The other side of the story: Continuing the series presenting the position of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and countering the skewed and scant information presented in the mainstream media, presenting both sides of the story is an absolute must in achieving balance and respecting the readers.
In view of the recent developments in the Korean Peninsula, and taking into account the media impact in both hegemonic and counter-hegemonic media; as subjects associated with the Korean Friendship Association (KFA), we would like to propose a series of participatory conversations that allow us to transfer a more careful and less impoverished information analysis on the conflict located in this regional scenario. Rubén González and Mikel Vivanko.
Members of the Korean Friendship Association (KFA).
The scope of the events does not seem to be sufficiently attended by certain doomsayers of what we can call the new contemporary proto-left that interweaves throughout the bulk of acronyms. Even in the case of Korea, it seems to be a step towards the abyss even in the presence of a paradigmatic event already commonplace in the positions held by the agents of the intellectuals around the conflicts and resistances against the imperialist powers in all geography.
Given the opportunity to understand, in a statistics way, the relevance that derives from a conflict of these characteristics, and to carry out a categorical bearing in certain scenarios on which we do not have too close proximity to consider them as organic extensions of our own, but which give us, not only solid and well-armed knowledge, but an opportunity to determine our own internal resistance strategies within our movements, we propose an exercise of debate that we consider fundamental for the interest of the spaces that we inhabit in the militant resistances.
To establish a script that allows us to read about the conflict and the emerging possibilities that may arise from its understanding is vitally important in the case of Korea, given the uniqueness limited to these borders. What really happens and determines this uniqueness? Was Korea the paradigmatic signal of the new imperialist intervention, no longer (or exclusively) focused on the extraction and plundering of material resources? What role does Korea play in this whole global scale scenario? And the BRICS axis, what solutions provides to the conflict and how does it stop the time, lengthening the wait, that could establish the scenario for the definitive assault to the dollar economy?
To begin to measure the resistance that Korea is playing as an organic system in the face of the global conflict that is being fought between the axes of hegemony, and why we point to this region as the main strategic exponent for the defeat of the UN-USA block, nothing to begin with recalling the words of General Curtis Lemay: "We went there to wage war and in the end we set fire to every city in North Korea, one way or another." To see what this statement implies, a recent article by Felicity Arbuthnot for Global Research shows: "The population at the north of Parallel 38 is now estimated to have lost almost a third of its 8 or 9 million inhabitants during the 37 months of hot war, from 1950 to 1953, possibly an unprecedented death rate suffered by one nation because of the belligerence of another." North Korea lost nearly 30% of its population. During World War II, the United Kingdom lost 0.94% of its population, France lost 1.35%, China 1.89% and United States 0.32%.
General Douglas MacArthur testified before Congress in 1951 that he had never witnessed such devastation: "I can not express in words the horror that shakes me [...] because of this constant carnage in Korea," MacArthur said. "I suppose I have seen so much blood and destruction as the most; the last time I was there my gut was stirred".
How is it composed and constituted a collective memory "... after the destruction of seventy eight cities and thousands of villages in North Korea, and the death of countless civilians," as can be rescued in the words of General Curtis Lemay? In Pyongyang, the capital of the DPRK, to serve as an illustrated example, only two buildings remained. I repeat, two buildings.
"Chemical officer Townsend wrote in January 1951 that virtually all US fighter jets flying over Korea carried at least two napalm bombs. In 1950, around 80,000 liters of napalm fell on Korea. When fighting intensified after China intervened, this figure more than tripled [...] A total of 32,257 tonnes of napalm were dumped on Korea, roughly twice as many as those dropped on Japan in 1945. The allies not only threw more bombs on Korea than on Pacific theater during World War II (635,000 tons versus 503,000 tons), but most of them were napalm... ". How can we incorporate into our cognitive capacities, the ones that allow us to acquire knowledge, these statements by Robert M. Neer in "Napalm, an American Biography" as a historical material that instructs us to analyze and establish all the dimensions of a genocide, helping us to establish the morality of our position in a conflict? Is not this conflict a necessary synthesis? Why is not it part of an internationalized collective imagery? Why is it not a form of poetics for resistance?
