All posts by marshall

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  ↩

Statements

Explaining the anti-quarantine protests to the Spanish media

Leave a comment

We were asked a number of questions related to the protests taking place in Serbia’s capital, by the Spanish paper 14milimetros.

Do you think Vucic’s announcement to impose a new quarantine over the weekend has finally made people explode in anger? The protests are not simply against quarantine, they are much more complex.

It is more complex. The protests are the finale of years of protests by various opposition groups, frustrated by the inability to mobilize the numerically superior classes, or, more precisely, by the inability to export their policies outside their own class. Apart from left and right liberals – since Trump came to power in the USA – another current of that class has been strengthening in our country – the radical (or, at the insistence of the media: “Alt”) right, whose tactics of breaking class barriers consist in spreading conspiracy theories, related to racial and migrant issues, as well as anti-Chinese propaganda in support of American diplomacy. Independent and separate protests of these currents would end in fiasco, and the parliamentary fight did not bear fruit, so it was clear that a silent unification was imminent.

When Vučić announced quarantine this week, members of these options took to the streets again. This, of course, does not mean that there is no widespread popular discontent. On the contrary, we are witnessing a health crisis for which the government is directly responsible because it abruptly abolished protection measures in May, in order to hold parliamentary elections. In addition to using the spring quarantine for the perfidious election campaign, the government also falsified the data on the numbers of infected and dead in order to “return to normal state” before the elections. This led to a near collapse of health care, which logically requires a return to quarantine after the elections have passed.

However, the opposition failed to score on all this, because, in accordance with its ideologies, it advocated the free flow of labor and capital, and often accused the government of stifling civil liberties and damaging the economy with a state of emergency and quarantine. Of course, the further to the right, the crazier, so some even insinuated that the virus does not exist. So, they did not advocate the tightening of health measures and full protection of the working people, the closure of factories, etc., but quite the opposite, which made the complete abolition of measures by the authorities easier. Why is it so? Because the upper classes around the world understand that the greatest burden of the pandemic is borne by poor citizens, while they are relatively protected, have the possibility of comfortable self-isolation, access to better health services, etc. Therefore, they favor their “civil liberties” over the health of the working people.

So, the motives and demands of the demonstrators were and are contrary to the interests of the working people and, as before, addressed the aspirations of the middle and upper classes. The ideological dissensions within that bloc are now giving way to class interest and, consequently, class unity.

Have you taken part in the mobilizations? There has been talk of the presence of multiple groups, from liberals and different groups on the left or even the extreme right and anti-vaccines. The protests, while peaceful, appear to lead to violence caused by a few and plenty of violence by the police. What do you think about it?

It started with the gathering of left-liberal sympathizers from the NDMBG, but the response was not significant. Then the extreme right-wingers and their sympathizers joined, which significantly increased the mass. Then they were spontaneously approached by many other citizens, who cannot be claimed to be members of one of those two options, but are certainly under the influence of those dominant ideologies, and very likely the electorate of the opposition. There are no significant anti-vaccination organizations in Serbia, and these people are mostly members of various political parties, most often the extreme right.

We, of course, did not participate. We are communists. This means that we propagate and conduct politics in the interest of the proletarian classes, not their executioners. Their “freedoms” and “rights” mean nothing to us, because we don’t even own them. We are forced to work and support the entire society despite the pandemic, and we are exposing ourselves to further health risks, so that they can take holidays to Greece and go out on the weekends. In civilized countries (a phrase often used by liberals to refer to the colonialist West) such as China, the state would take care of ceasing production, compensating workers, stimulating small private individuals, and providing effective health care. In a neo-colony like Serbia, we are faced with the eugenic policies of the government and the opposition.

However, not only do our interests not coincide with the interests of that class, but it is impossible for a communist to demonstrate together with the fascists. If we did that, we would lose any right to stand up for their victims, and we would bear the responsibility for spreading and strengthening fascism.

It is true that there were also radical leftists at the protests, but these are the idealist lines with which we have nothing in common. Their significance was certainly negligible. The radical left in Serbia consists of 5-6 organizations with fifteen members each, without greater representation among the masses. It is not difficult for us to admit that we are part of such a marginal group. As in all post-socialist societies, the left is being built from the ashes. This process is mainly characterized by re-branding and invoking those socialist traditions that the colonialist West sees as less “authoritarian”, “non-totalitarian” or harmless. On the contrary, it is our task to make socialism dangerous again.

These lines will copy the patterns from the colonialist metropoles, and at these protests the pattern was the same as during last year’s events in France. If you remember the famous Yellow Vests – the same lines that supported them, support these protests in Serbia. Even then, among the demands of the Yellow Vests were those to stop further migrations from the Middle East and Africa, as well as an increase in the salaries for French imperialist soldiers. Of course, those lines then decided to ignore both racism and pro-imperialism, for the sake of the progressive social demands of the movement. The support of the French left to Yellow vests is easy to explain by the parasitic character of French society, but how to explain the support of Serbian leftists to such a movement? It’s not hard, really. The key is in the class character of the left, which leads to identification with French workers and small private individuals, rather than with the victims of French imperialism and migrants.

