Formalizing the alliance of Three; Russia-North Korea defense agreement
With all the downplaying headlines and commentaries about the
defense treaty between Russia and North Korea, US and West is going through a phase
of shock and denial.
The treaty not only affects Asia but the world in general as
far as the balance of military power and definitely negates the possibility of
nuclear war.
Let’s read the defense related sections of the summary of the
treaty published on June 20 in the North Korean News Paper.
Kim Jong Un, general secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea
and president of the State Affairs of the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, and Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, president of the Russian Federation,
signed the "Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the DPRK
and the Russian Federation" on June 19.
According to the treaty, the two
sides, taking into account their national laws and international
obligations, shall permanently maintain and develop the comprehensive
strategic partnership based on mutual respect for state sovereignty,
territorial inviolability, non-interference in internal affairs, principle of
equality and other principles of international law concerning friendly
relations and cooperation between nations.
The two sides shall exchange views
on the issues of bilateral relations and international issues of mutual
concern through dialogue and negotiations, including summit talks, and intensify
concerted action and cooperation in the international arenas.
The two sides shall aspire to global
strategic stability and establishment of a new fair and equal international
order, maintain close mutual communication, and strengthen strategic and
tactical cooperation.
In case a direct threat of armed
invasion is created against any one of the two sides, the two sides shall immediately
operate the channel of bilateral negotiations for the purpose of adjusting
their stands at the request of any one side and discussing feasible
practical measures to ensure mutual assistance for removing the prevailing
threat.
In case any one of the two sides is
put in a state of war
by an armed invasion from an individual state or several states, the other
side shall provide military and other assistance with all means in its
possession without delay in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter
and the laws of the DPRK and the Russian Federation.
Each side is obliged not to
conclude with any third country any agreement encroaching upon the other side's
sovereignty, security, territorial inviolability, rights to freely opt for and
develop political, social, economic, and cultural systems and other core
interests, nor to take part in such actions.
The two sides, with the aim of
maintaining international peace and security, shall discuss and cooperate with
each other in the matters concerning the global and regional development
that could be a direct or indirect challenge to their common interests and
security within the framework of international bodies, including the UN and
its specialized organs.
The two sides shall provide
mechanisms for taking joint measures with the aim of strengthening the defence
capabilities for preventing war and ensuring regional and global peace and
security.
As expected, the Western Media and its proxies in South East
Asia trying to downplay the importance of the treaty and their “experts” commenting that
they are “studying to see whether the agreement obligates Russia to an
automatic military invention on behalf of the North in war situations or was
carefully worded enough to avoid such a commitment”.
Neo-Con fantasy and wishful thinking in their assessment of
the world and world powers which actually brought about the forming of China,
Russia, North Korea (and Iran) alliance, still works in the same fashion.
They are claiming that “China is not happy with this treaty.” Their denial of the realities forget that
China has only one defense agreement; that is with North Korea. China and North
Korea has a historically friendly relationship.
The treaty signed on July 11, 1961, commonly referred to in
China as the "China-North Korea military alliance treaty" obligates China
militarily to defend North Korea and vice versa. The defense treaty with
North Korea is China's only formal military alliance treaty signed with
another country that has not been rescinded since the founding of the People's
Republic. Even in regard to this treaty the Neo-Con proxies make assessments
and comments that “"If North Korea would first attack South Korea and, as
a result, there were full-scale arms clashes, China wouldn't aid North
Korea." It is more like a wishful thinking than an objective
assessment since China would not want to see a Ukraine-like proxy its border, thus makes sure North Korea wouldn’t
lose to South Korea. Chinese media lately carried out in its news channels that
China has a defense treaty with North Korea and it is still alive. That cannot
be a coincidence.
Soviet troops invaded North Korea, which was then a colony of Japan in 1945. North
Korea was under the control of the
Soviet Civil Administration and People's Committee of North Korea from 1945 to
1948. The Soviet 64th Fighter Aviation Corps took part in the Korean War . They
also provided North Korea and China with badly needed pilots. China sent
3million soldiers to North Korea to fight against the South Korean and UN
forces during 1950-1953. The history of the East has a colonial history with
fierce anti-colonial wars that created a deep and long lasting friendship
feelings among the peoples of these regions. The history of the West is the
history of colonialism where they massacred the people and plundered the countries where the hatred and animosity still
reigns.
That is why it is not
easy for the West to comprehend the friendly feelings of the region and do not
even consider this in their striving to pit them against each other. It works occasionally
but only through their proxies. That is
why the US and West was shock and in denial when, contrary to their
expectations, Russia and China joined hand in against the West in the case of
Ukraine. They are in shock and in denial that Russia joined in an alliance with
North Korea. A country that the US West tried so many years for regime change,
applied economic and military embargo to. They forced North Korea to
concentrate in military industry . Although that was the purpose of the US (so
that economy would not develop and people rise against the regime- same tactic
used for Cuba) but they never expected that NK could become a powerhouse for
military industry. Same ‘regime change”, “sanction” policy and proxy war
against Russia made Russia both economically and militarily stronger than
before. The policy of conflict and wars, black mailing and economic sanctions,
NED and its NGOs interfering in the internal affairs of every country was bound
to backfire eventually and looks like that time has come and initiated.
Considering the latest relationship of Russia and China, a logical conclusion is
that although China was not in North Korea physically, but it was
there through Russia with which China had preparatory discussions and had
inputs, approvals, and confirmation of prepared agreement ahead of the visit.
US and the west have been trying to drive a wedge between
China and Russia which started way before the Sino-Soviet split and continued with the propaganda, tactics, and
provocations to pit them against each other up to now.
Ironically, after 1960s,gradually Russia was seeing itself as “European” and “close
“ to the West. It is the Neo-Con policy of exceptionalism and aggression, the
written plans to weaken and Balkanize Russia that made Russia slip from their
hands. In every step, Neo-Cons shot themselves in the foot in relation to
Russia. With the war they forced upon Russia in Ukraine, following the coup,
NATO expansions, fake MINSK agreements to prepare Ukraine for war, made Russians realized that they are not “Europeans” and “West” is not their friends but
foes. That brought about an informal existential alliance of China and Russia which
extended to North Korea and to some degree to Iran.
Adding the Russia-North Korea defense treaty to the
China-North Korea defense treaty, now we have an indirect defense treaty between China and
Russia. Simply because any attack to one will include all directly or
indirectly due to the combined defense treaties with North Korea.
So, the formal declaration of Russia-North Korea defense
treaty is in fact a formal declaration of Russia-China-North Korea defense
agreement, defense alliance.
How does this affect the Sea of Japan and East China Sea? How
will this affect the US- South Korea, US-Japan proxy relations and the military
presence of US?
Neo-Con Western media and analyzers could not get rid of their
fantasies and delusions and looks like they will not be able to without a serious
slap on their face to sobber them up. They claim that “anything happening
in the West will remain in the West, will not affect the East, or wise a versa.”
They forget that Russia extends from east Europe all the way to the east,
to Sea of Japan. Based on the Russia-North Korea agreement, any attack to
Russia by US, Britain, or France in or due to Ukraine will trigger the
defense agreement and will bring about the possibility of attacking the
military forces of these countries in the in the Sea of Japan where Russia and North Korea
shares a border.
In return, any attack to North Korea will trigger the
defense agreement between China and North Korea. This will make
the Yellow Sea, East China sea “a sea of war” for the US-Western military in
which their forces will be a target including those in South Korea and Japan.
This is a hypothetical situation with real consequences which
is becoming so obvious to South Korea, Japan, and the US. Although the Western Media does not cover,
the anti-war movement and protests in
South Korea and Japan is not a rare, occasional one. This new development and its
implications will be bound to strengthen the anti war sentiments and movements
in these countries. A repetition of desertion of the proxies by the US in
Ukraine, like in Vietnam, Afghanistan will force not only the people but the
ruling elites of these countries to think
twice before playing the role of a war-proxy for the US. It will
take some time but it will happen. It is not a coincidence that a staunch ally
of US, Thailand stated it’s desire to participate in BRICS, and did not
sign the Ukraine Peace Summit communique. If not all, most of the South East Asian
countries deserting pro-Western stands and choosing a neutral stand. Small countries slowly but surely finding courage to stand up the “bully”. The
courage to stand up against the pressures, lessening of the fear of economic
and other sanctions and taking stand has
actually started in Africa with heavy blows to France in its semi-colony
countries. Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger are examples of this side effect of the
new multipolar world order.
In this sense, the formal declaration of defence alliance
will have a wide range of indirect
impact from East Asia to other corners of the world. The chain of fear of
reprisal will be shattered gradually. Countries will start acting more neutral than
before and concentrate on their economy.
What will be the impact of the Defense Alliance as far as the war in
Ukraine and NATO’s paper-tiger wows are concerned?
As I have noted on previous articles, Russia already has won
the war in the context that it has the control over the duration and phase of
the war in Ukraine. Russia has the control in achieving its strategic goals set
forth at the second phase, following the rejection of Istanbul agreement. US’s
damping of money, NATO’s support of
Ukraine will not change the outcome of this war. Engels formulating the law said that " .
.. the whole organisation and method of warfare, and along with these
victory or defeat, prove to be dependent on material, that is, economic
conditions: on the human material and the armaments material, and therefore
on the quality and quantity of the population and on technical development".
There is no economy to speak about in
Ukraine, European economy is in shambles, European people largely against the
war, NATO countries supporting Ukraine depleted their own military arsenal, it
has no power to replenish the losses for either man or means.
NATO’s or individual country governments statements that they
will send troops to Ukraine is a bluff with a weak hand. Russia already has
given the final warning for the
deployment of foreign troops to Ukraine. Doing so will make not only those foreign
troops a legitimate target within Ukraine, but also beyond Ukraine.
Russia has the “quality and quantity of the population and technical
means" to defeat NATO without any need of using tactical nuclear weapon. That
is why Putin stressed that Russia will not be the first to use nuclear
weapon but will respond in a devastating magnitude and form. Russia, with
its defense agreement with North Korea, and with the existing defense agreement
between China and North Korea sends a strong deterrent message and indicates
that a nuclear war will not be only between US-West and Russia, but between
the-US- West and Russia-China-North Korea.
Russia coined this reality with North Korea defense agreement.
With this alignment it would be “A war with no definite political aim but a total
destruction of all – definitely of Europe, US, Russia, NK, and Russia with
secondary, tertiary destructive affects of the south. Is such a war, although
possible, likely?
Conclusion
In politics, right and left (although in different context)
acknowledge that “War is a continuation of politics by violent means.” Neo-Con bourgeois
ideologists try to conceal this fact and
the essence of their imperialist, exceptionalist, hegemonic politics as "supranational" policy defending
the free world, democracy, the rule based international world order. They claim that during military actions, war
is completely independent of politics. In the nuclear age, nuclear weapons have freed themselves of the control of
politics, because nuclear war abolishes
the distinction between front and rear and threatens both belligerents with
catastrophic consequences.
They dupe people by concealing the political content and
character of war and its main causes and sell the idea that they wage wars
not for the political interests and aspirations of monopoly capital, but to
save the lives of people at large, and they self-authorize themselves to save -implant
democracy and thus the lives of people
in any given country.
Nuclear war is a war and a continuation of politics, in fact, it is even more
"political", Lenin pointed that when the "war seems the more
'warlike', the more political it is ... "
In a war, the use of nuclear missiles will ultimately
be subordinated to the interests of a definite policy, will become a
means of attaining a definite political aim.
Will total destruction of the world be considered a “definite
political aim” of any country?
On my brief article on the “likelihood of a nuclear war” I
had pointed out that Finance Capital-monopoly capitalists;
are the real decision makers behind
any decision that concerns their interests, especially the existential ones.
On every decisions, especially on the
decisions for a Nuclear War, the fundamental question is who will benefit and
who will lose. The response to this question is elementary when the issue is
Nuclear war and the destruction of the World.
Peoples in general have nothing to
lose but the Finance Capital who owns or at least have a large stake in the
banks, most large industries, information, trade, agriculture, trade
transaction technologies and have stake on every sector of life will inevitably
be the ultimate loser. …..
With the technological - satellites,
Artificial intelligence, precisian guided sub-sonic, supersonic, hypersonic
missiles, UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), USVs (Unmanned Surface Vehicles),
lately introduced Robot Tanks, lasers, signal jamming, and so many other to
count-development, the need for the
use of nuclear weapons is diminishing. This new technological war machines
are also extremely destructive but can be localized and their extent is
controllable.
For these reasons I do not see any
likelihood of nuclear world war.
New technological weapons will
continue to be destructive in the service and for the benefit of Military
Industrial complex and of the Finance Capital. However, most likely the
wars will be proxy wars with the use of new weapons at the expense of
the people and the destruction of the proxy countries in where the new
“technological weapons” will be tested on the field and improved accordingly.
The defense agreement between North Korea and Russia, and the
existing defense agreement between North Korea and China made sure that any
nuclear war will be catastrophic in where no large countries and no “capitalists
– as the gatekeepers of policy “ will have any chance to survive. Unless
they want to commit suicide all together, the likelihood of an all out
nuclear war is diminished.
Erdogan A
June , 2024
Nepal
Related articles
Unipolar World versus Multipolar world
On the likelihood of a Nuclear war
Kinmen Islands, Taiwan- How serious is the military provocations against China?
.jpg)
No comments