This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
Maoist Internationalist Movement

U.$. imperialism backs down on Korea for now

February 15, 2007

U.$. imperialism brokered a deal with Korea on its nuclear weapons in six country talks, referred to as "six-party talks." The U.$. imperialists backed down from previous bargaining positions and the Chinese state-capitalist regime provided a face-saving gesture for the U.$. imperialists by giving the Koreans a talking to. The imperialists say the deal offers Korea one million tons of oil for closing its nuclear facilities and staying put with what the CIA believes is six to eight nuclear bombs.(1)

The U.$. imperialist press debated itself on the new deal. The reactionary think tank called the Heritage Foundation and the "National Review" that usually support President Bush say that the Bush administration caved in and took up Clinton-like policies on Korea.(2)

The ultra-reactionary dogs such as John Bolton now being forced out of the UN said the deal was "rewarding" the "bad behavior" of detonating nuclear weapons. The Australian imperialists put it this way:

"Bolton, once close to the Administration, told reporters the deal made him the 'saddest man in Washington', which is not surprising given he has always fervently believed the only solution to the threat posed by North Korea was regime change."(3)

At the same time, the reactionaries also admitted that in the midst of all the U.$. rhetoric, northern Korea put together another 45 kilograms of nuclear weapons material.

Imperialist media outlets explained the change of course as the ascendance of Secretary of State Rice over Vice President Cheney.

"It also reflects a changed power balance within the Bush administration, with Rice at the forefront and Vice President Dick Cheney's influence diminished, at least on this issue and for now."(4)

The Chinese under Mao signed a friendship treaty with Korea. All countries are evaluated in their diplomatic trustworthiness by how well they uphold the treaties of previous governments. The U.$. media spread rumors that social-fascist China threatened the Kim regime.(5)

One result of the a relative relaxation by U.$. imperialism is that the lackey regime in southern Korea is speaking with the northern regime again.

"If South Korea resumes its annual shipments of 500,000 tons of rice and 300,000 tons of fertilizer, their value — estimated at 300 billion won, or $320 million — would rival that of the 1 million tons of fuel oil the North was promised under the six-nation deal in return for first shutting its main nuclear complex south of Pyongyang, then allowing United Nations inspectors into the zone and finally disabling the facility."(6)

Readers will recall that immediately after Korea detonated a nuclear weapon four months ago, the imperialist press was full of threats to starve the northern Koreans this winter. Other papers and CNN speculated about bombings.

CNN reported this way immediately:

"America's lead negotiator on North Korean issues urged sanctions that are tough enough to show North Korea's reclusive leader, Kim Jong Il, that he made a 'very, very costly' mistake if a test was indeed carried out.

"'He is going to really rue the day that he made this decision,' said Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill Monday in an interview with CNN."(7)

So most of the imperialist outlets reflected the wishful, petty-bourgeois chauvinist view and not a real understanding of the role of force in politics. The nuclear weapons test by the Koreans did not result in the dire consequences the imperialists including supposedly "objective" journalists all threatened.

MIM found only one statement from the northern Koreans in the imperialist press: "Anything is possible." Voice of America also reported a chicken hatching metaphor used by the Koreans.(8)

U.$. imperialism's relative relaxation on Korea is not an indication of imperialism's peaceful nature. It only means that the Bush regime is in more trouble in Iraq and Iran than it can handle, that Korea is too much more to bite off and chew. Russian imperialists have now said Iran can be handled the same way as Korea,(9) but we believe the Bush regime will continue to stir up trouble where there is more oil.

Notes:
1. Thomas Omestad, "Critics Blast North Korea Deal as Rewarding 'Bad Behavior,'" http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070213/13nkorea.htm
2. The reactionary Council on Foreign Relations that has been somewhat upstaged in recent years by the ultra-reactionary think-tanks reported on these intra-ruling class views:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12561/tentative_deal_on_n_korea_plutonium_program.html?breadcrumb=%2F
There is no quote from Koreans in the report.
The February 14 New York Times story on the deal also had no quotes from Koreans, but it did have a nice picture of Koreans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/world/asia/14korea.html?em&ex=1171602000&en=cdc39282ed15d3d3&ei=5087%0A
3. Michael Gawenda Herald Correspondent in Washington February 15, 2007, http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/to-hardliners-its-a-reward-for-the-bad-guy/2007/02/14/1171405299884.html This story had no quote from Koreans.
4. By Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers, "Close-up North Korea pact shows a change in Bush's tone," http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003571109_koreabush14.html http://www.financialexpress-bd.com/index3.asp?cnd=2/15/2007§ion_id=4&newsid=52667&spcl=no; also right-wing libertarians noted this: http://www.cato.org/view_ddispatch.php?viewdate=20070213
5. Ultra-reactionaries sought to lump China and northern Korea together: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/7/95213.shtml?s=os
"China diplomat: North Korea gets 'money and respect,'" http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/14/btsc.florcruz/
There was no quote from Koreans in the CNN story.
6. Choe Sang-Hun, "North and South Korea to resume cabinet-level talks," http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/15/news/korea.php
7. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/09/korea.nuclear.test/index.html International Herald Tribune also issued the threats:
"North Korea may face famine with aid cuts following nuclear test: aid worker," http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/21/asia/AS_GEN_NKorea_Famine.php Washington Post background article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11884-2003Jan18?language=printer Even some anti-communist reactionaries were appalled by the threats to food aid: http://freekorea.us/?p=5979
A southern Korea complained about U.$. attempts to starve the northern Koreans:
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=2&no=330726&rel_no=1 Much of the anti-communist press had to do an orchestrated about-face on whether it was a good idea to starve the northern Koreans by enforcing blockades, sanctions etc.
8. http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-14-voa24.cfm
9. http://en.rian.ru/world/20070214/60751210.html