Category Archives: World

Analysis, World

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

Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Abdelraheem Kheirawi

 

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

 

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  ↩

Featured, World

Republican SINN FEIN: “Continuity not Compromise”

Leave a comment

We are reproducing the interview with Diarmuid Mac Dubhghlais of Republican Sinn Fein originally published in Serbo-Croatian language on Princip.Info. Enjoy!

The audience in Balkans is not familiar with details of Irish politics beyond what mainstream media serves them, which in reality means that little to no news from Ireland reach us. Could you briefly introduce Republican Sinn Fein and tell us how is it different from other organisations that split from the original Sinn Fein that claim historical continuity?

While it is generally accepted that Republican Sinn Féin (RSF) split from Provisional Sinn Féin (PSF), this is not quite true. In 1986 the annual conference discussed the acceptance of one of the two partitionist assemblies (governments) in Ireland that owed their existence to British laws. The majority voted in favour of acceptance, leading to a number of members leaving. Technically those who walked out retained the existing constitution and thus are the continuation of the Sin Féin formed in 1905. It was a mistake to adopt a different name but such is history.

As for the difference between RSF and others who did split from PSF; the simplest explanation is that they too accepted the partitionist assemblies in Ireland, some of the newer groups to split from PSF accepted the legitimacy of Stormont assembly in the Occupied Six Counties and thus the overall legitimacy of the rule of Westminster.

A question from history: relation to the issue of Michael Collins, what is the correct road for RSF, a treaty with the British or not?

Short answer- NOT. Britain has no place in Ireland, they have tried every tactic in our land except one; – WITHDRAWAL. While the war/peace levels have ebbed and flowed over the generations one has remained, there will always be some resistance to the occupation of our land. M Collins used the analogy of his deal being “a stepping-stone” to unity. 100 years on and 3 more splits from the attitude of driving out the occupation all these parties have watered down their attitude towards the British interference in Ireland, all have used that same “stepping-stone” line, yet we are no further down the line towards unity.

What are the political objectives of Republican Sinn Fein and what is its strategy to achieve them?

The obvious first objecting is to remove all British interference in Irish affairs and re-establish the Republic. Then we must work towards regaining our sovereignty, much of this has been ceded to the EU in treaty after treaty. The people of Ireland rejected both the Niece and Lisbon treaties but the establishment parties told the people they made wrong decisions and made them retake the vote, with the implication that we would re-do the voting until the correct decision is made.

RSF want a 4 province Federal Ireland, and have had policies promoting (see Éire Nua program ). This we feel is best suited Ireland where we have hugely differing requirements for different areas, ie West of Ireland ( Connaught )having a majority of small farmers, North of Ireland (9 county Ulster) having a high population of Protestants etc

We understand that bourgeois elections are far from being an objective measure of political strength, so we wanted to ask you how do you compare the strength of RSF in comparison to other political formations beyond the parliamentary representation?

RSF are not a huge group, but have a steady and dedicated membership, over the years members have left to become involved in other newer organisations, but it is fair to say that RSF have firm written policies that deal with many aspects of life in Ireland. While some of the newer parties are in my opinion more popular today, like those who initially split from PSF, their membership tends to dwindle after a relatively short time and they do not have policies other than a demand for unity, with no idea what form a United Ireland should take ie; – Federal, Neo-Liberal, Anti-Imperialist etc.

Ireland witnessed a surprising victory of Sinn Fein in Ireland. What is the relation of RSF with the (Provisional) Sinn Fein?

There is no great relationship between both, the split of ’86 is still fresh enough in the memories of many, Also the fact that PSF administer the Occupied Six Counties for Westminster means they are (to us), puppets at best and collaborators at worst. They project themselves as Republicans yet call for recognition of Westminster superiority in politics, call for recognition of colonial paramilitary police at a legitimate police in Occupied Ireland and call on the people to inform on those who still oppose the occupation by physical means.

The victory which surprised even Sinn Fein. Does it mean that the right-wing neoliberal policies pushed the people of Ireland to demand a more radical break with the unrestrained capitalist policies? Do you think Sinn Fein would be able to keep its promises?

While for many in the wider world a vote for more leftist policies and parties may seem of little consequences, for Ireland it was and is somewhat significant. For generation the control of church and neo liberal politicians has kept 2 parties in power for 100 years. This past election more younger people made conscious decision as to who they would vote, This was a direct result of the unrepresentative policies inflicted on the people for the past decade in particular, no social housing, underinvestment in schools and hospitals and an increase in retirement ages for older our generation while at the same time generous and early pensions for politicians, an ability for politicians and those of better means to access first class private health alongside being able to afford private housing or rent.

For generations people voted the way their parents did or not at all, so it is good to see a higher number of youth (20-35) get out and vote, the majority of whom voted for parties professing to be left. I feel IF PSF can form a coalition with other parties they will try bring in some progressive left policies. They have written legislation for returning the age of retirement down by 2 years, and everyone knows there has to be a program of house building. This feeling is however tempered by the knowledge that in Occupied Ireland they have stood over an increase in retirement age and an increase in some regressive taxes. Also for those who may know the administration in Occupied Ireland did not sit for almost 3 years, yet the PSF assembly members (along with all others) continues to draw their wages, which at best is not good socialist politics.

In case Sinn Fein does not manage to keep up with the promises, could a further radicalisation of the society be expected? For example, among the youth which seems to be carrying all the weight of the neolibral burden. Does it also mean that RSF could gain from that situation?

A good question and if it was asked 2 years ago I would have said NO. But the politicization of a huge swath of our youth will mean that things will change, whether at a slow pace or in a radical manner is really unknown. A mass movement in the past few years against water tax and a home tax surprised the establishment and PSF, on both these new taxes PSF were on the wrong side and had to do a complete turnaround. RSF are an abstentionist party, until such time as the Republic has been re-established, this does somewhat stifle our growth. Alongside this the oppression from the state, through their political police makes it hard to grow, but if the youth become more radical there is the chance of better growth but equally a growth in other left parties. Also an awareness that a United Ireland would be a more prosperous Ireland will dawn on the politically aware citizens and a growth in the calls for Unity and disengagement of British Imperialism.

When talking about Ireland, the media talks about the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland as two separate entities without mentioning the context of British colonisation. The language being a way to legitimise particular political contexts, what is for you the correct way to refer to those two entities?

As you will have seen from earlier answers the correct term for “northern Ireland” is Occupied Six Counties” or “Occupied Ireland”. If it is correct to call all lands of Zionist Israel Occupied Palestine then the same has to be true for the area occupied by the British.

For the area known at The Republic, we use the “Twenty-Six County State” or the “Freestate”. Historically the Republic was founded under arms is 1916 and consisted of all 32 counties, it was also confirmed with the only All-Ireland election of 1918. What was established in 1922 by M Collins was called The Freestate consisting of only 26 counties.

There was a recent survey which claims that only 22% of Irish citizens in the occupied 6 counties desire independence. Does it reflect the reality? Does a British standard of living play a role in how the citizens of the occupied 6 counties percieve Irish unity?

I have not heard of this particular survey, but any survey result depends on the complexity or simplicity of the question put and the demographic asked. What I do know is that over the past 2 years the results of such surveys have consistently resulted in a majority favouring. Unity/Independence. Many surveys have also done to gauge the impact unity would have on the finances of a United Ireland over the existing 2 states; again these consistently concluded that a United Ireland would be financially better off to the tune of Billions.

For the second part of your question, my belief is that all those within the UK will be financially worse off after Brexit is finalized, people in Occupied Ireland will obviously see a financial benefit of unity irrespective of their present allegiance.

In regards to Balkans, how does RSF evaluate the situation around the imperialist-imposed independence of Kosovo?

This is something I have only briefly looked at, I suppose the propaganda of my early adulthood had be believing the age-old tactic of Imperialists, that warring tribes within Yugoslavia could not work together and areas wanted independence etc. The arbitrary recognition of an independent Kosovo stands in stark contrast with that of Catalonia. It is clear that a politically weakened Serbia was the desire or USA, UK and others within the EU. To date it is still difficult to find hard facts from independent media outlets, I would be very interested in a full analysis of the situation from on-the-ground activists.

And about Rojava?

The fighting of the Rojava is well documented in all media here, which is strange in many ways, normally we see hear little of groups seeking a homeland considering our past/present. Traditionally Irish Republicans have called for a homeland for the Kurds, we have stood in solidarity with their political prisoners. Today, it is clear that the Rojava are again being used as a tool by Imperialists, the USA has established airbases in areas controlled by Rojava and at the same time facilitated Turkeys annexation of areas of Syria. It is clear this is a continuation of the proxy war against Syria and its people.

Finally, what is your favourite football club?

Football? American football? British/European football? Rugby football? Australian football or Gaelic Football?

I can assume it is the football of Liverpool + Manchester United. This is SOCCER J and I have no interest in it. Over-payed soft men who fall and roll round crying if a strong wind from a challenge blows them. I recommend you look at; Hurling or Gaelic Football for a real man’s game 😉

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.

 

World

Comment le Front National, aujourd’hui présidé par Marine Le Pen, a lutté contre la Yougoslavie

Leave a comment

Nous avons écrit auparavant sur l’implication du Front National dans la guerre Yougoslave des années 90. Nous avons vu qu’ils ont envoyé des volontaires et des convois humanitaires suspects. Nous avons décidé d’investiguer un peu plus sur leur rôle dans cette guerre et nous avons trouvé des informations très intéressantes.

Dans un de ces convois humanitaires parti le 19 décembre 1991 d’Avignon, nous trouvons : Alain Sanders, un journaliste qui couvre la guerre pour le quotidien catholique Chrétienté-Solidarité et le Présent, Bernard Anthony, dirigeant de Chrétienté-Solidarité et député européen du FN, Thibault de la Tocnaye, membre du comité central du FN et conseiller pour la région PACA, Jean-Marie le Chevallier, député européen du FN, et Jacques Barthélémy, un habitué des voyages en Croatie. A cette occasion ils ont rencontré Dobroslav Paraga et Milo Dedokavic du HSP (formation paramilitaire néonazi croate). Une autre information très intéressante est que les participants du convoi qui s’est fait arrêter à la douane slovène avec des armes, ont donné comme contact le numéro de téléphone de Jacques Bompard, un des fondateurs du Front National.1

Le fait que le rôle du FN dans cette guerre ne se limitait pas à l’aide humanitaire, est confirmé par Francis Bergeron, un journaliste et scénariste français, classé généralement à droite, membre du comité central du FN, qui est décrit par ses collègues comme quelqu’un qui a consacré toute sa vie au FN et qui a fidèlement défendu ses idées.2 Il avait déclaré pour le quotidien Présent du 10 octobre 1993 que « La Croatie s’est une aventure. C’est en Europe, à quelques heures de voiture, la possibilité pour nos jeunes militants de vivre une aventure utile grâce à l’action caritative ou de vivre une aventure militaire… Cette expérience-là quand on a 20 ans, il faut avoir eu l’occasion de la faire. »3

Et nombreux sont ceux qui ont saisi cette occasion-là. Parmi eux nous trouvons Gaston Besson, le filleul de Jean-Marie Le Pen. Gaston Besson a combattu dans le 6ème bataillon du HOS (formation paramilitaire néonazi croate),4 ensemble avec l’infâme Major Chikago, puis après le démantèlement du HOS, il sera intégré dans la garde nationale croate (HVO).5 Actuellement il habite à Pula, en Croatie, et il organise la formation paramilitaire, néonazi, ukrainienne Azov,6 qui combat au côté du gouvernement ukrainien. Dans une interview pour le RTS suisse il dit : « J’en ai marre de tuer des gens. J’ai passé l’âge », alors maintenant il est juste dans l’organisation du bataillon.7 Nous avons visité son compte facebook, ainsi que sa page, où nous avons trouvé des photos de guerre,8 des extrais de son livre autobiographique Ainsi va l’homme, dans lesquels il parle ouvertement des crimes de guerre commis à l’encontre des serbes. Dans un chapitre intitulé „Pas de prisonniers“, il raconte une bataille en Bosnie, en 1993, dans laquelle comme le titre le dit, ils n’ont pas fait de prisonniers, mais ont exécuté sommairement tout serbe qu’ils ont croisé sur leur chemin. Bruler des villages serbes et des églises chrétiennes orthodoxes ne lui ai pas étranger non plus.9 Parmi ses photos on le trouve dans son jeune âge, à côté de Jean-Marie Le Pen, 10 qui est devenu pour Besson, comme il l’explique, son parrain officiel après la mort de son père. Toujours d’après les mots de Besson, son père était un des fondateurs du FN et membre du groupe terroriste OAS, qui a opéré en Algérie avec l’intention de remettre l’Algérie sous la domination française, d’où vient la réciprocité avec les Le Pen. Il est intéressant de constater que malgré la campagne politique de Marine Le Pen, dans laquelle elle tente de se représenter comme plus modérée par rapport à son père, puis elle essaie de flatter la Russie, Gaston qui combat au côtés des néonazis ukrainiens la soutient quand même fortement.11

Parmi ces aventuriers nous avons également Michel Roch Faci, qui était chef du service d’ordre du FN, et dont nous avons déjà parlé dans le passé.12

Un autre personnage très intéressant lié au FN, qui a participé dans la guerre yougoslave  en tant que combattant au côté croate est André-Yves Beck. En 1991 il a participé à la création de Nouvelle Résistance avec laquelle il a était parmi les premiers à rejoindre la Brigade Internationale. Nouvelle Résistance aurait maintenu sa présence auprès des croates de 1991 jusqu’à la fin de la guerre.13 Lors de son retour en France, il est devenu le responsable de la communication de Jacques Bompard, qui est comme nous l’avons mentionné plus haut un des fondateurs du FN et le personnage impliqué dans le convoi « humanitaire » chargé d’armes. Jacques Bompard a été maire d’Orange entre 1995 et 2013, et tout ce temps il a été fidèlement servi par André-Yves Beck. De 2014 à août 2016, Beck a été directeur de cabinet de Robert Ménard à Béziers. Rappelons que la candidature de Ménard a été soutenue par le FN. Pour le moment on ne sait pas où est-ce que Beck va continuer sa carrière politique, mais des rumeurs cours qu’il sera peut-être intégré dans le cabinet de Marine Le Pen.14

