ demands and to implement this kind of agrarian reform. We went further, although the communists and some people from our movement thought we should be careful.

Comrade Tito: Yes, that is a problem.

Comrade Cvilichevich: They complain that they are quite isolated in Latin America. There is no government, except in Venezuela, that helps them in a sense. The president himself in Venezuela, in their opinion, is an enemy of the revolution in Cuba. But the Venezuelan people are broadly anti-American and prevent the president from taking a negative stance toward them.

Comrade Guevara: Cuba is not just a little isolated. During the revolution in Guatemala, the major countries of Latin America – Argentina, Mexico and Brazil – were on the side of the progressive movement in Guatemala. Now these countries are not helping the revolution in Cuba, because they themselves are in a difficult situation. We are not isolated only from Venezuela, Ecuador and maybe Chile, but these countries are not as important in South America as the big countries.

Comrade Tito: You need to be more careful all the more.

Comrade Guevara: It could be said that the situation is such that we are amidst some preparations. The Americans are facing elections and at this moment they cannot do anything bigger against Cuba. Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, through which the Americans can carry out aggression, are themselves in a rather difficult situation because of the revolutionary movements within. Those revolutionary groups are still quite small, but judging by ourselves, we know what possibilities arise when the guerrilla warfare starts. Perhaps Khrushchev’s trip to the USA is the reason why the Americans are a little more lenient towards Cuba at the Pan American Conference in Santiago.

Comrade Tito: The USA is not lenient only towards Cuba, but the whole situation is as such.

Comrade Popovich: How do you view the United Nations?

Comrade Tito: It would be good to hear their opinion on what could be done for them in the United Nations, to probe the terrain in case of stronger pressure. How do they view it?

Comrade Guevara: We certainly have in mind to secure a better situation for ourselves with the help of the United Nations. The first step will be to expose the Organization of Pan American States, which is an instrument of the USA. If we don’t succeed, we think we should ask for help from the United Nations. We hope that in this organization we will receive the support of the Bandung group of states, from neutral countries, and even from the East. We do not believe that we would get help from South American countries, but these countries would not be able to oppose this support head-on.

Comrade Tito: Who is your representative in the United Nations?

Comrade Guevara: He is a representative of an old orthodox party. We need to replace him since he’s quite weak.

Comrade Popovich: Will you replace him?

Comrade Guevara: We will. It is necessary that we have a stronger person in the United Nations, who will be more active and enter into relations with the representatives of the countries that are fighting for their independence. When Fidel Castro received a decoration from the Algerians, he said that two things were important to him then: one – that he received a decoration from the Algerians, and the second – that on the same day “Time” magazine launched an attack on him.

Comrade Tito: “Time” is always the first to speak on behalf of the reaction.

Comrade Guevara: That magazine is widely read throughout world, even in Asia. Yugoslavia is the only country where we have not seen it.

Comrade Mates: They have editions in foreign languages as well.

Comrade Guevara: We have a text on agrarian reform in English. We brought it, but we don’t know who to give it to. We also have it in Spanish, but it is certainly easier for you to read it in English.

Comrade Mates: I will take it.

Comrade Tito: What is the situation with the armed forces in Cuba? Do they have modern weapons?

Comrade Guevara: We have light weapons of North American origin, launchers, bazookas, some mines and machine guns of Belgian origin. We have no anti-aircraft defenses, aviation, and even less airmen.

Comrade Mates: It is more difficult to be without pilots than without planes, because planes can be bought.

Comrade Guevara: The pilots mostly defected from Cuba, because almost all of them were with Batista’s regime. There are very few left.

Comrade Tito: It is very important that you have a solid army, morally and politically strengthened, so that in the event of a conflict it would not defect to the other side… The conditions for aggression against Cuba are not so easy, however, because it is an island.

Comrade Mates: But they have no naval defense.

Comrade Tito: An invasion is not that dangerous for them, because that would be a major aggression. Far more dangerous is an airborne landing, which can be carried out with several planes.

Comrade Guevara: The landing could only come from the USA. But we are not afraid of such actions, because we have unity in the country, especially among the peasants.

Comrade Tito: That is very important.

Comrade Guevara: Paratroopers who would land in Cuba do not know the terrain. They would not be able to go further than the landing place, because the peasants would attack them. They would have to turn against the peasants and thus be quickly disabled.

Comrade Camizares: It is a well-known US tactic to always rely on the armed forces in South American countries. However, Cuba has a solid army, which grew up in the revolution, and which is unique, like the people themselves. Events similar to those in Guatemala cannot occur in Cuba, because the army is on the side of the revolution.

Comrade Tito: That is why it is important to keep the peasantry on your side. In order to achieve this, you should go for the implementation of the agrarian reform, because it is the basic driving force for the consolidation and further development of the revolution. We wish you to overcome all the difficulties you have with great success. Our people sympathize with all nations fighting for independence. If you preserve unity in the country and if you have a strong and well-armed army, even if it is not large, it will be difficult to interfere from the outside. Yugoslavia was almost in a worse position. During the war, we fought against Hitler’s Germany, the greatest power that had enslaved the whole of Europe, and also against Italy, Bulgarian and Hungarian fascists and internal quislings. The Quislings themselves were initially outnumbered by us.

Comrade Guevara: We got acquainted with the various stages of your great struggle. We were also in the museum in Belgrade. We consider your victory in the war to be truly epic. We are happy that our revolution cost only 20,000 lives. That is why we can understand the magnitude of the victims of the Yugoslav people, who sacrificed 20,000 people in just one battle. We also know that your wish for us to be successful does not represent courtesy, because we saw during our trip in Yugoslavia that we enjoy sincere sympathy from your people. Yugoslavia has already solved many problems, and we understood the importance of your successes and experience. We will try to convey them to our people in the most adequate way possible. In foreign policy, we will strive to be on non-bloc positions, on the line of neutralism policy, together with nations that follow their own independent paths.

Comrade Tito: If you need help and support in the United Nations, you can count on us. We will certainly support you, as we support all nations that are fighting for their independence. What about the economic relations between Cuba and Yugoslavia?

Comrade Cvilichevich: They do not have direct instructions from their government in this regard.

Comrade Guevara: Yes, it was not included at the beginning of our journey and we did not have the possibility to negotiate on this issue. We are doing our best to establish as many contacts as possible so that we can provide our government with the most complete information possible.

Comrade Mates: Our Goodwill Mission started discussions in Cuba about the purchase of 140,000 tons of sugar, which were later continued through the embassy in Washington.

Comrade Guevara: We talked about it with Undersecretary of State Velebit. He told us that the proposal should be revised, given that Yugoslavia will have an extraordinarily rich harvest of sugar beets. He suggested that that quantity be reduced, that is, that your proposal should be made more concrete in order to match the current possibilities.

Comrade Tito: Have they asked any other question?

Comrade Mates: They have a general interest in all issues.

Comrade Tito: Will they visit anything else in Yugoslavia?

Comrade Cvilichevich: They will visit the “Third of May” shipyard. They are interested in ships and electrical household appliances. They will visit “Litostroj” factory in Ljubljana.

Comrade Tito: There are more factories of electrical appliances for households in Yugoslavia.

Comrade Mates: It is best that they visit Maribor.

Comrade Guevara: We are also interested in tractor and agricultural machinery factories.

Comrade Tito: They could visit such a factory in Osijek.

Comrade Popovich: They are unable to visit all the factories.

Comrade Guevara: I see a great possibility for us to buy electric generators in your country.

Comrade Cvilichevich: They visited the “Rade Končar” factory and the approximate prices they received at the factory are fitted for them.

Comrade Tito: In Zagreb, there is also the company “Goran”, which produces household appliances.

Comrade Mates: Our Mission of Goodwill proposed to establish offices of affairs, if not embassies, in the capitals of Yugoslavia and Cuba.

Comrade Tito: Where do you have an embassy nearby?

Comrade Guevara: We had embassies everywhere where life was good. I apologize for our government’s relations with Yugoslavia. It is a bit difficult to explain, but there was a certain fear of Yugoslavia as a socialist country.

Comrade Tito: – … we prefer saying as a “communist” country!

