Image - Only the bourgeoisie could claim the Kim dynasty has anything to do with communism!

prepared

When Bush delivered his famous “axis of evil” speech in January 2001 he specifically mentioned three countries the US intended to attack, Iraq, Iran and North Korea. We are now seeing the US invasion of Iraq, and although this has assumed a position of centre stage in the spectacle we are presented with, in the wings a crisis, which could precipitate the invasion of North Korea, is being engineered. Although developments in this area of the world have been kept out of the limelight they are just as dramatic as those of Iraq and arise from the same fundamental causes. Just as in Iraq, all the huffing and puffing about North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction, is camouflage designed to conceal the more fundamental imperialist motives for this confrontation. These are the need for the US to maintain its control over this area of the world, to check its potential rivals China, Japan and Russia and to prevent the formation of a bloc of nations which could challenge its domination. As we will argue below, the confrontation is, at root, a confrontation over how the profits produced by the working class of this region of the world are to be divided. While the other powers in the region are keen to overturn the present division, for the US it is imperative that the present distribution remains as it is. The capitalist class are able to plan their wars in the open and arrogant way they do because the working class does not oppose them and is not at present able to put forward political solutions of its own.

The new crisis

Since October 2002, the Korean crisis has escalated to the point where the US is now threatening a pre-emptive nuclear attack on North Korea and has moved warships and bombers into the area. The development of the crisis has been extremely rapid. In the five months since North Korea admitted to a programme of uranium enrichment we have seen suspension of oil shipments guaranteed by the US under the 1994 US/North Korea agreement and suspension of food aid. This has in turn led to the restarting by North Korea of its nuclear reactors which had been mothballed under the ’94 agreement and in January of this year its withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This withdrawal, which followed the expulsion of nuclear inspectors who are authorised under the NPT, is clearly a threat to restart the weapons programme. To understand how this crisis has been able to blow up so quickly it is necessary to look briefly at the key events of the 1990’s.

Crumbling bastion of state capitalism

North Korea is one of the last remnants of fully integral state capitalism, and remains an economy such as that which existed in Russia up to 1991. Its economy is not, nor has it ever been anything other than a type of capitalism, a capitalism where the state holds all the capital but where the workers remain exploited through wage labour. The country was a client of Russian imperialism and was heavily dependent on Russian support. The withdrawal of this support after 1991 was a heavy blow, but, instead of throwing in the towel and becoming a US client as other Russian clients had done, the Stalinist regime soldiered on. The cost has been enormous. There has been a catastrophic economic collapse which has produced energy shortages, decline in industrial production with capital equipment being run into the ground and factories barely operating and a corresponding agricultural decline. The agricultural crisis was so severe that in the mid-’90’s between 1 and 2 million people died of starvation!

In the period after the collapse of the Russian bloc, North Korea was critically short of energy and continued to develop nuclear energy from reactors supplied by the Russians. They also continued with an accompanying weapons programme despite having become a signatory of the NPT in 1985. In 1993, the inspections regime allowed for under the NPT was extended to allow inspectors to visit research and production sites, even if they had not been previously declared by the signatory of the treaty. This extension of the treaty’s inspections regime caused North Korea to announce its withdrawal from the treaty. This was the pretext for the 1993 crisis with the US.

For the US, the survival of the regime after 1991 was an annoyance since it expected the regime to become a US client now that the Cold War had been won. The 1993 crisis gave the US the opening it had been looking for and, by a combination of threats and bribes, North Korea was persuaded to announce a moratorium on its withdrawal from the NPT and to close down its nuclear facilities. In return, the US promised to provide two of its own light-water nuclear reactors, capable of generating 2000MW. These were supposed to be in operation by 2003. Also, the US undertook to provide 500 000 tonnes of fuel oil annually. Through this agreement, the US hoped to either bring North Korea under its wing through its economic strength, or provide a pretext for removing the regime by force.