Un journaliste suisse du nom de Christian Würtenberg s’était infiltré dans cette Brigade internationale afin de la suivre de près. Il enquêtait sur leurs moyens de financement, leurs liens avec la droite européenne, et surtout le FN, ainsi que sur le trafic de drogues et d’armes à travers les Balkans. Au début de 1992 il a été découvert par Eduardo Rozsa Flores, qui l’a torturé et assassiné. Flores va par la suite participer au nettoyage ethnique des musulmans à Mostar. Ensuite il va combattre auprès de l’UNITA en Angola, pour réapparaitre au Kosovo dans l’uniforme de l’UCK, où il a assassiné cinq policiers à Korenica avec le but de provoquer une escalade du conflit. Aujourd’hui le monde peut dormir tranquillement en ce qui le concerne, car Eduardo Rozsa Flores s’est fait abattre par la police bolivienne en avril 2009 alors qu’il menait les séparatistes de Santa Cruz avec lesquels il avait planifié une série d’attentats, dont un contre le président Evo Morales en personne.

On se doit de constater que le fait que certains serbes de droite soutiennent aujourd’hui le FN avec sa présidente Marine Le Pen relève d’un énorme paradoxe. De cette manière ils crachent dans la figure d’autre gens qui ont parlé contre cette guerre et qui ont soutenu le côté serbe, car ils sont tous d’orientation marxiste : Michael Parenti15, Heather Cottin avec son mari Sean Gervasi, qui est décédé à Belgrade,  Michel Collon, et bien d’autres. Nous avons également les minorités opprimés à l’Occident, comme Mumia Abu Jamal, qui a parlé encore à cette époque-là contre cette guerre, puis le magazine afro-américain The Burning Spear, qui a consacré tout un article à cette guerre dans son édition de avril 2003, où ils disent que « d’après le point de vue du Parti socialiste du peuple africain (African People’s Socialist Party), les nationalistes serbes qui veulent la Serbie libre et la paix dans les Balkans, doivent s’unir avec le reste du monde qui n’est pas blanc et combattre la suprématie blanche imposée par les Etats Unis et l’Europe.16

Et voilà qu’aujourd’hui nous avons certains serbes de droite qui veulent aller ensemble avec la droite européenne, qui a participé à des crimes de guerre contre les serbes, défendre maintenant une certaine Europe „blanche et chrétienne“. Nous leur disons „Non merci! Pas en notre nom!“

 

  1. http://reflexes.samizdat.net/les-phalanges-du-desordre-noir/  ↩

  2. http://www.fn42.fr/article-deces-de-francis-bergeron-61561512.html  ↩

  3. http://reflexes.samizdat.net/les-phalanges-du-desordre-noir/  ↩

  4. https://www.facebook.com/gastonbessonpublique/photos/a.537793616292959.1073741835.537693449636309/1185100274895620/?type=3&theater  ↩

  5. https://www.facebook.com/gastonbessonpublique/photos/a.537793616292959.1073741835.537693449636309/1185940058144975/?type=3&theater  ↩

  6. https://www.facebook.com/gastonbessonpublique/photos/a.537793616292959.1073741835.537693449636309/1121719897900325/?type=3&theater  ↩

  7.   https://www.rts.ch/info/monde/6686719–j-en-ai-marre-de-tuer-des-gens-j-ai-passe-l-age-.html  ↩

  8. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1206925046047765&set=pb.100001908435483.-2207520000.1487537504.&type=3&theater  ↩

  9. https://www.facebook.com/gastonbessonpublique/posts/1340836429322003AEoAQ  ↩

  10. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=794025914004349&set=a.412017018871909.96164.100001908435483&type=3&theater  ↩

  11. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=807282999345307&set=a.412017018871909.96164.100001908435483&type=3&theater  ↩

  12. http://www.princip.info/2017/02/13/ko-je-voda-nacista-sa-snimka-koji-je-predvodio-borbu-protiv-srba/  ↩

  13. http://reflexes.samizdat.net/les-phalanges-du-desordre-noir/  ↩

  14. http://www.midilibre.fr/2016/04/02/andre-yves-beck-un-expert-de-la-com-qui-aime-l-ombre,1310305.php  ↩

  15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEzOgpMWnVs  ↩

  16.   https://archive.org/stream/BurningSpearVolume23Number1/spear-2003-04#page/n9/mode/2up  ↩

World

The Kurdish nationalist movement is abandoning a conception of armed struggle while not giving up armed actions

Leave a comment

(Yuruyus [“March”] magazine no. 512, March 13, 2016, p.31-3. Translated from Turkish)

The Kurdish nationalist movement is abandoning a conception of armed struggle while not giving up armed actions.

Its most powerful actions involving hundreds of kilos of explosives are simply about continuing the conciliation process and getting the AKP back to the negotiating table!

The quality of an armed action and the political strength of it depend on their content! The Kurdish nationalist movement’s armed actions do not mean that it is defending armed struggle!

The Ankara action and the arguments caused by it

On February 17, 2016 in the state quarter of Ankara, a vehicle carrying military personnel (soldiers and civilian civil servants) was targeted in an action. As a result 29 people died and dozens were injured. Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and President Tayyip Erdogan lost no time after the action in issuing statement after statement that the PYD-YPG in Syria had carried out the action, and said a refugee from Rojava named Saleh Nejjar had carried it out. Not long after the PYD denied any connection to the action and said nobody of that name was affiliated to them.

But despite this the AKP persisted in attributing it to the PYD, and it kept trying to prove it, calling the ambassadors of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (USA, France, Russia, Britain and China and the German ambassador to the ministry. Moreover the current EU chair and the chair of the Turkey EU delegation were informed…

The AKP counted on intervening in Syria in order to prevent the creation of a Kurdish area and maintained this effort at the highest level… In particular in its debate with the USA on the subject of the PYD, it sought to strengthen its own case, and by pushing the PYD into a corner it sought to prevent it from taking any steps independent of Turkey. It sought to use this action too for this goal.

From the first moment of the action, Kurdish nationalist circles also made statements and assessments to the effect that the action might be a contra-guerrilla1 one. But a short time later a statement was made implying the action was perhaps a PKK one, when Cemil Bayik said, “An action carried out in Ankara at the centre of militarism might be an action to achieve vengeance for the inhuman, savage and genocidal massacres carried out against our people.” None of these statements attributed responsibility and this came across as a rather feeble voice emerging from the swamp of conciliation. It was a statement that confused many when it came to attributing responsibility for the action, and essentially it amounted to a threat being made to the AKP government.

After a statement was made that the USA was not accepting the AKP’s claims, on the third day after the explosion it was claimed by TAK (Teyrambaze Azadiya Kurdistan – Kurdistan Freedom Falcons)… Despite this claim the AKP continued to maintain that the PYD and the PKK were not independent of one another, that they were the same organisation, and it persisted in trying to get others to accept its versions.

Until this claim was made, it is necessary to say that there was a good deal of confusion in the minds of Kurdish nationalists. While the AKP persisted in attributing the action to the PYD, Kurdish nationalist writers and those who tail them sometimes took a cautious attitude in the press organs of the Kurdish nationalist movement, but some thought it was a contra-guerrilla action.

Here are some examples:

“Mahir Kaynak said, ‘who does it benefit?’ Who does benefit from it? Neither the USA nor Russia. Neither Assad nor the YPG! Look, Yeni Safak2 adds Iran to the mix and says ‘everyone is a partner’! But it doesn’t benefit anyone! The YPG is only one problematic actor in this.”3

“Surprising, isn’t it, people close to the vehicle where the bomb exploded were torn apart, body parts caught fire and burned, but despite this while the smoke was still billowing Prime Minister Davutoglu said the suspect was Saleh Nejjar, a Syrian Kurd and YPG member. The Turkish media came up with identification and a photograph, the President began howling about the ‘terrorist PYD’. But no, the world knew well who it was and whose hands were in whose pockets. Human beings have their throats cut by proxy, bombs are set off by proxy.”4

“24 hours had not gone by before the AKP said it had solved the Ankara event, let us reflect on the fact it could not solve over a period of years Roboski and Reyhanli, or over a period of months Suruc, the October 10 Ankara bombing or Sultanahmet. Developments here should cause people to think about what the head of MIT5 , Hakan Fidan, meant when he said ‘send four men and I will get them to fire eight missiles.’“6

Moreover Saleh Muslim7 also made a statement pointing to contra-guerrillas: “This is definitely not right. Kurds have no connection with the event in Ankara. Here there is a connection with Turkey’s struggle with ISIL. In the same way this was done by ISIL members living in Turkey.”8

It should not be as simple as this for an action to become confused with a contra-guerrilla action. But actions by Kurdish nationalists can have this confused character. The reasons for this are undoubtedly connected to the conception of actions derived from the past history of the Kurdish nationalist movement, and its viewpoint on armed struggle and actions today.

The Kurdish nationalist movement’s conception of armed actions and armed struggle is distorted

When the PKK first entered the arena of struggle in 1978, armed struggle was a basic part of its line… Despite some distortions in targeting and conception of armed struggle, in a stable manner it set in motion armed struggle and its targets were obvious ones. And this made the Kurdish nationalist movement worthy of esteem.