Comrade Guevara: I can assure you that as soon as I come to Cuba, I myself will work on opening a representative office in Belgrade, with the ambassador or chargé d’affaires at first.

Comrade Goshniak: Will they remain in our country a bit longer?

Comrade Cvilichevich: They must travel to Cairo on August 21st, where they will stay for a day, and continue their journey to Sudan.

Comrade Goshniak: I asked that because I assume, since they are still soldiers, that they might be interested in seeing some of our units, military schools, etc.

Comrade Guevara: In Belgrade, we already have an agreed contact and talks with some comrades from the army. Otherwise, our time is very limited.

Comrade Cvilichevich: They were at the place where the Fourth enemy offensive was conducted. One of our Majors explained in details the operations at that time, and since they are fine soldiers, they took a lot of interest.

Comrade Guevara: We are interested in sending a certain number of people to study in Yugoslavia. Only, I think it’s a matter of language, because our peasants barely know how to read and write.

Comrade Mates: So far, learning our language has not been a serious problem. Students from Asia and Africa quickly mastered it.

Comrade Tito: Sudanese, Indonesians and others study in our schools.

Comrade Guevara: Old people cannot go to school. After all, in our struggle we had one old man, who was 65 years old. In India I spoke to Krishna Menon about establishing relations and he told me to send a professor or a doctor to India as our representative. I laughed and said: what professor, when we don’t have one?

The members of the Goodwill Mission then said goodbye to comrade Tito and thanked him for allowing spending over an hour in talking to them.

 

Transcript: Josip Broz Tito Archives
Translation: RNP-F

 

Statements

A Declaration Concerning the Rejection of Belgrade-Pristina Agreement

Leave a comment

As activists and citizens of Serbia we have a duty and an obligation to distance ourselves from the agreement made between Belgrade and Pristina, directed by Washington, and also to inform the representatives of those nations and states whose interests go against this agreement.

Primarily we refer to interests of Serbia itself, whose economic sovereignty is further undermined and submitted to United States capital, secondarily to PR China and the Russian Federation, whose commercial cooperation with Serbia is limited, and of course to Palestine, whose occupation is pronounced legal, which deprives Serbia of the possibility to invoke the Resolution 1244 and the international law to condemn the violent secession of a part of its territory.

In accordance with the above:

  • We do not accept the imposition of cooperation with U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC) and EXIM
  • We do not accept the imposition of a full-time presence of IDFC in Belgrade
  • We do not accept the imposition of cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy and other U.S. government entities for the purpose of sharing Gazivode Lake
  • We do not accept the imposition of “diversification” of our energy supplies (directed by Western mongers)
  • We do not accept the imposition of a U.S. 5G infrastructure
  • We do not accept the imposition of integration into the U.S. screening and information systems
  • We do not accept the imposition of restitution of unclaimed property of heirless Holocaust victims
  • We do not accept the imposition of designation of Hezbollah as a “terrorist” organization
  • We do not accept the imposition of a moratorium of de-recognition of Kosovo independence campaign
  • We do not accept the imposition of moving the Embassy of the Republic of Serbia to Jerusalem

We reject this agreement in its entirety and we invite all damaged parties to react relentlessly and sanction the politicians who convey the interests of U.S. capital at the expense of their own people and all fraternal peoples.

To Embassies of the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, Palestine, Lebanon and Belarus.1

 

RNP-F

 

  1. In addition, we do not accept the Serbian Government joining the EU Declaration on Belarus.  ↩

Statements

Déclaration concernant le rejet de l’accord Belgrade – Pristina

Leave a comment

En tant qu’activistes et citoyens de la Serbie, nous ressentons le devoir et l’obligation de nous distancier de l’accord rédigé par Washington entre Belgrade et Pristina, ainsi que d’informer les représentants de ces peuples et pays dont les intérêts ont été bafoués avec cet accord.

Tout d’abord, nous entendons par là les intérêts de la Serbie elle-même, dont la souveraineté économique est encore plus profondément sapée et subordonnée au capital américain, puis la République populaire de Chine et la Fédération de Russie, auxquels on a restreint la coopération commerciale avec la Serbie. Et bien sûr la Palestine, dont l’occupation a été déclarée légale, ce qui prive la Serbie en même temps de la possibilité d’invoquer la Résolution 12-44 et le droit international pour condamner la sécession violente d’une partie de son territoire.

Conformément à ce qui précède :

  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition d’une coopération avec la US International Financial Development Corporation (IDFC) et EXIM
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition de l’ouverture d’un bureau permanent IDFC à Belgrade
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition d’une coopération avec l’Agence américaine de l’énergie et d’autres organes du gouvernement des États-Unis afin de diviser le lac Gazivoda
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition d’une « diversification » de l’approvisionnement énergétique (selon les diktats des vendeurs occidentaux)
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition de la construction d’une infrastructure américaine pour le réseau Internet 5G
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition d’une intégration dans les systèmes de sécurité américains
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition de restitution sur les biens des victimes de l’Holocauste qui n’ont pas d’héritiers
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition de qualifier le Hezbollah d’organisation “terroriste”
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition d’un moratoire sur la campagne pour retirer la reconnaissance de l’indépendance du Kosovo
  • Nous n’acceptons pas l’imposition de la réinstallation de l’ambassade de la République de Serbie à Jérusalem

Nous rejetons cet accord dans son intégralité et appelons toutes les parties lésées à adopter une réaction vive et à sanctionner les politiciens qui poursuivent les intérêts du capital américain au détriment des intérêts de leurs propres peuples et de leurs frères.

Aux ambassades de la République populaire de Chine, de la Fédération de Russie, du Liban, de la Palestine et de la Biélorussie1.

 

RNP-F

 

  1. en complément, nous n’acceptons pas l’adhésion du gouvernement de la Serbie à la déclaration de l’UE sur la Biélorussie  ↩

World

DPRK and Zimbabwe: A History of a Defiant Friendship

1 Comment

At the time of the struggle for national liberation of Zimbabwe during the 1970s, rival liberation movements – African Peoples Union (ZAPU) and African National Union of Zimbabwe (ZANU) – received military aid from socialist countries. ZAPU, which mainly focused on mobilizing the proletariat in the cities, was supported by the USSR. On the other hand, ZANU, whose membership was mainly comprised of peasants, received considerable support from China. However, the general secretary of ZANU, Robert Mugabe, rejected the Chinese political line on USSR as an “imperialist power”, and continued to ask Moscow for support, as well as other socialist sources.1

Moscow stubbornly denied to reconsider its support and accept ZANU as the legitimate leader of the independence movement, even when it became clear that ZANU guerillas dealt considerable damage to colonial forces, but accepted temporary coalitions between the two organizations within a unified Patriotic Front. ZANU managed to garner support from Yugoslavia (which previously also supported ZAPU), and as a result, Robert Mugabe was invited to the Ministry Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement in Belgrade in 1978.2

Even though he was a hardline Marxist, Mugabe sought support from many sources and avoided being dependent on any superpower. As a result, first contacts between Zimbabwe and the DPRK were established. President Kim Il Sung considered aid to the movements and socialist-oriented states in Africa his obligation, and Mugabe was impressed by the political autonomy of the DPRK within the socialist camp. In a report of British Ministry of Foreign Affairs it is outlined that Mugabe considered the North Koreans truly non-aligned, as the Yugoslavs. The report also has a statement that outlines that, although the analysts don’t agree completely with Mugabe’s assessment, they admit that they (North Koreans) are truly are their own masters.3

Starting in 1976, ZANU members were trained in the military camps within the DPRK where they were taught how to handle explosives.4  Rodong Sinmun, the paper of the Workers’ Party of Korea, voiced for the first time its support for the struggle of the people of Zimbabwe and called for the “destruction of the racist regime”. Afterwards, Mugabe visited Pyongyang for the first time in 1978, where he sought more military support, which was granted in full.5