After the 1994 agreement, North Korea began a slow process of reform aimed at changing its state capitalist economy to a market one. These reforms, which were modelled on reforms carried out by China in the ’80’s, have recently been accelerated and have brought some liberalisation of the economy. Price reform has been carried out, and in July 2002, the currency was devalued and prices and wages increased by a factor of 18, rationing was ended, charges introduced for utilities such as electricity, gas, water, etc., and private markets allowed for agricultural produce. Opening of cross-border links with the South was started and a business park for South Korean capitalists to invest in was started in the border city of Kaesong. The North, however, needed massive amounts of new capital which it hoped to get from S Korea and Japan. However, after 2001 it also became clear that the Bush cabal was not seriously interested in continuing with the ’94 agreement.

This was demonstrated by its failure to deliver the nuclear power plants promised and its announcement that the regime was part of the “axis of evil”. This convinced the regime that it was going to be attacked and led to the restarting of the nuclear weapons programme. When this was discovered by the US the regime tried to use its nuclear capacity as a bargaining card in an attempt to get aid and a non-aggression pact with the US. This was a desperate move from a bankrupt and starving country being threatened by a country whose Gross Domestic Product is some 500 times larger than its own. In doing this, however, North Korea was playing into Washington’s hands. The US promptly stopped its fuel deliveries, dismissed all talk of a non-aggression pact and declared North Korea had violated the NPT and that it would refer the matter to the UN with a view to getting a resolution paving the way for war. Having started on this course North Korea had little option but to continue and it restarted its nuclear reactors and then threatened to produce nuclear weapons. All this has simply strengthened the US hand.

The US is, of course, putting pressure on its allies in the region, particularly South Korea and Japan, to support its moves against the north. Both are reluctant allies. The US is very unpopular in South Korea because of its longstanding support for the military dictatorship and the careless brutality of its 40 000 troops stationed there. This unpopularity was reflected in the defeat of the US-supported candidate in the December election and the victory of Roh Moo-hyon, a leftist human rights lawyer who opposes the US policy towards the North. A further indication of US unpopularity were the anti-US demonstrations which followed the acquittal of US soldiers who ran over and killed two Korean girls. South Korea has been pursuing what it calls the “sunshine policy” towards the North. This consists of restoring communications and economic links and supplying aid in order to gradually reintegrate it in a combined economy. South Korea fears the US policy of confrontation and sanctions will lead to economic collapse of the North, and in these circumstances they estimate the cost of reunification to the South would be astronomical. They fear a repeat of the debilitating effect of German reunification. Some have estimated a figure of $3200bn! ⁽¹⁾

Although the South is fabulously prosperous by the standards of the North with a GDP of $865bn, 40 times that of the North, such a cost for unification would be crippling. The South has also been weakened by the 1997 crisis which brought the bankruptcy of half of all the major chaebol (partly state-owned conglomerates) and a quarter of all the financial institutions and which forced the country to borrow $58bn from the IMF increasing the national debt to $120bn. The South is not ready for further adventures which could prove expensive.

A further worry for the US is that the change occurring in South Korea’s pattern of trade has resulted in China replacing the US as its main trading partner bringing a shift in its loyalty towards China. China is now the rising power in the area and countering China’s ambitions is one of the main aims of the drama being staged by the US with regard to North Korea.

Korea - Crucible of imperialist struggle

Since the industrialisation of Japan in the late nineteenth century, Korea has been a crucible of imperialist struggle. The country is strategically placed between China and Russia, close to Japan and gives access to the mineral wealth of Manchuria. North Korea itself is rich in minerals such as coal, iron, magnesite, graphite, copper, zinc, lead and various precious metals. The first imperialist war over the region was between Japan and China in 1894, giving Japan rights in Korea. When this was challenged by Russian imperialism, a war between Russia and

Japan followed in 1904 which led to Japanese domination of the peninsula and finally annexation in 1910. In the 1930’s, Korea formed the springboard for Japanese expansion into Manchuria and its invasion of China. The end of the Second World War saw the peninsula divided between Russian imperialism which occupied the North and US imperialism which occupied the South. The Korean War which broke out in 1950 was a proxy war between Russian and Chinese imperialism which backed the North and the US which used its own forces to invade from the South. This war ended with the division of the country on the 38th parallel which has persisted to the present. All these wars have been fought for sources of raw materials, markets, theatres of capital investment, control of trade routes and strategic positions for future wars. Today, the same motives are at work and the same powers, Russia, Japan, China and the US, are involved.

Russia is keen to restore its influence over the North and increase trade while establishing a rail link to the South. Since the collapse of trade in 1991, Russian trade with the North has increased to over $100m annually. Moscow hopes to increase this by securing a major share of the reconstruction of the North after reunification and to recover its outstanding debts from the Soviet period. In particular, the Russians are interested in restoring the north/south railway connection and so linking the South Korean network to the trans-Siberian line. If this connection were in operation, the trans-Siberian railway would have access to the ice free ports of South Korea and the land bridge from Korea and Japan to Europe would be complete. Moving freight on this line, instead of by sea, would reduce the average journey time to Europe from 35 days to 15, and would cut the costs by 25%. It would not simply be a source of profit for Russia, but give her control over this trade route. President Putin has met the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, and signed an agreement to proceed with the link. This work has already started and has continued throughout the present crisis.

The Japanese are themselves keen to once again exploit the mineral wealth of North Korea and to export capital into the region to cash in on the low wages paid there. The Japanese prime minister Koizumi also met Kim Jong Il in September 2002 and the two leaders kissed and made up for the past. Koizumi apologising for the atrocities committed during 35 years of colonial rule and Kim apologising for kidnapping Japanese to help North Korean agents spy on Japan. Koizumi announced Japan’s intention to invest $1 0bn in the North, once further steps towards a market economy were taken and the country’s stance of “aggressive isolation” was ended.

China is the principal exporter to North Korea, supplying 38% of all the country’s imports, including much of its oil and food, and wishes to maintain this market. The economic collapse of North Korea, or a war with the US, in which China could become involved, is the last thing the Chinese want. What they would like to see is stability, reform and a removal of the US forces.

With its victory over Russia in the Cold War, the US is seeking to convert the entire peninsula into its client state while keeping open the option of militarily occupying the North as well as the South. The other powers wish to resist this and see Korea reunited and the US forces withdrawn. The US opposes all the ambitions of the other powers in the area. It is now opposing reconstruction of transport links between the North and South, opposing political engagement and opposing aid to the north.

An Asian bloc against the US?

The entire region is now beginning to see its interests as opposed to those of the US and is taking the first tentative steps to assert these separate interests. China, Japan, South Korea and various other South East Asian nations are talking of establishing an East Asian free trade area and an Asian Monetary Fund. The experience of the 1997 crash and the terms of the subsequent IMF loans which led to US corporations buying up Asian businesses at rock bottom prices has contributed to this. This fund will be set up in opposition to the IMF and therefore opposing an important tool of US foreign policy. There have also been talks of a common currency which would cut the fund free of the dollar and lead to a bloc like the European Union which would inevitably threaten US interests. At present, these Asian nations hold approximately $1 500bn in reserves which could form the basis of an Asian Monetary Fund. The dollar’s recent fall2 has, of course, devalued these reserves by 25% pointing to the advantage of a separate currency. The US is, of course, adamantly opposed to these plans.

US attempts to assert control of the Middle East and its oil supplies are a clear threat to Japan, China and other countries which are dependent on the oil from that region. In an attempt to counter this threat pipelines are being planned to bring Russian oil from the Siberian oil fields to the region. Two routes are under consideration, one from Angarsk, which is south west of lake Baikal, via a route north of China to the port of Nahodka near Vladivostok. The other runs from Angarsk directly to Manchuria. From there, oil could be taken south through Korea. These pipelines would reduce reliance on Middle Eastern oil which the US may shortly control. They show that the powers of the area are keen to cut themselves free of US control.

The US is, therefore, facing longer term challenges in the region which it intends to counter in whatever way possible. Consequently the strategic importance of maintaining control of Korea is growing rather than decreasing.

How can workers oppose this war?

In all the developments and disputes outlined above we can witness the sordid, but familiar, manoeuvrings of the imperialist powers. All the usual issues which drive our rulers to war, such as access to raw materials, markets, investment areas, control of trade routes and strategic positioning for future wars are present. These issues are the apparent reasons, the form in which the underlying forces express themselves. The real force which underpins all these apparent causes of imperialism and from which they spring is the struggle of the imperialist powers to get hold of the surplus value produced by the workers of South Asia. The real issue which is being fought about is how the profits which the workers of this region produce are to be distributed. The rising powers are attempting to challenge the present distribution and the US wishes to leave things as they are.

The operation of the capitalist system leads to a tendency for profit rates to fall and as profits fall there is an ever more vicious struggle to get hold of the profits which are produced by the working class. This struggle is intensifying as the capitalist crisis deepens. It is a struggle which inevitably leads to war. This is why capitalist wars are not extraordinary, unexpected events caused by mistakes, particular circumstances or bloody-minded madmen, as our rulers are forever telling us. They are an inevitable outcome of the normal functioning of the capitalist system. That is why the only way these wars can be prevented, in the longer term, is by overthrowing the system which causes them.

However, in the short term, the ability of the ruling classes to wage war can be disrupted. Our rulers can only successfully pursue their wars while the workers in the imperialist countries continue to submit to their exploitation and to make sacrifices for the war effort, and while workers in uniform remain ready to kill each other for the imperialist cause. Once workers are no longer prepared to do this, waging war becomes impossible. This why the only opposition which can prevent war, is an opposition based on class struggle. When Lenin opposed the First World War in 1914, he launched the policy of revolutionary defeatism which called for the imperialist war to be turned into a civil war of the working class against the capitalist class, a war that needed to be continued until the overthrow of the capitalist system of production was achieved. This policy, which contributed to the Russian Revolution of October 1917, led to the ending of the imperialist war. The capitalist class’s fear of revolution was stronger than their lust for the spoils of war. It is the only time in the modern epoch that imperialist war has been opposed by widespread class struggle. This was expressed through strikes, mutinies and revolution, and it is the only time that the ruling class has ended its war before they had achieved their aims. The policy of revolutionary defeatism is still the only true proletarian response to imperialist war. It is just as valid today as it was in 1914. The development of this struggle must be our orientation.

Today our rulers are calmly preparing to butcher hundreds of thousands of people in Korea in order to get their hands on the profits produced by the workers of this area of the world. The only way to prevent this is through intensification of the class struggle. In the coming war in south east Asia we call for workers to support the policy of revolutionary defeatism. This means:

• Continuation of the class struggle, refusal to accept sacrifices for the war effort.
• Strikes in the war industries and in the transport of war materials.
• Propaganda for fraternisation with enemy soldiers and mutinies.
• Turning the imperialist war into a class war.

Today imperialist war explodes in Iraq. Tomorrow there will be another: it may be Iran, the day after that North Korea and after that Saudi Arabia or Libya. The only solution to the imperialist wars which are threatening the world in one place after another remains the overthrow of the capitalist system itself. This system needs to be replaced with the communist system, which has nothing to do with the state capitalist system which existed in Russia, but which will be based on social ownership of the means of production and production to satisfy human needs.

(1) See The Financial Times, 8th November 2002 “South Korea fears nightmare vision of meltdown in the North”.

(2) See “The dollar in continual decline” in this edition.