“We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.” —Mao Zedong

The sanctions regime has proven itself once again to be the only UN institution with any real power, as it derives its strength from the unitary action of the major world-powers: the united $tates, europe, China and Russia. Russia has now taken the initiative in enforcing, with imperial prerogative, the genocidal sanctions that are now tormenting the courageous Korean people. In response to these new conditions, the DPRK’s deputy ambassador to the UN gave characteristically defiant speech on the state of international affairs surrounding the crisis on the Korean Peninsula. For perhaps the hundredth time he reminded the delegates that it is the united $tates which has provoked the crisis in the region, and has plagued the world with more violence than the DPRK will ever be capable of inflicting. Independent, progressive Third World states cannot coexist with monopolistic western imperialism.

Of course, keeping with tradition, his remonstrances fell on deaf ears and the media immediately zoomed in on the one phrase they knew could best serve the interests of further out-of-context imperial fear-mongering: “[The situation on the Korean Peninsula] has reached the touch-and-go point and a nuclear war may break out any moment.” This, of course, was to be used as an indictment upon the DPRK in convincing the global audience of amerikan victimhood at the hands of the “aggressive” Korean people. Very little serious thought was given to the more interesting portions of his speech, in which he directly addressed the notion of global denuclearization. Naturally, allowing such talk to be captured by the media would almost resemble fair and balanced journalism, and we cannot have that.

Surprising to those westerners who listened to the speech, the deputy ambassador voiced support for projects aimed at the total denuclearization of the world, and insisted that the DPRK has been one of the most consistent supporters of such a future program. Some called this a blatant lie, contradicted by the DPRK’s “aggressive” nuclear strategy in developing long-range missile technology and warhead research and development. Their explanation of this seemingly contradictory position was quite simple, they stated that they had specifically been put under “an extreme and direct nuclear threat” by the united $tates and that “unless the hostile policy and the nuclear threat of the US is thoroughly eradicated, we will never put our nuclear weapons and ballistic rockets on the negotiating table under any circumstances.” If it were not for the conditions created by the capitalist-imperialist world system, there would be no need for nuclear self-armament in the Third World, but one must fight fire with fire.

So this situation must logically guide any position taken by communists regarding nuclear arms and their abolition. While we endorse the idea that no country should have the capacity to make nuclear war on another country, we recognize that imperialist countries do have that capacity, and that we must account for it. In the same way that the imperialists and capitalists have the capacity to make war on the peoples of the world, we too must be willing and ready to make war on them. However, in the same vein of the nuclearization in the DPRK, our struggle must be conducted with the intention of completion. That is, we aim to bring about the conditions of world-disarmament, nuclear weapons or otherwise. Meanwhile, the imperialist countries, who have armed themselves with the most advanced nuclear and conventional military technology, do so in order to subjugate, continuously, the Third World as global hostage to their interests.

This is not the aim of the DPRK’s nuclear program, and the results of that program have shown a viable path for Third World revolutionaries to guard themselves against the imperialist ambitions of the nuclear states, principally amerika. Our position should not be significantly different, only we must extend it (logically, from the position held by the DPRK) to suggest that the united struggle of the Third World proletariat must result in denuclearization through the deconstruction of capitalism-imperialism, which holds all humankind under constant nuclear threat. We should take this threat seriously, but we should not allow it to batter us into submission, and certainly we should not blame the DPRK for the increased threat that now exists. As comrade Kim Jong Un has said, “a frightened dog barks louder” and so with the greater capacity for self defense in the Third World, and lesser ability of the united $tates to control it, naturally this threat will increase. This is merely the nature of irreconcilable contradiction, and any call to resolve it by placing the blame on the oppressed defenders of their own sovereignty is a call for u.$. hegemony.

“The Chinese people are not to be cowed by U.S. atomic blackmail. Our country has a population of 600 million and an area of 9,600,000 square kilometers. The United States cannot annihilate the Chinese nation with its small stack of atom bombs. Even if the U.S. atom bombs were so powerful that, when dropped on China, they would make a hole right through the earth, or even blow it up, that would hardly mean anything to the universe as a whole, though it might be a major event for the solar system.” —Mao Zedong

Mao was correct in saying that we should not allow the united $tates to blackmail the world with nuclear threats. If they are to end the world tomorrow, and launch an apocalyptic nuclear war in an attempt to prevent the fruition of world liberation, who has lost? The global proletariat has lived under the genocidal conditions of imperialism for centuries, and has lived and died at the fancy and for the luxury of the imperialists and their compradore bourgeois in the Third World. Those who have nothing to lose but their chains, and whose counterparts stand to lose everything in the event of nuclear war or of world liberation. Thus, we should not fear it. There is no imperialist weapon so great that the world proletariat cannot stand up to it, and, if need be, seize it to achieve world liberation.

Source: