Re: [Marxism] Long Live the North Korean Nuclear Program!

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

David (Nada) wrote: 
"I think Joaquin has it quite wrong. It's not a question
of a "deny the right of Third World countries" to nuclear weapons. I think
most can agree here (not all) that that right is one of sovereignty,
especially when no one questions the right of China or Russia (actual
neighbors of N. Korea) or the U.S. on it's Pacific Fleet have nuclear
weapons. For me this is not the issue."

In fact, the question David says is not the question is precisely the issue
in world politics. 

The US and other imperialist countries DENY and still DENY the right of
"third world" countries such as Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea to have
nuclear weapons to deter imperialist or other attacks. And this has been the
main function of nuclear weapons (and not a totally unsuccessful one,
contrary to David) in all these cases. They also denied the right of Russia
and China to have nuclear weapons for many, many years, until they needed to
make deals with these governments that set this aside. After all, the fact
that another side in a war would have nuclear weapons was a threat to the
sacred US homeland, which must be able to do whatever to its chosen enemies
without fear of retaliation. This is actually the "right" at issue, and it
is good that it has taken hits.

Walters thinks that the fact that he agrees in passing that North Korea has
the "right" to sovereignty including around nuclear weapons should rightly
eliminate the debate over this, and therefore limit the discussion on the
list to how awful and stupid and completely doomed the North Korean regime
is. 

I admit that, contrary to his opinion, there can be a debate about the
future of the North Korean regime. He says Washington knows that the North
Korean regime must collapse soon, and therefore does not need to try to
control this situation or exercise power over it. 

I don't think that is the nature of imperialism, nor do I think that
necessarily fits the historical record of the 64 year old North Korean
regime. And if the DPRK is to collapse USSR-style -- I do not exclude it --
I think it is an important distinction, and that we should support North
Korea's efforts to prevent the perspective of the collapse being
accomplished under direct imperialist (US or Japanese) auspices, including
by defending their sovereign right to develop nuclear weapons.

I think the last 19 years since Korea lost most of its former Soviet and
Chinese aid, but not the alliances in a full sense, have shown that fear and
outside support has not been the only basis of the North Korean regime.
Mostly, David just regurgitates uncritically the current imperialist
propaganda about the regime, some of which is probably partly true and some
still less so.

The depth of the secrecy about North Korean regime indicates that something
is gravely amiss. I doubt they would maintain secrecy to hide the fact that
the people of the DPRK live in paradise. But I also appreciate the response
of South Koreans -- of all classes -- who feel a certain deep identification
with North Korea's actually or supposedly zenophobic assertion of its
national rights.

I note the fact that quite a few South Koreans take pride in the fact that
the North Koreans have nuclear weapons -- even businessmen who are probably
millionaires. And I suspect such feelings of solidarity are not absent among
the workers and farmers. All right-thinking Americans agree that NORTH
KOREAN xenophobia and arrogance are all bad. A lot of Koreans are not so
sure.

David insists that the DPRK nuclear test has increased the danger of war or
nuclear war in the world even though this has proven NOT TO BE TRUE SO FAR
of the development of nuclear weapons in Russia, China, India, and Pakistan.
(In Pakistan, the main danger is that the weapons may fall into the hands of
US occupiers.)

Anyway, David's insists that the DPRK's right to develop nuclear weapons is
agreed to by him, and therefore all should join him in frothing against the
exercise of this right  sent me searching for an appropriate response which
I recalled reading in Joseph Hansen's Cuba: The Acid Test, a document in his
book Dynamics of the Cuban Revolution, which is well worth critical and
appreciative study.

A British socialist sect declared in its newspaper, in response to the 1962
US naval blockade of Cuba:

"The establishment of rocket bases in Cuba could not possibly defend the
Cuban revolution. This can only be done in the immediate future by the
struggle to win over the solidarity of the American working class and to
extend the revolution in Latin America.

"Of course the Cuban government had every right to accept those rocket bases
and sign such agreements as it wished with the Soviet Union.

"But it was most inadvisable that it should have exercised this right by
permitting Khrushchev to place undet the control of Soviet technicians
rocket bases which were plain for all to see on the small island.

"Having a right and exercising it and exercising it are two different
things. One does not necessarily follow from the other."

Hansen commented: "Like the hero in the novel by Victor Hugo ["1793" --FF],
Healy [leader of the British sect] Healy deserves to be decorated for that
sentence about winning the solidarity of the American working class and
extending the revolution in Latin America. And then summarily shot for his
advice to the Cubans: 'Having a right and exercising it are two different
things. One does not necessarily follow from the other.' If he objects to
such a harsh penalty, the military court can well reply: 'Having a right and
exercising it are two different things. One does not necessarily follow from
the other>" We can hear Healy's immortal reply as he refuses a blindfold:
'What good is having a right if you can't exercise it.'"






________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu