Meeting pledges unreserved solidarity with the DPRK
On Saturday 14 February, the Friends of Korea
organised a well attended meeting in Saklatvala Hall, Southall, west London, on the theme, Unreserved Solidarity with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
(DPRK). The meeting also marked the 67th birthday, on 16 February, of the
Korean leader Comrade Kim Jong Il. Guest of honour at the meeting was Comrade
Jang Song Chol from the London Embassy of the DPRK.
Before the formal proceedings, the audience watched
“Answer of Korea”, a DPRK documentary film, which sets out in clear and
precise details the long history of the US imperialist nuclear threat to the
DPRK and the Korean people’s anti-imperialist resistance and fight for peace.
The meeting was chaired by Comrade Zane Carpenter,
General Secretary of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
(CPGB-ML), who emphasised that solidarity with the DPRK was an important and
integral part of our revolutionary work in Britain.
The main speech was given by Comrade Keith Bennett
on behalf of Friends of Korea. (We reproduce extensive excerpts from Comrade
Keith’s speech below.)
Following his well-received contribution,
solidarity messages were given by comrades representing the Juche Idea Study
Group, Socialist Labour Party, Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain
(Marxist-Leninist) (RCPBML) and the CPGB-ML.
Speaking for the CPGB-ML, Comrade Ella Rule, Vice
Chairman, detailed the new evidence of imperialist atrocities perpetrated
against the Korean people in the 1950-53 war. (For full details on this see the
February/March edition of the CPGB-ML journal Proletarian: http://www.cpgbml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=479)
Comrade Ella echoed other speakers in demanding that the Irish politician Sean
Garland not be extradited to the United States on spurious charges of
supposedly working with the DPRK to distribute counterfeit US dollars. Anybody
wondering as to the quality of US justice in such instances need only consider
the case of the Miami Five Cuban patriots, Comrade Ella noted. The meeting
agreed to send a strong protest to the Irish government in this regard.
Comrade Jang from the DPRK Embassy made brief
remarks, stating that the Workers’ Party of Korea would always stand shoulder-to-shoulder
with the communists in Britain and other European countries.
The meeting closed with the unanimous adoption of a
message of greetings to Comrade Kim Jong Il.
Following the meeting, the comrades from RCPB(ML)
presented an excellent programme of revolutionary music from Britain, Korea and
other countries on violin and piano, culminating in all rising to sing the
Internationale.
Comrades then took the opportunity to view a photo
exhibition and a lively social with excellent food and drink continued for
several hours.
_________________
The following is the gist of Comrade Keith
Bennett’s presentation to the meeting:
To stand in solidarity with the DPRK is to stand in
solidarity with Comrade Kim Jong Il. All the victories of the Korean people, in
defending the independence, sovereignty and dignity of the country against
imperialism and its stooges; and in building a modernised, prosperous and
powerful socialist country are inseparable from his leadership and guidance.
DPRK celebrates 60th anniversary
Last year, the DPRK celebrated the 60th
anniversary of its founding and, throughout the year, major successes were
achieved in socialist construction, rehabilitating and developing many sectors
of the national economy on the basis of self-reliance.
It was also a year in which the
Korean people faced continued grave challenges from US imperialism and its
stooges, principally the right wing governments in Tokyo and Seoul. Agreements
made at the six party talks in Beijing, which are supposed to secure peace and
security on the Korean peninsula through comprehensive and not one-sided
denuclearisation, were not adhered to, meaning that the DPRK received far less
in terms of energy provision than it was entitled to, leaving the country with
no alternative other than to restart the operation of its nuclear facilities at
Yongbyon.
Nevertheless, in the face of these
challenges, and of much prevarication and bad faith on the part of the Bush
administration, the DPRK secured a huge victory when the United States finally
removed the disgraceful State Department designation as a “terrorist state” and
the US President declared that the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act
would no longer be applied to the country.
Obstacles to reunification
Over the last year, the Korean people
faced, and are facing, a particular challenge in their struggle for the
independent and peaceful reunification of the country, which has been ongoing
for more than half a century. Finally responding to the DPRK’s consistent and
principled stance, which is embodied in the slogan “By our Nation itself”, and
which is also supported by the organisations of the workers, farmers and
students in south Korea, as well as all the progressive and patriotic people
there, the two previous administrations of Kim Dae Jung and Roh Mu Hyun both
visited Pyongyang to meet with Comrade Kim Jong Il and respectively signed the
June 15 Joint Declaration and the October 4 Declaration, representing the will
of all the Korean people, and opening up an unprecedented degree of
reconciliation and cooperation in many fields between the north and the south,
along the road to ultimate reunification.