Therefore, it can be said that these leftists were quite at home at this week’s protests, regardless of the right-wing character of the protests. Except here we have a different problem. Although they ignore the anti-migrant sentiments, statements and chants of the demonstrators, what buries them even deeper are the iconography and songs of the collaborators with fascism from the Second World War, ubiquitous among the demonstrators. And that damn technology, which records and memorizes everything today.

And, then, what’s left for them to do is spread false narratives about a kind of “neutrality” of the protest, about a “spontaneous gathering of the broad masses” and an open space for competition over the takeover of the protest between the right and the left. In fact, they are selling us the middle class as the “people”, and the interest of that class as the people’s interest. Communists cannot be deceived. We don’t wander in the dark, feeling the wall to find the light switch. We do not call on people to vote for Tsipras or Sanders, and then pretend to be dumb when the former introduces austerity measures and the latter votes for imperialist aggression. We do not call on the people to support the aggression on Libya, Syria, FR Yugoslavia, and then not to take responsibility for the colonial enslavement of those peoples. It is our job to interpret reality correctly and build credibility as an option worth turning to for explanations.

During the recent parliamentary elections, turnout was very low, especially in Belgrade. Do you think that the mobilizations are simply something characteristic of the capital or is it even bigger?

In neo-colonial economies like Serbia, there are obstacles to the accumulation of capital, and they can be simply reduced to three: 1. the limits of the growth of the accumulation fund; 2. transfer of surplus value from the colonies to the metropoles; and 3. irrational use of surplus value. The first two are untouchable and are not questioned by civil and right-wing options. There remains, therefore, a third. Simply put, all political battles are fought over the right to gnaw the colonialist bone. Whoever comes to power acquires the right to collect those crumbs from the colonial table. As awareness – or rather “intuition” – of this grows, voter turnout declines.

And the protests are not specific to a particular region.

If the mobilizations grow and extend, do you think there is a possibility that they will be hijacked by interests that are foreign and superior to the protesters?

Of course, that option always exists. All of the more significant groups at the protest are already being funded from outside: left and right liberals, and the radical right.

What role do you think the EU can take? At times we have seen it critical of Vucic, but most of the time the organization’s stance is passive and even favorable for him to remain in power. Donald Tusk (President of the European People’s Party) openly supported Vucic before the elections. Some sectors in the EU seem to fear the coming to power of an openly Eurosceptic and anti-NATO leader, do you see that as possible or is it unreal?

No. Such a possibility does not exist in the near future. There are organizations in Serbia that are nominally anti-EU/NATO (paradoxically, they are not anti-imperialist), but they are insignificant. These are the so-called “Sovereignists” – that is, followers of the protectionist currents of imperialism – and the extreme right. Both are financially and media-dependent on Western centers of power, so even their views on Kosovo are subject to change in line with Washington directorates.

Most Serbian citizens understand that EU membership brings significant benefits, which can be simply and vulgarly reduced to exercising the right (albeit unequal) to share the super-profits that the EU collects through the mechanisms of structural imperialism, and thus a higher standard of living. The only thing that could cause a change in that mood, and partly in the state policy, is a different historical course of world politics, that is, a faster economic and military rise of the East.

Vučić has nothing to fear when it comes to internal support. By the way, so far he has played a rather comical game (characteristic of populists), and that is to copy and incorporate the target groups of the opposition. In his address to the public the other day, he took a clear counter-stance for the first time. He called them “fascists”, “conspiracy theorists” and publicly stated that he did not want to attack migrants (which makes up a good part of the opposition policies). He thus showed self-confidence and understanding that the people of Serbia mostly do not support racists, as well as that he appreciates the nurturing of the socialist heritage. Bull’s eye.

Of course, there is always the possibility of taking him down by external pressures, if he decides to play too much independence. The EU has over 70% of investments in Serbia. Let them withdraw 20% and we’d be starving. So, we don’t see any wide room for maneuver.

What do you think of the possible agreement with Kosovo on mutual recognition? Kosovo is one of the big problems that has weighed for years on Serbian politics.

Kosovo is Serbia. NATO will leave Serbia, one way or another, someday. We do not have the military power to achieve that, and diplomacy at this stage requires finding a way for the resistance to remain active, but not suicidal. Therefore, in order for the people to recognize compromises (which are necessary in politics) as favorable, care must be taken to leave room for future generations to achieve greater diplomatic and other victories under possibly more favorable conditions. Roughly, as in occupied Northern Ireland.

In a few lines, what path do you think Serbia should take to solve its problems? It doesn’t look like it will end just with Vucic abandoning power.