Another reason for this is that at the start the PKK was a movement whose line was influenced by both socialism and revolutionary models derived from socialist countries, and its aim was power on a national basis.

But with the collapse of the socialist countries, the PKK began to turn towards imperialist countries and to seek conciliation.

In 1993 it declared a cease-fire and gradually for the Kurdish nationalist movement armed struggle became downgraded to a “tactic”. Cease-fire decisions followed one after the other. A reformist approach began to determine all PKK politics and tactics, the armed struggle included. The first steps on the road towards conciliation were taken in 1993. It can be said that after this the armed struggle completely became about increasing the power of conciliation efforts and about getting the imperialists and Turkey’s oligarchy to sit down at the negotiating table.

When it set out on the road the aim was independence, but in every subsequent period its demands were whittled down a little more each time, and finally the Kurdish problem was reduced to the language question. At this point the aims of the struggle and methods of the struggle were openly in contradiction with one another. The demands were those that could be made by any legal party or democratic organisation, for they were within the system, and so for these demands neither a guerrilla force nor armed struggle were required.

The process also gathered pace after Ocalan was captured. In all these periods we have seen ever more obvious deviations in the PKK line, both in its conception of actions and in its targets. On the one hand, in the name of conciliation it has continually made concessions, like retreating from the aim of “Independent Kurdistan” to an “autonomy” model consisting of partial self-government by local authorities, while on the other it reached the point that the armed struggle had reached its sell-by date and was being abandoned within the frontiers of Turkey. Armed struggle is also unnecessary for a movement distancing itself from the aim of power and merely seeking autonomy for local authorities.

Nor is the Kurdish nationalist movement restricting itself to this – outside Turkey it is entering into relations with imperialism and has reached the point where it has no problems with serving as its ground forces. At the point it has reached, the PKK is itself rejecting armed struggle and saying weapons have served their purpose. The Kurdish nationalist movement has largely undermined its basis for engaging in armed struggle, both ideologically and strategically.

Carrying out armed actions does not mean a defence of armed struggle!

Many sectors completely misunderstand why the PKK supports guerrillas and carries out armed actions. One day a cease-fire will be declared, the next it will be ended for no obvious reason. On the one hand it will say that “armed struggle has passed its sell-by date”, on the other it will say “we will never give up our weapons”. One day it will say, “from now on we will wage a political struggle”, then it will say, “let us join the guerrillas.” But there is no confusion here. The PKK has ceased aiming for power. It has left the aim of Independent Kurdistan to one side. Essentially it has removed its basis for waging armed struggle. In taking steps forward and back, its only aim is to bring the oligarchy to the negotiating table.

The Kurdish nationalist movement is at a point where it has no solutions. This is indisputable. But this point it has reached is not because of armed struggle but the result of it distancing itself from armed struggle and tending in the direction of reformism. All the gains of the armed struggle are dead ends and surrenders, and these are the consequences of nationalism and reformism.

Carrying out a large number of armed actions does not mean that an armed struggle is being conducted. Essentially armed struggle is a political struggle. The quality of the armed struggle depends on the correctness and health of the ideology directing and being directed by it. As we view it this way, the way the Kurdish nationalist movement is slipping and sliding ideologically means it cannot maintain a persistent and stable line on armed struggle.

The Kurdish nationalist movement’s conception of armed struggle is not revolutionary

Throughout these periods the PKK has also expressed a great many distortions in armed struggle and armed actions. This ultimately comes from distortions in its understanding of actions. As a petit bourgeois nationalist movement, it carries out actions in revenge for the oligarchy’s contra-guerrilla attacks on the people which themselves harm the people, and look like actions the contra-guerrillas might have carried out. From the Cetinkaya shop action to village massacres in Basbaglar, it has put its signature to quite a few actions like that. And it has defended this behaviour for years.

So in a number of places, PKK actions resemble contra-guerrilla actions and this makes it easy for the oligarchy to engage in demagogy about the PKK, and contra-guerrilla actions can easily be passed off as PKK actions.

In recent years the PKK has had a line of “discussions” and “conciliation”, so it has been more circumspect about carrying out actions that affect civilians, but it has never made an open and sincere self-criticism for past actions and continues to see them as feasible types of action.

Actions by TAK in particular have a character of not targeting the military but harming civilians. Also TAK comes across in these actions as having the force of a kind of PKK. And this is why it can quite calmly be stated by the Kurdish nationalist environment that these kinds of actions might be contra-guerrilla ones. At the very least it might give rise to this thought: if a major action is carried out in an area called “The State Quarter” (Turkish: Devlet Mahallesi) and if there is an absence of political clarity in an action targeting the state forces, with civilians also travelling in the service vehicles being targeted in addition, the thought will readily come to mind that this is a contra-guerrilla action.

On the other hand the Ankara action was not clearly and unambiguously claimed by the PKK, it was claimed in the name of TAK. In other words, the Ankara action was also assessed as part of the process of conciliation and carried out with this aim in mind. While the behaviour underlying the action created confusion in people’s minds, claiming the action clears the matter up.

In a lengthy interview with Cemil Bayik carried in the 19 February Ozgur Gundem newspaper, the PKK was glorified at great length and described as the most correct and clear in everything it did, it had never done anything wrong and so it can come as no surprise when he made the following statement:

 “An action carried out in Ankara at the centre of militarism might be an action to achieve vengeance for the inhuman, savage and genocidal massacres carried out against our people. We cannot know who carried out this action. But what we do know is that when previously massacres were perpetrated in Kurdistan, actions such as these were carried out as vengeance. In any case, let those who carried out the action explain why they did it. But it is clearly understood that when such a tyrannical war is being conducted against the Kurds, some will carry out revenge and reprisal actions. A state that slaughters young people and civilians in Cizre has no right to talk about these actions. But if the intellectuals, writers, journalists and politicians of Turkey do not come out against the tyranny of the Turkish state, angry Kurdish youth may take vengeance for these attacks perpetrated against the Kurdish people.”

Look at this concept of actions… A movement with clear political aims and a clear concept of actions would not say such things…

What does “angry Kurdish youth” mean? Why does Bayik use such a concept so devoid of politics? He is not clearly claiming the action, presents it as the work of angry youth and is showing the iron hand in a velvet glove. He wants to say, look what will happen if you don’t reach agreement with us. At this point it has become clear that they are continuing to struggle in vain in the swamp of conciliation and this latest action was also done in the name of reaching agreement with the AKP.  It is also clear that at this point the action did not directly target state institutions.

On the other hand, we are seeing continuing threats from the PKK over a period of time… Murat Karayilan, Cemil Bayik and other KCK leaders are threatening to step up the war.  Cemil Bayik put forward winter conditions etc. as an excuse, saying that a lot of things would happen in the spring. But in reality there is no consistent and determined behaviour on display as regards renewing armed struggle or developing the war. On the contrary their behaviour is about trying to breathe new life into reconciliation. While Kurdistan is being levelled to the ground, Kurdish cities burned and destroyed and corpses disfigured beyond recognition emerge from Cizre, the Kurdish nationalists have done nothing but seek to raise false hopes in the name of reining in the anger of the people.

In conclusion:

  1. The Ankara action has caused a number of disputes about conceptions of armed struggle… The AKP wanted to use it to pressurise the PYD and obstruct the establishment of a Kurdish state. But the USA above all prevented them from doing this. The USA has moved to protect the PYD. Then the action was claimed by TAK and all the AKP’s lies were exposed.
  2. Both in the form of the action and its targets, it was also considered to be a counter-guerrilla one. Both the history of the Kurdish nationalist movement and its concept of actions played roles in this, as did the fact that rather than state institutions in the “state quarter”, civilians using service vehicles were among those targeted.
  3. While largely abandoning the line of armed struggle it had when it first emerged, the PKK has reached the point where armed actions are merely about achieving conciliation. The main reason is that their targeting has gone backwards and is governed by a petty-bourgeois nationalist viewpoint. A movement that does not aim for power also has no need to wage an armed struggle.
  4. While the PKK is abandoning a conception of armed struggle it is not giving up armed actions. It can still carry out actions today. But today the most powerful weapons it uses are in the service of reaching conciliation and continuing the process of conciliation. So it is an error to expect the PKK to restart the war and embark on open war against the oligarchy.
  5. The PKK with its threats and its statements that “we will renew the war” is trying to re-awaken hope among the people.
  6. The PKK is a movement which has broken away from a line of armed struggle and is swimming in the swamp of conciliation. The liberation of the Kurdish people means revolution and stepping up armed warfare.

  1. NOTE: Counter-guerrilla is part of the Gladio Operation in Turkey. ↩

  2. Translator’s note: a pro-AKP daily ↩

  3. Mustafa Yalciner, 20.02.2016, Ozgur Gundem ↩

  4. Ahmet Hahraman, 20.02.2016, Yeni Ozgur Politika ↩

  5. Translator’s note: Turkish state security and intelligence service ↩

  6. Hacer Altunsoy, 20.02.2016, Yeni Ozgur Politika ↩

  7. translator’s note: a PYD leader in Syria ↩

  8. AFP ↩

World

Interview with the Anti-Imperialist Front (part one)

Leave a comment

What is the Anti-Imperialist Front? What are the objectives it pursues and what political and ideological basis it has? Who can form part of the Anti-Imperialist Front?