At home, Patriotic Front rarely acted in a coordinated fashion. ZANU was stationed in Mozambique, from where it had planned and executed guerilla attacks on the army of, then, Rhodesia. On the other hand, military bases of ZAPU were in Zambia, where they were trained by Soviet military advisors. Even with technological advantage and an abundance of weaponry, ZAPU failed to mark greater success in praxis, because a conventional strategy and heavy armament weren’t effective in the rainforest. For example, the conventional military operation “Zero Hour” was cancelled after the Rhodesian Airforce dealt heavy losses to ZAPU.6 In a report from 1983, CIA admits that ZANU were the ones who were involved in the war, while ZAPU “sat through it in Zambia”.7

In time, the Patriotic Front forced the government of Ian Smith to compromise, which led to a series of meetings in Britain and the “Lancaster Agreement”. Mugabe proved to be a tough negotiator, while ZAPU leader Joshua Nkomo sought to present himself as a “moderate option”, thanks to which the Rhodesian white minority would retain many political and economic privileges. A peace agreement was signed and a new constitution was adopted. The Patriotic Bloc has pledged to protect the right to own land of white colonists, and that the redistribution of land will not be carried out by force, but by buyout on a “voluntary” basis. The first democratic elections were held in 1980: ZANU won 63% of the vote, or 57 of the 80 seats in parliament allocated to African parties, ZAPU won 20 seats, and the same number was reserved for the white minority.8 Real conflicts between the two rival movements were yet to follow.

After coming to power, Mugabe established diplomatic relations with socialist countries, including the USSR, which was trying to compensate for the previous lack of support for ZANU. However, Zimbabwe and the DPRK have started a special relationship. On his second visit to Pyongyang in 1980, Mugabe attended the Sixth Congress of the Workers’ Party of Korea as a guest of honor.9 Mugabe thanked Kim Il Sung and the people of Korea for their selfless help during the fight against colonialism, saying that “the Workers’ Party of Korea experienced the struggle of the people of Zimbabwe as its own.”10

During that visit, he got the impression that the model of the DPRK was an appropriate model for the development of Third World countries. At the Congress, Kim Il Sung presented Juche variant of socialism, as a way to achieve self-sustainability in the countries of the Global South. On his return to Harare, Mugabe opened the first Juche Study Center in Africa, at the University of Zimbabwe.11 South African journalist and historian R. W. Johnson claims that Juche philosophy was central to Mugabe’s politics even after Kim Il Sung’s death in 1994, and that the only book in the president’s office was “Juche! Kim Il Sung’s speeches and writings.”12

Mugabe was particularly impressed with DPRK’s land reform, which he emphasized at a press conference in 1980, saying: “After the withdrawal of the Japanese, the DPRK faced the need to redistribute the land. But it did much more than that. Despite a population of seventeen million and a territory that is more than 85% mountainous, it has produced a surplus of food on an arable land of 250 million hectares. Zimbabwe has a lot to learn from the DPRK.”13 The DPRK offered to buy surplus tobacco produced in Zimbabwe in an attempt to strengthen the economy of the new African state.14

At the same time, the ZANU Women’s League copied the Korean model of improving the social position of women. The Women’s League pamphlet states: “As a liberation movement with a socialist agenda, we are particularly interested in the role and position of women in socialist countries, so that we can compare and evaluate our progress or lack of progress.” Kim II Sung advocates the rejection of backward customs and habits from the old society, the intensification of women’s education and the raising of their political awareness and knowledge.”15

The two countries also signed a military agreement that caught everyone’s eye. Under the agreement, North Korea has pledged to supply Zimbabwe with weapons and ammunition worth $18 million, as well as a hundred military instructors and advisers, free of charge.16 The British and Americans asked Mugabe to refuse the offer, but Mugabe rejected such a possibility and emphasized the important support of the DPRK during the fight against colonialism, as well as the lasting friendship and the role of both countries in the Non-Aligned Movement.17 In a conversation with British diplomats, the Chinese ambassador in Harare explained that the Koreans do not consult Beijing on their policy and “keep their cards closed.”18

Armored vehicles, tanks and AK-47 rifles were brought from DPRK, as well as a hundred instructors in charge of training the famous Fifth Brigade, made up exclusively of ZANLA fighters (armed wing of ZANU). Subsequently, these instructors and the Fifth Brigade trained and supported Mozambican units in the fight against the invasion of the South African racist regime and the guerrillas they formed in Mozambique (RENAMO).19 At the same time, terrorist attacks by the South African regime in Zimbabwe were on the rise. After the bombing of rebel groups loyal to the former regime and South Africans on the military base “Thornhill”, doubts about the role of ZAPU were born.