At the macro level, most of our problems stem from the neo-colonial position imposed on us. So decolonization is now the primary goal. But even if we were to achieve that, it wouldn’t mean solving our problems. If, in the imaginary scenario for now, the socialist option came to power, we would encounter only a number of other problems, such as the organization of national production under transnational capitalism, a partial or complete delinking with the global economy, military, diplomatic and financial pressures, etc. At the micro level, our problems can be reduced to building forces capable of solving problems at the macro level.

 

World

Kim Il Sung – South-South cooperation and the establishment of a new international economic order

Leave a comment

South-South cooperation is a noble way for the developing countries to strengthen their economic independence and achieve complete economic freedom through close economic and technical cooperation. Only when they are economically independent can the developing countries free their peoples from backwardness and poverty, starvation and disease, the consequences of imperialist colonial rule, and consolidate the political independence which they have already won. A nation which is dependent on another country economically is bound to be politically subordinate. Economic dependence inevitably leads to political dependence and economic subordination results in political subordination.

The struggle for economic independence is a second liberation struggle to remove economic backwardness and poverty and achieve complete national sovereignty. The peoples of the developing countries have to take it upon themselves to attain economic independence. The imperialists never present developing countries with economic independence. The non-aligned and developing countries must pave the way for survival by effecting South-South cooperation under the banner of collective self-reliance and build their independent national economies. Today the international economic situation is changing to the disadvantage of developing countries. In these circumstances it is all the more urgent to effect South-South cooperation. When their people are faced with the threat of ever-worsening hunger and disease, the developing countries ought to pool their efforts and support and cooperate with each other. At the moment the leaders of many non-aligned and developing countries are calling for close cooperation among these nations, insisting that they should shape their destiny independently and on their own responsibility. This is quite natural.

If they realize South-South cooperation, the developing countries will be able to build up sufficient strength to countervail and negotiate with the developed countries, and begin a period favourable to establishing a new international economic order. There are many real situations and opportunities for South-South cooperation. The nonaligned and developing countries have vast territories rich in raw materials and have acquired valuable experience and expertise in the course of creating a new life. If they mobilize their manpower and material resources to the full and build up economic cooperation and exchange on the principle of providing for each other’s needs, the developing countries will find solutions to the difficult and complex problems that arise in building a new life without asking for the help of the developed countries. Historical experience shows that even poor and backward countries can achieve great things if they combine efforts. The non-aligned and developing countries must start in those areas where cooperation and exchange are feasible and urgent and extend cooperation and exchange in every way so as to free their peoples from backwardness and poverty, hunger and disease and achieve economic independence.

First, South-South cooperation must be expanded and developed in the sphere of food and agriculture. Solving the problem of food and agriculture is of tremendous significance in pressing ahead with the building of a new society and promoting the people’s welfare. Cooperation and exchange in agriculture must be centered on laying on one’s own production foundations soundly with a view to attaining self-sufficiency in food in a short time. It is a good and necessary thing that the UN and other international organizations are now taking steps to help some famine-stricken nations. If the developing countries are to find a fundamental solution to the food problem, every country must increase grain production substantially by growing good crops. Today many of the non-aligned and developing countries are unable to rid themselves of the hunger and poverty that are a result of imperialist colonial rule. This is not because farm lands are inadequate, but because they cannot raise good crops on account of lack of irrigation and machinery and technology.

We believe that firstly we must increase cooperation in the field of irrigation construction. For the developing countries to prevent damage from drought and ensure a good and regular harvest, it is necessary to establish an irrigation system. Most of the non-aligned and developing countries, including the African countries, have vast water resources and the future for irrigation construction is promising. It will be reasonable to work out together a “ten-year plan for irrigation construction in the developing countries” and a “ten-year plan for irrigation construction in Africa”, to establish an organization which coordinates cooperation in irrigation construction, and also set up irrigation enterprises jointly so as to put cooperation into effect in this field.

The non-aligned and developing countries must also cooperate closely with each other in their efforts to improve the farming method. The most important way to increase grain production in the developing countries is to improve the farming method and grow crops scientifically and technologically. Improving the farming method alone will mean a great increase in agricultural production even though a large investment is not required. The developing countries must create a new farming method that suits the topographical and climatic conditions of every zone and country and must make the good experience gained in this improvement widely known. The non-aligned and developing countries must establish wide cooperation and exchange with each other in the field of seed selection and production. Those countries whose technology and experience are good in this field must supply the technology on seed selection and production to other developing countries and provide progenitors where needed. In order to increase grain production, it is necessary to intensify joint study and mutual cooperation in the field of agricultural science.