The Anti-imperialist Front was created after a Symposium Against Imperialist Aggression Against People in 2014. It is an anti-imperialist unity (alliance) of 15 organisations and individuals. It is an international alliance. The goal is it to build a unity and front of struggle of all oppressed people in the world against aggression and all interests of all imperialist and fascist forces. The Anti-imperialist Front is a union, which is covering every institution agaist imperialism and imperialist aggression.

The actual situation in the world is very complicates, especially for the oppressed countries and people, and it also represents a clutter of interests which is hard to understand and analyze.  How and what kind of analysis does the Anti-Imperialist Front make about the actual situation in the world?

If we are looking at the current situation in the world on the basis of class struggle it is actually not confusing. One of the most important analysis of the Anti-Imperialist Front is, that even when the imperialist have a clash of interests from time to time, they always get to an agreement when it comes to oppress the people. Starting from this analyses we can see, that the main contradiction in the world is between imperialism and oppressed people. The contradiction between imperialism and oppressed people will be complemented with the support of the imperialist collaborators in the oppressed countries.

In the present the revolutionary and the anti-imperialist movement in the world is very scattered and divided. A question which generates a lot of divisions and debates about the existence of a single imperialist block headed by USA or there are two blocks: one headed by USA and the other one by Russia and China. What is the position of the Anti-Imperialist Front about this question?

There are two imperialists blocks: one is headed by the USA and its collaborators, the other with all its internal contradictions is headed by the EU. Russia and China are categorised as capitalist countries and acting in their own regional interests. But we cannot say, that these two countries are differentimperialist blocks. Because if we analyze them in the growth of the capitalism they are not powerful enough to be imperialist.

Independently of how are Russia and China categorized, what is clear is that they are emerging capitalist countries driven exclusively by their geopolitical and economic interests and that their help to the oppressed people of Syria, Venezuela, etc. is always conditioned by those interests. What is the position of the Anti-Imperialist Front regarding Russia and China? Currently, one part of the world left defends Russia and China as anti-imperialist and that those countries should lead the world anti-imperialist movement. What is the position of the Anti-Imperialist Front about this question?

The anti-imperialist struggle can only be driven by the united fight of the oppressed people. Russia and China are developping economical and political relations in the frame of their regional interests. It is not possible to think, that the Anti-Imperialist Front and anti-imperialist struggle can be leaded by these two countries. On the base of the anti-imperialist struggle are the oppressed people. Only because a country is confronting with Imperialism to save their own interests or has contradictions with them from time to time, doesn`t make them necessarily a part of the anti-imperialist struggle. In the case of resisting against imperialist aggression, could be supported from the oppressed in different forms. But this solidarity can only be in the frame of the right of self-determination and of the people and resisting against imperialist aggression.

The current war in the Middle East is of special importance: Syria, Palestine and Kurdish people on the side of the oppressed and USA, Israel, Turkey,  feudal arab monarchies on the side of the oppressors. What is the position of the Anti-Imperialist Front on the Middle East?

Middle East is a region, where man made divisions and contradictions by Imperialist countries exist for decades. People where divided and made enemies of each other. The main contradiction at this region is between the oppressed people and Imperialism. On the axis of US Imperialism are local collaborating governments and on the other side resisting people. The freedom of the people in Middle East only is possible, when Imperialism and their collaborators can be removed, based on the united struggle of the people. It will be suggested, that the main enemy is IS to legitimate the collaboration with Imperialism. But to make an alliance with Imperialism against IS won´t bring freedom for the people of Middle East. Only a united fight of the people against Imperialits and their collaborators, who where supporting and feeding IS, can lead to victory.

How should the revolutionary and anti-imperialist world movement confront the imperialism and the wars of aggression against the oppressed countries and people?  What is Anti-Imperialist proposing in order to organize the resistance and the struggle against imperialism in the world? What is the importance that  Anti-Imperialist gives to the unity of revolutionary and anti-imperialist movement in the world? What are the basic principles of this unity?

The answer of an anti-imperialist world movement is without any doubt to support the resistance of the oppressed people. To organize that struggle should be on the basis of strengthening the unity and the quality of the union. Even if the support will be gradual. The solidarity we are talking about should be based on beginning the struggle on our own countries, as well as spreading out to the people worldwide and additionally to support it actively. The growth of the struggle depends on breadth of the struggle in the countries of the members of the organization. Apart from the expansion the struggle world wide, the main principle of the unity is: to turn towards the people and repel the imperialist aggression in a common struggle. To take a concrete statement against imperialism. Because imperialism is confusing the people with their own agenda. So friend and foe will be mixed up. So it is indespinsable to be clear in terms of imperialism. So one of the basic principles of the unity should turn against imperialism and all kind of collaborators and prevent that people make enemy of each other.