It is possible that this kind of serial endo-symbiosis of Korean resistance is in this unresolved scenario between form and function. It is possible that Aristotelian logic escapes the morphogenesis of this conflict and that these stages of subjectivity are not incorporated into the structure of analysis. The function is possible to precede and give shape to the organic systems, a detail in which we rarely stop.
Since "the media are the necessary part for the articulation of the doctrines of hegemonic imperialism," it is curious that suddenly there are unified and coherent approaches, without the need for alignments [I would like to stop in this detail]. It is as if we use information as an alignment space [making information a specific place endowed with form, a paradigmatic border], for the positions of the not aligned countries in relation to the conflict in the Asia-Pacific region. If we dwell on this, we observe a really fine work in political strategy; a task held and protected by the United Nations, as a basic element essential for the imagery that is to be built in the face of international positions on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
This may seem to be an argument of sufficient weight to understand the determining role of the region within the behavior of long cycles in history, given that it is a homogeneous synthesis of all possible answers associated with each of the nation states of the current, in principle, heterogeneous states. "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" [plurality should not be postulated without necessity], formulated by the Franciscan friar William of Ockham on the principle of parsimony.
The detail that we must point out as an emerging point to fix the thesis defended in this call, is given by some outcomes that we will try to qualify. The Russia-China entente, aligned in the BRICS financial transnational bloc, distributes the physical frontier with the DPRK. In the latest blockade movement made by the UN assembly, it may seem that the positions of Russia and China have weakened the role of the DPRK, when in reality what has happened is a movement that strengthens the positions of the BRICS, and consequently of the Russian-Chinese core. From here we state that all this is due to the subjective resistances held by the the region north of the 38th parallel, a population of barely twenty-five million people.
The turn made by Russia and China presents a certainly significant reading for the international diplomatic movement, as a definitive blow to the threat of war proposed by the bloc represented by USA-Japan-South Korea. This has raised the fundamental differences between the Pentagon and the White House in relation to the conflict, although for the moment we must wait to analyze the subsequent steps that stem from this tension. We can point out the victory that Korea has achieved in the regional conflict, and the role this has forced and defined for Russians and Chinese.
I know it sounds strange: that a country of these characteristics is the protagonist in the transformation and/or transmutation of the world hegemony, and the strategic key for the class conflict, authentic motor of the productive metamorphosis that we will live from 2030. A tension that keeps the "fire thieves" [contemporary Prometheus] closer to liberation and victory than to suffering and defeat, away from eternal condemnation to the persistence of a time out of its community future. Who cares about the human suffering seen in the face of these titanic beings? It is Percy Bysshe Shelley who develops a lyrical drama without reconciliation between Prometheus and Zeus, unlike the work of Aeschylus. Prometheus defy the gods to restore fire to men. What is the distance between conciliation and victory? Is an individual sphere worth more than the historical subjects of future generations and generations? The fact that we are willing to give up life for the new human constituents also dignifies the lives of those who oppose this challenge and tighten their organs. You can not challenge the mutation and want to stay alive. It is possible that these contemporary Prometheus make Zeus mortal.
The so-called "double freeze" proposed by Russia and China: the paralysis of the US-Japan-South Korea military exercises and the supposed and only supposed veto to the DPRK's nuclear program; this forces the diplomacy to take control of the conflict, making each of the actors to have a representative, and the new hegemonic blocks to gain sufficient time to start a new historical period that opposes the barbarism perpetrated to date by the hegemonic imperialism.
From a friendship association, as in others, we pay attention and care to these historical moments that increase the general interest, with concern for this kind of submission of the not aligned and for the lack of informational consistency in the most politicized movements of our axis. It seems to us an adequate moment to divulge and to deepen on these contents within those groups that maintain formulas of participation with more propositions.
The majority of experts in the field of armaments admit that made-in-Russia weapons can be referred to as best weapons in the world. To substantiate this point, suffice it to recall that many countries make their own ripoffs of world-famous Russian weapons.