The non-aligned and developing countries must start a joint venture in agriculture. A joint venture in agriculture is one reasonable way for the developing countries, including the African countries, to solve the food problem. If they undertake an extensive agricultural joint venture the developing countries will not only be able to save the people from starvation by a rapid increase in agricultural production but also strengthen the foundations of agricultural production. In this venture, it is important to organize and operate farms under joint management. These farms can be run in such a way that those countries which are backward in agricultural technology provide land and labour and those whose agricultural technology is developed supply farm machinery and fertilizers, agricultural chemicals and other farming implements and technical knowledge. It will be an effective measure for the non-aligned and developing countries to organize joint enterprises for the production of farm machinery and materials in order to satisfy their needs for farm machinery, irrigation facilities, fertilizers and agricultural chemicals. For the time being, it will be worthwhile for those developing countries which are relatively backward in expertise to build farm machinery factories with the help of the more experienced countries, to increase the production of cattle-drawn farm machines as well as other medium and small farm machines and implements and then use them.

We will intensify cooperation with the non-aligned and developing countries and the African countries in particular, directing the main effort to ensuring that these countries lay solid foundations for agricultural production and attain self-sufficiency in food.

Secondly, cooperation and exchange must be promoted widely in the field of public health. South-South cooperation in this field must be concentrated on solving the most urgent problems arising in providing health care for the people of every developing country until the year 2000. The one problem which must be solved above all else in saving the peoples of non-aligned and developing countries from disease is to eliminate epidemics and helminthiases. The non-aligned and developing countries must draw on the valuable experience gained so far in health care, at the same time as cooperating actively to find more effective ways and means in this sphere. In the first place, it is essential to develop medical science through a good combination of modern and traditional medicine, of modern treatment and folk remedy and thus strengthen cooperation in this field.

If South-South cooperation in health care is to be substantial, efforts must be channeled into solving the problem of a shortage of medicines. The non-aligned and developing countries must increase cooperation to develop the production of preventive medicines and also improve cooperation for the production of basic medicines. Cooperation to build up medicine-producing bases in particular must be intensified. The establishment of joint venture pharmaceutical enterprises is an important way of cooperating effectively in this matter. If joint venture pharmaceutical enterprises are to be built and developed, it will be advisable to sign agreements on specializing in the production of medicines on a worldwide scale, in consideration of raw material resources, production capacity and the demand for medical supplies in each country. The running of joint venture hospitals will also be an effective means of cooperation in the sphere of public health.

Thirdly, it is necessary to take practical action to expand and develop cooperation and exchange among the non-aligned and developing countries according to the program for economic cooperation which has already been worked out. First of all, in order to settle the problem of finance, a stumbling block in South-South cooperation, and to encourage mutual accommodation, it is necessary to build the Bank of the South and adopt whatever measures are needed to promote trade and cooperation in the field of finance and currency. Establishing a Global System of Trade Preferences between developing countries is of great importance in the improvement of trade among these countries. The non-aligned and developing countries must make joint efforts to introduce this system as early as possible.

It is absolutely necessary to increase political support for South-South cooperation in order to implement the action program for economic cooperation. The non-aligned and developing countries must discuss the matter of South-South cooperation at high-level talks and develop relevant conditions so that practical measures can be adopted. The non-aligned countries must pay due attention to coordinating the economic cooperation program of the non-aligned movement and the economic cooperation program of the Group of 77 and also to adjusting the cooperation items on the economic cooperation program of the non-aligned movement in a rational way. The non-aligned and developing countries must ceaselessly explore and develop positive ways and means of widening South-South cooperation and increasing its effectiveness in line with the demands that arise in practice. They must overcome any difficulties in developing economic and technical cooperation by displaying the spirit of mutual cooperation and solidarity to the highest degree.

***

One of the important tasks confronting the non-aligned and developing countries today is to do away with the old international economic order and to establish a new fair one based on the principles of independence, equality and mutual benefit. In the past these countries mapped out a joint strategy for the establishment of a new international economic order and have fought to put it into effect. As a result of the energetic efforts made by these countries, many international conferences including a special session of the UN General Assembly have adopted a declaration, and programs of action, for establishing a new international economic order, taken the relevant steps and formed various international organizations. However, owing to the unfair standpoint and attitude of the developed capitalist countries in maintaining the old international economic order, the struggle of the developing countries to establish the new international economic order has not made any real progress.

The developed capitalist countries are reluctant to give up meekly their monopolistic position in international economic relations, nor do they accept the proposal of the developing countries for negotiations to establish a new international economic order. Relying as ever on the old international economic order, the imperialists are plundering the developing countries of their natural resources and paying only a pittance for the results of the peoples’ labour and obstructing the economic development of these countries. Protective trade and the high-interest policy pursued by the developed countries along with the continually worsening terms of trade and the massive increase in foreign debts of the developing countries are having a serious effect on the social and economic development of the non-aligned and developing countries. Because of the unfair international economic order, the economies of the developing countries are growing weaker and becoming stagnant. The economic situation in the African countries in particular is worsening.

The long-drawn-out world economic crisis and the difficult economic situation in the developing countries for which the unjust economic order is responsible are making the world situation more unstable and threatening justice and peace. In reality, without abolishing the old economic order, the product of the colonial system and the lever of imperialist exploitation and plunder, it will be impossible for the non-aligned and developing countries to free themselves from international exploitation and plunder and then develop. It is only when they reorganize the wide range of unfair and unreasonable economic relations in all branches of trade, finance, currency and so on that the developing countries can eliminate the source of international exploitation and create favourable conditions for their economic development.