However, at the beginning of last
year, the right wing, conservative administration of Lee Myung Bak took office
in south Korea and ripped up both these declarations, whose achievement were
the results of years of struggle. Under Lee Myung Bak, south Korea was promptly
plunged back into the bad old days – of servility to US imperialism, of
hostility to the compatriots in the north, of repression of the democratic and
patriotic people at home, and of an economic policy that has mired the country
in recession, making the rich still richer and the poor still poorer.
All of this has, in turn, been met
with massive resistance on the part of the south Korean people. Daily protests
at the lifting of the ban on importing US beef, which threatens the livelihood
of many south Korean farmers, drew hundreds of thousands of people every day
for weeks on end and actually forced George W Bush to postpone his visit to Seoul.
Tenants massacred in Seoul
On 20 January this year, a police
attack on tenants resisting eviction in Seoul led to the deaths of six people.
In response to this atrocity, thousands have marched, demanding that the police
chief be fired for this unwarranted use of force to evict people from their
homes.
The US paper Workers’ World
gave some background to this atrocity as follows:
“Disputes involving evictions have become
everyday occurrences in Seoul. The struggle is between real estate developers
and apartment dwellers whose desire to stay in their homes gets in the way of
profiteering. The rightist government now in power in south Korea has lined up with the developers, responding to every legitimate protest with massive
use of police. During the weekend demonstrations, 10,000 police surrounded the
crowds.
“On 20 January, about 50 people had tried
sitting in to keep [themselves] from being evicted. Some 1,500 police
were called in to remove them. Within 24 hours of the beginning of the protest,
the government sent the equivalent of riot police or a SWAT team to storm the
four-storey building.
“As the police charged in, a fire broke out. The
police took no safety measures but proceeded with the assault. As a result,
five tenants and one police officer died in the fire.”
In a statement, the National Council of Churches in
Korea correctly noted:
“The tragic affair happened because of the
government’s neo-liberal policy, which has deepened the gap between the rich
and the poor, and the police’s excessive loyalty to the government.”
A 9 February article in the
Los Angeles Times gave the following detailed background:
“The police commandos
stormed the building just before dawn. A crane lifted a shipping container onto
the rooftop in central Seoul, and scores of officers flooded out like warriors
from a Trojan horse.
“Activists had holed up
at the top of the building to protest forced evictions to make way for new
development. They dodged police water cannons and hurled handmade gasoline
bombs at some of the 1,400 riot police officers who encircled the building
below in the two-pronged attack.
“Suddenly the building
exploded into flames, killing six people, including one policeman. One body was
burned beyond recognition.
“The incident last month
marked a lethal turn in South Korea’s redevelopment wars, heightening public
resentment against aggressive government urban renovation policies that many
say victimise the poor — dismissed here as cheol geomin, or squatters.
“Prosecutors today are
expected to release the results of their inquiry into whether officers used
excessive force, but few protesters expected charges to be filed against the
police. In fact, authorities have blamed activists for the fire…
“In Seoul, where developable land is at a premium,
activists have demanded the resignations of President Lee Myung Bak and Kim
Seok Ki, the police chief who ordered the deadly crackdown.
“Critics accuse
the government of allowing business interests to force the poor from their
homes and shops, often without adequate compensation, as a way to kickstart the
nation’s ailing economy.
“‘They’re
focusing on profits and just casting these people aside,’ said Kim Nam Geun, a
civil rights activist…
“Nationwide,
there are 424 cases in which evictees are battling property owners and
developers for better compensation.
“Most
redevelopment projects here are led by private developers and cooperatives of
landlords seeking a quick profit with an aggressive schedule of demolition that
does not often allow for public discourse, housing advocates say.
“And although
some of the evictees have an option to move into the redeveloped projects, many
are precluded by the high rents in the new buildings. So many opt for a payout.
“Officials said
there are plans to amend the nation’s housing laws to make compensation more
equitable.
“That may be too
late for Choi Sun Kyun, 61, who says she has waited years for fair
compensation. She ran a tiny restaurant for 16 years near where the deadly
siege took place. Now she and others maintain a vigil at the site of the clash,
handing out pamphlets on a busy street next to a memorial to the five dead
activists.
“Choi knew that
the old neighborhood in Yongsan’s 4th District, a warren of alleyways filled
with restaurants, pubs, shops and apartments, had a date with the wrecking
ball.
“‘She’s
surrounded by swanky high-rise apartments that close in like invading giants.
‘They’re so big and beautiful, and we could never imagine living there,’ she
said. ‘We were in the way.’
“In 2007,
contractors hired by a collective of 4th District landlords posted bills saying
that the area was going to be demolished. Apartment renters in the
six-square-block area were offered moving expenses plus a modest government
housing allowance.
“Shop owners
such as Choi, who leased their spaces, were offered the equivalent of three
months’ operation profits. Choi had spent tens of thousands of dollars in
equipment and the traditional premium paid to the previous tenant – all of
which would be lost.
“So the tiny
divorcee refused to move. Immediately, she says, the harassment began.
Tough-looking men in plain clothes stalked her 10-table restaurant. Some
mornings she found trash piled up in front of her shop.
“On 4 November,
the men returned, this time with a court order to destroy the premises. Choi
stood outside and watched as cranes smashed the three-story building. But she
did not cry.
“‘I didn’t want
to look weak,’ she said. ‘I didn’t want to let them see any emotion.’
“In January,
about 40 activists decided to stage a sit-in atop an abandoned four-storey
office building. ‘People were indifferent to our plight, so they wanted to go
up there and show our anger,’ said Noh Han Na, a leader of the 4th District
squatters.
“She said the
protesters brought food for 20 days. They also packed slingshots and
gasoline-filled Molotov cocktails.
“Soon after
activists set up their watchtower, authorities moved in. About 1 AM, 20
January, firefighters first set off warning flares. Then, activists say, the
contractors hired by the landlords started a fire with old car tires on a lower
floor of the building.
“Near dawn, 100
police commandos launched their assault.
“‘The activists
weren’t disturbing anyone,’ said Noh, 51, who used to run a billiard hall in
the area. ‘I don’t want to live in Korea if the government is going to act this
way.’
“Housing experts
say they expect more violence.
“‘In Seoul,
there are incredible amounts of money at stake for owners and developers, but regular Koreans don’t like to be pushed
around,’ said an urban planner who asked not to be named because of the
sensitivity of the issue. ‘They’ll fight back.’”
British
media silent
Indeed they will. What we must not fail to note is that this major incident, in a major
world city, where six people lost their lives, was given almost no publicity in
the British media. I spotted just one short report in the Daily Telegraph.
Nothing in the Times or the Financial Times. Nothing in the
supposedly liberal or progressive Guardian or Independent.
Certainly no article anywhere in our media giving the type of background and
context provided by the Los Angeles Times report cited above.
But can you imagine the type of
publicity this incident would have received had it taken place not in Seoul, but in Beijing, or Harare, or Caracas, or, heaven forbid, Pyongyang?
Does Obama mean change
Of course, both the successive
repressive regimes in south Korea and the continued partition of the Korean
nation are ultimately the responsibility of US imperialism. As with many other
parts of the world, there is much interest and speculation as to what change,
if any, one might expect from the new administration of President Barack Obama
with regard to the Korean peninsula.
It would be churlish not to recognise
some of the hopes and expectations aroused among many working people in the United States, above all among the African-American people, for whom the legacy of
segregation and discrimination, even slavery, is not some dim and distant past,
but very much a lived reality.
But, whatever personal assessment is
made of Mr Obama, it remains a fact that the Chief Executive of US imperialism,
the Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces of aggression, is put there to
serve the interests and dictates of the ruling elite and not the working
people, whether at home or abroad.
In his inauguration speech, Obama
addressed the leaders of nations deemed hostile to US imperialism, declaring,
“we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist”, a point
he amplified shortly thereafter in his interview with the Dubai-based al-Arabiya
television station. But, whilst the rhetoric is certainly less unpleasant and
vulgar than Bush’s talk of a supposed “axis of evil”, it is still, at
the very least, putting the cart before the horse. As the Chinese saying goes: “Whoever
tied the knot on the bell is the one to untie it.” If the leaders of the
DPRK, or Iran, or Venezuela, have clenched their fist at the US Empire, it is
not for nothing, it is not for want of reason or provocation.
Chinese analyst says DPRK will not disarm
I would like here to introduce some
of the arguments presented by a Chinese scholar by quoting at some length from
his recent paper, “The DPRK-US Nuclear Game in the Obama Era”. The
author, Professor Shen Dingli, is the Director of the Centre of American
Studies at Shanghai’s Fudan University. He writes on DPRK-US relations
regularly and is invited to speak on the subject at academic seminars all over
the world.
Professor Shen’s wider comments are
only strengthened by his careful opening remark: “At the outset, I will
profess that I have no interest in justifying the DPRK moves to acquire and
keep its nuclear weaponry.”
He adds: “But I will try
to understand the different ways the US and DPRK look at the issue, and suggest
pessimistically why this issue still is unlikely to be resolved in the Obama
era. This is not my wish, but rather an expectation according to the logic.”
Giving credit where it is
due, Shen states: “President Obama has made it clear that his government
will talk to north Korea and Iran directly. This is certainly a better option
than not to do so, as talks would at least add the chance of mutual
understanding and reduce the chance of misperception.”
However: “A better
understanding of each other’s interests may still not lead to the resolution of
the nuclear issue and end with the DPRK’s complete nuclear dismantlement. Given
the utility of nuclear weapons in international politics presently, such talks
would probably lead nowhere. America’s purpose is to eliminate north Korea’s
nuclear wherewithal, but not its own nuclear weapons capability, through either
bilateral talks or future rounds of the Six-Party talks…
“While the US is asking
the DPRK to dismantle its nuclear weapons programme, north Korea would feel
that America has not reached a level of abandoning its own nuclear deterrent,
despite the fact that the US has the most powerful military in the world, and
America’s conventional armed force can virtually execute all missions that the
US leadership would ever imagine.
“Therefore, the US would not disarm its own nuclear arsenal, as its leadership would not view it as a ‘white
elephant’ to be given away. Given its possession of nuclear weapons, America has had both a psychological superiority through deterrence, and, if that fails, a
real chance to honour its threat…
“In the DPRK’s view, as
long as America continues to protect the ROK [that is south Korea], making unification on north Korea’s terms less likely, Washington poses a paramount
threat. So America has both the intention and the capability to threaten Pyongyang. To counter these threats, north Korea would need nuclear weapons for its
ultimate security and once these weapons are obtained the DPRK is not going to
give them up.
“In this political
interaction, it is virtually impossible for north Korea to denuclearise.
Before Pyongyang tested its nuclear weapons in October 2006, there was still a
theoretical possibility to freeze the DPRK’s nuclear status as a state without
conducting a nuclear test. But after that nuclear blast it is not possible to
revert to that ‘no-test-yet’ status and highly unlikely to return to the
previous level.
“As the US would not
accept the DPRK demand to unify the peninsula on its terms and, as the US still
perceives a political and military utility of its own nuclear weapons, it is
unrealistic to expect north Korea to disarm its nuclear weapons programme in
the first place, no matter which American president is in power.
“There is an argument
that if the DPRK keeps its nuclear weapons, it will continue to face sanctions.
Certainly, Pyongyang doesn’t want to have sanctions against it. It also views
such sanctions as imperialist, as they don’t respect the DPRK’s sovereign
rights to develop weapons for defence. As far as proliferation is concerned, north Korea could also ponder why America’s development of nuclear weapons and space weapons would
not have contributed to proliferation – pressuring other countries to follow
suit.
“For instance, pressed by
America, China has developed nuclear weapons and may have an eye on the space
dimension as well. So why only address proliferation of North Korea but not America’s pressure on China? And, even if China has developed nuclear weapons
given the US threat, has China’s action destabilised Northeast Asia? Have
Japan and south Korea followed suit? Beijing may fully consider that its
development of nuclear weapons has stabilised, rather than destabilised, the
regional security situation…
“As in the DPRK case, America would not buy the argument that it has threatened China. In return, Washington may feel that
Beijing’s one-party system has deprived some Chinese of political freedom, so China may have brought this insecurity on itself. But the Chinese government and at least
most Chinese would not accept this perspective. They consider that the
continuing US weapons sale to Taiwan has posed a major continuing security
threat to Beijing. Even though China has implemented an opening-up policy for
three decades and engaged America extensively, Beijing keeps alert on defence
issues and would not foolishly abandon its nuclear weapons, given the present
situation.
“Also, the American
government would not unrealistically ask Beijing to give up its nuclear weapons
now. Washington believes that nothing can entice China to do so – even ending
weapons sales to Taiwan would not be enough. But that was not America’s initial intent – in 1964, Washington considered a surgical operation on China’s nascent nuclear weapons programme. Eventually, China grew economically and was
accepted militarily as an established nuclear weapons power, though at a medium
level.
“So why can’t the DPRK
follow China’s suit? Given north Korea’s threat perception and America’s inability to help remove this perception, Pyongyang has acquired certain nuclear weapons
capability. Once obtaining them, north Korea will keep them, despite various
pressures – Pyongyang believes that its nuclear weapons support the country far
more than the hardship they bring to it. It is true that China has joined other countries to persuade the DPRK to move toward nuclear disarmament.
But China used to face threats from America and the former Soviet Union, plus
natural disasters and a great famine in the early 1960s and China still survived and flourished. Why can’t the DPRK survive similarly, as Pyongyang’s international environment today is better than that of China fifty years ago?
“Also America tends to tacitly accept some of the outcomes of nuclear proliferation. It is
true America doesn’t accept nuclear weapons programmes or suspected programmes
of Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria, but it has not denied, or has not been denying
wholeheartedly, those of China, Israel, India and Pakistan.
“The whole world has
observed that the conservative Bush government much improved its stance toward
the DPRK after the latter conducted a nuclear test. North Korea believes that
paperwork or an American security promise could be easily withdrawn at any time
and no one can ever guarantee that future American leadership, even if not
President Obama, would not be harsh and aggressive toward the DPRK again. A
realistic Pyongyang believes that only its own hard strength can protect itself
and economic hardship will be muddled through eventually.”
One does not need to share Professor
Shen’s way of formulating things in every respect to admit that his logic is
very thorough and steeped in realism. As the Seoul urban planner told the Los
Angeles Times: “Regular Koreans don’t like to be pushed around. They’ll
fight back.” And, comrades, in that respect, Comrade Kim Jong Il is a very
regular Korean!
It is true that Obama’s rhetoric can
at times be almost biblical. But equally it is written in the bible: “By
their deeds shall ye know them.”
And using this yardstick, the signals
so far regarding Korea are not good, if unsurprising. On 2 February, the Obama
administration imposed sanctions on named companies in the DPRK, China and Iran, alleging that they had engaged in proliferation activities and thereby violated US
laws, supposedly aimed at stopping the spread of missiles and other weapons
technology. The United States, of course, arrogates to itself the supposed
right to apply and enforce its domestic laws in all parts of the world, in
disregard of the sovereignty and independence of others.
New attempt to extradite Sean Garland
This same imperialist bandit logic
can be seen in the 30 January arrest in Dublin, on the strength of a US
extradition warrant, personally signed by Condoleezza Rice, of the veteran
Irish political activist, Sean Garland, on spurious allegations that he is in
some way involved in the distribution of counterfeit US dollars, in
collaboration with, or at the behest of, people in the DPRK. Comrades may
recall that Garland was previously arrested on the same charge by the British
authorities in Belfast in October 2005. Since December that year, he has been
openly living in the Irish Republic, after skipping bail. Why should his case
suddenly be revived now, less than one month into a new presidency, based on a
new warrant dredged up by the outgoing administration in its dying days?
In June 2007, the Irish edition of
the Mail on Sunday said that there was evidence that the Garland affair was actually a US plot to provide a pretext for a military attack on north Korea. Similar claims were made in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a
leading German newspaper, in January 2007, which further claimed that the real
source of the so-called “superdollars” is actually a secret printing facility
in the US owned by the CIA.
Many comrades have sharp political differences
with Sean Garland and have had for many years. But these are irrelevant to his
present circumstances. First, although Sean Garland is the immediate target of
attack, it is clear that the real and much bigger target is the DPRK itself.
Secondly, whatever our differences with Sean Garland, just as we have some
differences among ourselves in the Friends of Korea, we know, too, that he has
been a loyal friend of Korea over many years. Thirdly, by what right does the US government demand that a sovereign European state should meekly hand over one of its own citizens
for an alleged crime which, even if there were any truth in the allegations,
did not take place on US soil? And, finally, Sean Garland is now an old man in
his mid-70s, who suffers from diabetes and cancer. To hand him over to the
tender mercies of US imperialism would be as good as a death sentence.
I hope that from this meeting we can
send a strong message to the Irish government, calling on them not to extradite
Sean Garland, or any other Irish citizen, to the United States; or to the United Kingdom for that matter.
For our part, I am sure that all
of us in the Friends of Korea will continue to extend our unreserved support
and solidarity to the DPRK, not only for the sake of the Korean people, but
also in the best interests of the British working class and of the global
struggle against imperialism and for self-determination, independence and
socialism.