ZANU had the opportunity to rule independently, but Mugabe insisted on the division of power and the gradual unification of the two movements into one party. The leader of ZAPU, then Minister of Police, did not accept the proposal to unite ZAPU and ZANU, and still kept under control about 12,000 armed members of ZAPU. Tensions between the two groups intensified when a larger quantity of weapons and money was found in the companies owned by ZAPU, after which Nkomo was accused of planning a coup. According to the CIA, Mugabe no longer had to worry about Soviet support for ZAPU, because Moscow perceived them as “a spent force”.20

Mugabe then expelled Nkomo from the cabinet, which resulted in an armed conflict that ended only in 1987, with the complete defeat of ZAPU. The Fifth Brigade was the most deserving for suppressing the ZAPU uprising, which carried out the brutal military action “Gukurahundi” (“early rain that washes the chaff from the last harvest, before the spring rains”) in the province of Matabele.21 During this action, in 1985, Mugabe was hosted for the third time in Pyongyang, where he expressed gratitude at a press conference for continued military and political support and named the DPRK “the champion and leader of the struggle for economic independence and South-South cooperation.”22 Two years later, Mugabe goes on his fourth visit to Pyongyang, where he again expresses gratitude for all kinds of help and promises eternal friendship. That promise he intended to keep.

The Korean construction company “Mansudae Overseas Studios” won contracts for projects in Zimbabwe without competition. Without giving it the least of a thought, Mugabe rejected the offer of East Germany for the construction of a modern intelligence agency in Zimbabwe and on his own initiative called on the DPRK to take on that task. The DPRK accepted the offer and sent staff to Harare to set up Zimbabwe’s security and intelligence agencies.23 Many countries in the Global South were forced to sever ties with the DPRK during the 1990s, due to pressure from the West. Mugabe, of course, ignored those pressures and further development of economic relations between the two countries continued. Zimbabwe is even introducing a model of mass games from the DPRK into its official education system.

When uranium deposits were discovered in Zimbabwe in the 1990s, following the example of the DPRK and Iran, Mugabe announced the development of a nuclear program and the transformation of Zimbabwe into Africa’s first nuclear power. In practice, however, this was not easily feasible, as Zimbabwe did not own a nuclear power plant. At that time, there was an intention to procure the reactor from Argentina, but that plan mysteriously withered away.24 Finally, uranium exploitation began in 2005, and the question arises as to whether the DPRK has been given access to these deposits. The DPRK conducted their first nuclear test a year later.25

However, in 2009, Zimbabwe officially gave the DPRK access to uranium deposits under the “Weapons for Uranium” agreement, and on that occasion received a DPRK delegation in Harare. The agreement was a defiant violation of the sanctions to which both countries were subjected. To the criticism of the Western media, a senior ZANU official responded: “The DPRK has been our ally since the day of the liberation struggle against the rule of the white minority, so we do not understand why the media are now behaving as if this agreement is a revelation.”26 UN launched an investigation against Zimbabwe and Namibia for violating sanctions against trade with the DPRK in 2016.27

Robert Mugabe was overthrown in a coup on November 14, 2017.28

 

Author: RNP-F
Translator: Luka Nićiforović

 

  1. Somerville, Keith. 1984. “The U.S.S.R. and Southern Africa since 1976.” The Journal of Modern African Studies 22, no. 1: 73-108.  ↩

  2. Onslow, C. S. S. (2010). The Cold War and southern Africa, 1976–1990. The Cambridge History of the Cold War  ↩

  3. H.L Davies, British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, “Zimbabwe/North Korea,” August 13, 1981, Reference FCO 106/464, Folder title: North Korean Military Assistance to Zimbabwe, 1981. UK National Archives  ↩

  4. Wessels, Hannes. 2010. P. K. van der Byl: African Statesman. Johannesburg, South Africa: 30° South Publishers.  ↩

  5. Schwartz, Richard. 2001. Coming to Terms: Zimbabwe in the International Arena. New York: I.B Tauris.  ↩

  6. Mutanda, D. (n.d.). The Rhodesian Air Force in Zimbabwes war of liberation, 1966-1980. Jefferson (N. C.): McFarland.  ↩

  7. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84S00552R000200030002-4.pdf  ↩

  8. Blair, David (2002). Degrees in Violence: Robert Mugabe and the Struggle for Power in Zimbabwe. London and New York: Continuum.  ↩

  9. Choi, Lyong and Il-young Jeong. 2017. “North Korea and Zimbabwe, 1978–1982: From the Strategic Alliance to the Symbolic Comradeship Between Kim Il Sung and Robert Mugabe.” Cold War History 17, no. 4: 329-349.  ↩

  10. Schwartz, Richard. 2001. Coming to Terms: Zimbabwe in the International Arena. New York: I.B Tauris  ↩

  11. Ibid.  ↩

  12. Johnson, R.W. 2007. “Birds of a Feather.” Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2007. Accessed November 29, 2017. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118651948756990787.  ↩

  13. N.W Browne, British High Commission in Salisbury, “Zimbabwe/North Korea,” October 21, 1980. Reference FCO 36/2764, Folder title: Korean Involvement in the Rhodesian Problem, 1980, UK National Archives.  ↩

  14. NE Sheinwald, British High Commission in Salisbury, “South Korea/Zimbabwe,” July 23, 1980. Reference FCO 36/2764, Folder title: Korean Involvement in the Rhodesian Problem, 1980, UK National Archives.  ↩

  15. “Liberation Through Participation: Women in the Zimbabwean Revolution,” Writings and Documents from ZANU and the ZANU Women’s League (New York: National Campaign in Solidarity with ZANU Women’s League, 1980), http://freedomarchives.org/Documents/Finder/DOC52_scans/52.Liberationthroughparticipation.zanu.pdf.  ↩

  16. The Country Study Series by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, “North Korea’s Relations with the Third World,” A Country Study: North Korea (June 1993), http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-9642.html.  ↩

  17. Carrington, British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, “North Korean Military Assistance to Zimbabwe,” August 20, 1981, Reference FCO 106/464, Folder title: North Korean Military Assistance to Zimbabwe, 1981. UK National Archives.  ↩

  18. British High Commission in Salisbury, “Discussion with Mr. Sun Guotong, First Secretary, Chinese Embassy,” Date Unknown. Reference FCO 106/464, Folder title: North Korean Military Assistance to Zimbabwe, 1981. UK National Archives.  ↩

  19. Bermudez, Joseph S. 1990. Terrorism: The North Korean Connection. New York: Taylor & Francis.  ↩

  20. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84S00552R000200030002-4.pdf  ↩

  21. Mashingaidze, Terence (31 October 2005). “The 1987 Zimbabwe National Unity Accord and its Aftermath” (PDF).  ↩

  22. “Mugabe Speaks at Banquet,” Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), August 28, 1985  ↩

  23. Chaigneau, P. and R. Sola. 1986. “North Korea as an African Power: A Threat to French Interests.” University of Pretoria Institute for Strategic Studies (December).  ↩

  24. Meldrum, A. (2005, November 21). Mugabe hails uranium find and vows to pursue nuclear power. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/21/zimbabwe.andrewmeldrum  ↩

  25. Burns, Robert; Gearan, Anne (October 13, 2006). “U.S.: Test Points to N. Korea Nuke Blast”. The Washington Post.  ↩

  26. Zimbabwe in ‘arms for uranium’ pact with North Korea. (2013, September 19). Retrieved from https://www.zimbabwesituation.com/news/zimsit_zimbabwe-in-arms-for-uranium-pact-with-north-korea/  ↩

  27. Clark, C. (2017, November 15). North Korea & The Zimbabwe Coup. Retrieved from https://breakingdefense.com/2017/11/north-korea-the-zimbabwe-coup/  ↩

  28. Zimbabwe Coup. (2018, June 6). Retrieved from https://www.csis.org/analysis/zimbabwe-coup  ↩