The non-aligned and developing countries must fight to establish a new international economic order in accordance with their joint strategy.

First, they must continue to make patient efforts to promote negotiations for the establishment of a new international economic order. An important factor in implementing their strategy for negotiations is for the non-aligned and developing countries to take concerted action. The non-aligned and developing countries must together lay down the strategy for negotiations to suit the international economic situation, explore procedures and ways for negotiations and effectively coordinate the policy and stand of negotiations so as to enhance the position of negotiations still higher. For this purpose, it would be a realistic idea to set up a standing Ministerial Committee of the non-aligned and other developing countries as recommended by the Foreign Ministers’ Conference of the Coordinating Bureau held in New Delhi. The establishment of a new international economic order will be beneficial for the developed countries as well. The developed countries should accept the just proposal of the non-aligned and developing countries for holding negotiations on a worldwide scale to establish a new international economic order.

Secondly, efforts should be directed to establishing a fair and stable international system of finance and currency. The economic difficulties of the developing countries and the world economic crisis have much to do with the unfair international system of finance and currency. This system must be reorganized to meet the needs of today and in favour of economic progress for the developing countries. A new international system of finance and currency must be a fair one capable of facilitating economic cooperation on a worldwide scale and of revitalizing the world economy by eliminating the privileges and arbitrariness of the developed capitalist countries and by guaranteeing the stability of monetary circulation and the financial conditions for international trade. To this end, international financial agencies should adopt such resolutions as to guarantee equality between developing and developed countries, establish a stable and realistic exchange rate system, create international liquidity according to demand and distribute it fairly between the developing and the developed countries.

The foreign debt problem of the developing countries, too, must be solved fairly and completely, thereby ensuring their social and economic development and stability. The non-aligned and developing countries should, at an early date, hold an international conference on finance and currency for development to provide an occasion for setting up a new international system of finance and currency.

Thirdly, an active effort must be made to establish a new system of trade. At present a non-equivalent exchange is being made as ever in trade between the developing countries and the developed countries. The developing countries sell raw materials at low prices and buy manufactured goods at exorbitant prices, and the share that manufactured goods make up in the exports of these countries is decreasing continually. The result is that the trade deficit of the developing countries is increasing all the time and their economic difficulties are becoming more serious. The non-aligned and developing countries should prevent the fluctuations in price of primary products and increase their earnings from exports by remodeling the unfair price system in trade and establishing a fair and profitable price system for primary products. What is important here is to strengthen the existing producers’ associations, while at the same time forming new associations and enhancing their role. The setting up of a common fund for the general plan of primary products will be an important step for the developing countries to stabilize prices and income through exporting primary products. In order to ensure that the common fund is inaugurated as early as possible, the developing countries will have to hasten their approval of an agreement for establishing this common fund.

The developed countries must give up their protectionist policy and make the markets more open to the developing countries. They should also remove the tariff and non-tariff barriers for major products of the developing countries, take measures to stabilize export incomes for these countries and allow them to increase their share of the processing, sale, distribution and transportation of raw materials and products. The preferential treatment that is given to the products of the developing countries must be further improved, and international efforts be made to establish fair trade principles and regulations. The developing countries should not allow the developed countries to use the system of general preferences as a means of putting pressure on them, but fight against any act of encroachment upon their permanent sovereignty over natural resources.

If the non-aligned and developing countries wage a vigorous struggle together to establish a new fair international economic order, the developed countries will have to comply, in the long run, with the demands of the developing countries whether they like it or not.

 

Kim Il Sung, June 20, 1986.
Selected Works, Vol. 40, pp. 117-144 Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1995.

 

Analysis

Exploitation of workers by the workers

1 Comment

“It often happens that ideas lag behind reality; this is because human knowledge is subjected to restrictions due to many social conditions. We are opposed to diehards in our revolutionary ranks, whose ideas fail to advance with changing objective circumstances and have manifested itself historically as right opportunism. These people do not see that the struggle of opposites has already pushed the objective process forward, while their knowledge has stopped at an old stage. Their ideas are divorced from social practice; they cannot march ahead to guide the chariot of society; they simply trail behind, grumbling that it goes too fast and trying to drag it back or turn it in the opposite direction.” – Mao Tse Tung

 

In the second half of the 19th century, Marx and Engels posited that proletarian revolution would arise in countries at the highest stages of capitalist development – England, Germany, and the United States. According to their understanding, capitalism is in crisis when its technological abilities and productivity are brought to such a level that they can no longer be reconciled with outdated capitalist social relations in which everything has to be paid for and everything must extract profit. When technology reaches a stage of development where poverty, hunger and disease become problems that the existing technology can easily solve, the socialist revolution will arise. The echoes of these views can be seen in aspects of Lenin’s work, since he also thought that the October Revolution was a transitional step that must lead to the final socialist revolution, which would arise in Germany and secure a global proletarian revolution. Lenin later revised this view, relying on his experiences from 1905 to 1917, broadly explaining the world’s first socialist seizure of power, the Russian revolution, through the theory that the dictatorship of the proletariat would first find purchase at the “weakest links” of imperialism, yet correctly noticing the influence of imperialist super-profits in fostering the social-chauvinism of the Western left. Today, we see the consequences of this view in the programs of numerous so-called “revolutionary” organizations that still hold great hopes in the moribund “revolutionary” movements in the West, whether this hope is embodied in Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbin and the social-democratic fractions of Britain’s Labour Party.

To place hope for revolution in the imperialist West, however, is a rather obsolete view within the Marxist tradition. Since the second half of the 20th century, theorists such as Arghiri Emmanuel, Samir Amin, Andre Gunder Frank, Che Guevara and others, by elaborating Lenin’s theorization of a “labour aristocracy” and studying changes in national and global conditions of economic evolution, argued that under the conditions of global capitalism, revolutionary forces must be sought on the global level. These authors argued that revolutionary advances must start at the periphery of the world capitalist system, that is, in colonies or former colonies, as only those layers of society that have an actual material interest in bringing down the existing system will contend for revolution. The Western working class, its wages and conditions of life subsidized by imperial loot, has not only had a lack of material and subjective interests in breaking down the existing system. Because of its favourable position within the world division of labour and income, this fraction of the world’s working class has instead maintained interests in the preservation of the capitalist order.1 It is now evident that the initial Marxian theory of socialist revolution first grasping state power in the West has proven false, despite that in these countries, productive capacities have long been such that the elimination of poverty – even globally – is a quite realistic possibility.

As mentioned, Arghiri, Amin and others have developed sophisticated economic models in order to explain why workers in the imperialist nations actually have an interest in preserving capitalism. During the 1960s and 1970s, while there was still a strong union movement in the West, strikes were almost everyday occurrence, and the events of May 1968 convinced public opinion of the possibility of socialist revolution in the Western nations. It was then that, with cursory dismissals, that Arghiri’s and Amin’s theories we claimed to be totally meaningless. Yet even then, just as today, it was clear to the careful observer that alongside surface-level discontent and short-lived insurgencies, workers in the West were not interested in systemic changes. Further, these upsurges in struggle were focused on the distribution of the imperial pies – their hunger was not for proletarian revolution and internationalism, but to secure as big a piece of the pie as possible for themselves.

In our current moment, however, confirmation for those theories which emphasize that revolution will ignite on the periphery is well-secured. While referring to concrete historical experiences of the 20th century, we will also deal here with the current state of the economic conditions of labour in the West. At first glance, we observe increasing working class support to political figures such as Donald Tramp and Marine Le Pen, who are promoting open hatred for immigrants and non-Europeans by advocating for a close to national borders and the forging of a new deal between labour and capital by which Western workers are promised a return to a lost Golden Age of prosperity. The appeals of the left do not resonate with the same intensity. While most commentators see the breakthrough of such reactionary national populist policies as a consequence of irrational racism or an expression of defiance against the liberal establishment, a consistent Marxist interpretation warns that these right-wing currents express the actual economic interests of the Western white working class.

To prove the accuracy of this claim, one needs to look a deeper into economic indicators which clearly show that the Western working class has become a kind of collective capitalist with an increasing share in the world capitalist system. When we use the term “collective capitalist,” we are not introducing a new concept, as today virtually all major companies are shareholding companies with numerous owners. What we are arguing is that, beginning in the 1970s, Western workers have not only received a portion of profits from their privileged position in the global division of labour and income, but have even become active participants in the ownership structures of Western corporations.

The acquisition of part of the ownership of imperialist corporations by Western workers undertook several forms, and what is common to all of them is that they reflect the class compromise between Western labour and capital, and the former’s alliance with the enslavement and exploitation of the peoples of neo-colonial states. In Germany, this class alliance has reached its most advanced form. It can be seen in the fact that a number of the directorates of German corporations elect half of their members from the ranks of workers with the other half coming from shareholders.2 In addition, in many companies the workers themselves also hold an important part of the shares, and even receive them as employment benefits.

What is particularly interesting about the participation of labour interests in capital is the way in which these interests have been united in the period of the so-called social-democratic consensus.3 Alexander Hicks, as well as numerous other authors, has argued that social democracy in the second half of the 20th century, coupled to the interests of large-scale capital, led to the creation and consolidation of a form of government known as corporatism, which served as the theoretical basis for fascist movements in the first half of the 20th century.4 The leading corporatist or fascist idea was that class and all other disagreements in capitalism would be resolved by allowing participation of groups in society seen as integral to decide on the direction in which society would develop – that is, class collaboration. Workers, capitalists, bankers, craftsmen and others were to work together to make these decisions. For the corporatist, it is essential that social unity is always maintained and that compromises are made. Corporatism as the leading ideology in the West is accepted by large capital, the social-democratic parties, and the major unions.

The most significant example for this rise of corporatism is again Germany. Very little is said about how since the 1980s, an unprecedented wave of economic integration of labour and capital in Germany began, with the same program taking place in many of the core countries. By the end of the 1990s, pension funds became the most important investors on stock exchanges in the United States, and after the unification of Germany, the same process was seen.5 Laws have been passed that allow pension funds to invest significant capital (which has been collected for decades from the payment of pensions to workers) on the stock exchange in the shares of large corporations.6 The argument was that a quick inflow of money into corporations would enable large profits and stock market growth, and that funds would increase their capital through dividends or payments that all shareholders receive when a company records profits.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the unification of Germany, the infusion of capital from pension funds has created a sufficient amount of money in German corporations to carry out the privatization of the industrial giants from the former DDR and not destroy them – as they were destroyed in Serbia and many other post-Soviet nations – as it was politically important to undergo a smooth transition to capitalism in Germany in order to forestall social unrest. Soon afterwards, the same capital was used in the privatization of industrial companies throughout Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. German firms were most likely to pick up all the strategically important companies in a short period of time. For example, Wolkswagen bought the Czech Škoda and integrated it into its automobile conglomerate, where it still operates successfully today.

The best example of this economic trend, however, is the German telecommunications giant Deutsche Telekom, which is partly owned by the state (holding 32% of shares), and a large part of the remaining shares then held by various pension funds.7 This company, whose ownership structure represents the embodiment of corporatism, is owned by the German state, German big capital and German pension funds. In addition, it is part of the world’s telecommunications cartel and has a significant share in the ownership of British Telecom and major US telecommunications companies., Operations of Deutsche Telekom are of great importance to Serbia and other countries created by the breakup of the communist republics. Deutsche Telekom has purchased near the entirety or a significant part of the telecommunications giants in Slovakia, Hungary, Albania, Montenegro, Croatia, Romania and Greece. The Greek OTE (Greek Telecommunications Organization), which is largely owned by Deutsche Telekom, held 20% of Serbia Telekom shares by 2012, and then sold the company back to the Serbian state for 380 million euros in preparation for the complete privatization of Serbia Telekom. It was said at the time that Serbia Telekom could reach the price of approximately one billion euros, and Bloomberg wrote that Deutsche Telekom was the main contender for the purchase.8 A simple calculation shows that the state of Serbia bought 20% of its shares of Serbia Telekom for 38% of the sum for which it planned to sell the company. For now, this malversation has not been realized, but we are aware that the sale of Serbia Telekom is one of the most important obligations of the Government of Serbia towards European, primarily German, capital.

We see that Deutsche Telekom owns the most important telecommunication companies across a large section of Europe, as does Wolkswagen, which bought Audi, Seat, Porsche, Bentley, Bugatti and other smaller companies in addition to Škoda. It is clear that this is a matter of forming unprecedented monopolies in the region’s key and most profitable industries. This entire project was made possible by the infusion of additional capital by pension funds. In Germany, pension funds now account for over 200 billion euros in stock market investments.9 By comparison, this is four times more than the total economic production of Serbia, which amounts to less than 50 billion euros. Even just one pension fund, BVK, which has a portfolio of 55 billion in shares of various corporations, is more powerful than the entire Serbian economy.10

German pension funds are now in the hands of the most qualified investors, and capital is so diversely distributed in shares of various companies that the losses of individual companies cannot significantly damage it. In other words, as the stock market grows, the capital accumulation of these funds grows, and thus the interests of workers whose pensions are found in these funds are structurally linked to the interests of capital. The higher the accumulation of capital, the higher wages can these workers expect. When all this is added to savings, which is an inevitable item of almost every traditionally generous German household, and which was made possible by the extremely high salaries of past decades, the question of the real interest of German workers for any changes other than those favouring capital is starkly raised.

When the German state, German capital and the German banks sit parasitically on the back of the European (and world) periphery, and German workers reap tremendous benefit from this parasitism, there is no concrete possibility of revolution in that country – such a possibility does not exist! Germany is only taken here as an example of a dominant European economy, and its role here is largely played out by the United States at the global level. In structural terms, it is clear that one cannot speak of an international solidarity of the working class emerging evenly from all regions of the world. The class struggle has completely shifted to the level of global conflict between the core and the periphery.

Predrag Kovačević

  1.  https://rnp-f.org/2016/06/22/teorija-nejednake-razmene-i-konkretan-odgovor-na-imperijalizam/  ↩

  2.  https://www.jura.uni-frankfurt.de/43029805/paper70.pdf  ↩

  3.  Hicks, A. (1988). Social democratic corporatism and economic growth. The Journal of Politics, 50(3), 677-704.  ↩

  4. Ibid  ↩

  5.  Schertler, A. (2003). Dynamic efficiency and path dependencies in venture capital markets (Vol. 327). Springer Science & Business Media.  ↩

  6.  http://www.oecd.org/finance/private-pensions/42565755.pdf  ↩

  7.  https://www.telekom.com/en/investor-relations/company/shareholder-structure  ↩

  8.  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-10/deutsche-telekom-eyes-telekom-srbija-serb-politician-says  ↩

  9.  https://www.statista.com/statistics/419830/germany-pension-funds-investments/  ↩

  10.  http://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/news/germanys-biggest-pension-fund-hunts-for-new-investments/a536093?section=global  ↩

Analysis

Russia imperialist? Can’t you get anything right?

1 Comment
Idealists labeling Russia an “imperialist” power are sprouting like mushrooms these days. No valid analysis of course, just talking gibberish. The only ones putting an effort into actually articulating their theses are the ones who rely on Lenin’s “5 points” to make a case for themselves, which is expected as being “uncreative Marxists” (Stalin’s term) they remained stuck on archaic positions, and fail to see Marxism as an ever developing theory. These dogmatists have no clue that it’s not Capital export but Unequal exchange that’s at the core of North-South system of exploitation and the uneven development (although it’s not the only form and Capital export still plays a significant portion of it); they have no clue that historical capitalism has actually always been imperialist, in the sense that it has led to a polarization between centers and peripheries since its origin, which has only increased during later globalized development; let alone explain the development of generalized-monopoly capitalism, as capital’s response to the challenge of its long systemic crisis.
 
Their failure of understanding Russia’s position in the world capitalist system is, therefore, of no surprise. Although reduced to almost complete dependence in the 90-ies, Russia has risen from the world periphery (due to numerous factors) to become the growing semi-peripheral power, whose rise naturally pressures the Core countries for restructuring the monopolies of capitalist reproduction and imperialist exploitation. Such a request, as a result of objective economic growth, may reach the consent (as in case of China before Trump) or resentment (Iran) of the Core countries, which in turn shapes foreign policy of the country in question. In case of Russia, the pressure from the Core countries (actual imperialism) forced its foreign policy to play a progressive role, resorting to sort of fair-trade in it’s struggle to obtain desperately needed markets, and counter the aggressive geostrategy of the imperialist powers, which is opposed to any attempt by the peoples and states of the periphery to get out of the impasse. Luckily for Syrians, that meant avoiding the Serbian or Libyan scenario, and the most concrete form of help. Countries seeking an alternative to adjustment to structural imperialism are watching the development of the situation in Syria and their future choices heavily depend on it.
 
Which is why, when the world was pealing about the Chinese “green light” for the coup in Zimbabwe, Bashar al-Assad appeared unannounced in Moscow, where he was paraded all over the city. That was a clear message to all the underdeveloped countries seeking a way to overcome the limited possibilities of transformation within the capitalist world economy: “Watch how China treats their allies and see how we treat ours!”. But for Russia to hold on and win this long-lasting battle, in such unfavorable conditions, it must overplay the classic scenarios. And that includes some very unpopular moves amongst the progressive countries. For instance, when the US defeated the USSR in 1980-ies, they achieved so by imposing an arms race and convincing Saudi Arabia to reduce the price of oil in the long run. This time the Russians managed to secure good relations with the Saudis and achieve some kind of cooperation (Moscow gave Riad an excellent deal in managing its desperately needed diversification of economy), ensuring the scenario would not repeat itself.
 
So should we – the peoples of neocolonies – not take advantage of the situation as analyzed here? Yes, we should ally with Russia in our struggles to defeat imperialism. However, we should be careful not to develop a new dependency. That’s not an issue as long as Russia is compelled to obtain new markets (beyond the official one) and while under the pressure of imperialism. But since it is not socialist, it might become an issue once it is freed (if freed) from the pressure of imperialism. This seems the most favorable moment for the countries of the periphery, seeking an alternative to structural imperialism to use Russia for obtaining “development investments”. In the absence of the socialist superpower and with the final goal of complete delinking, although revolutions are immediately less likely, what we could and should achieve are the “revolutionary advances”.
 
So why exactly have the leftists from the imperial Core suddenly swamped us with “Russian imperialism” nonsense? The answer is actually quite simple: After the air strikes on Damascus, it has finally struck them that they have been supporting the the Axis of evil (US/UK/France/Israel) in Syria from the start, by giving them a foothold in Rojava, thus helping them achieve their geostrategic objectives and commit genocide over the peoples of the Middle East. A small portion of them repented, self-criticized and corrected themselves. But the larger part needed a new thesis as a support for their deviation. Thus, they’ve managed (in their heads, of course) to finally find a theoretical cover for equalizing the oppressor and the oppressed and continue serving as the prolonged hand of the imperialism in the Third World. Remember their slogan “Neither NATO nor Gaddafi”? If not, you should.
–