Geopolitics and China:
On April 14, northern Korea missed a deadline for shutting off its nuclear reactor. This was after the
United $tates missed its 30-day deadline for returning Korea its $25 million in funds in a Macau bank. The
deal for Korea to shut down its reactor arrived at in talks among northern Korea, southern Korea, Japan, Russia, China and the United $tates
foundered because of crazy Amerikan nationalism unleashed September 11 2001. The United $tates was unable
to do something as simple as turn over $25 million because of the nutty post-911 law called the "Patriot Act."
As MIM reported before, in the case of the embargo on the Palestinians
and the northern Korean money previously frozen in Macau, China, international banks are unwilling
to sneeze without U.$. permission. Now we learn that the Chinese diplomatically
raised the question of the Patriot Act with the Bush administration during the
Korea negotiations to unfreeze an account. It was a provision of the Patriot Act
that made it impossible for the Chinese to give the northern Koreans their money originally frozen
by the Amerikans. Negotiators from six countries had assembled to handle the Korean
nuclear program when northern Koreans left March 22, thanks to the Patriot Act.
As we go to press, both the Korean and U.$. sides are trying to make it appear that they
are working hard to put the nuclear talks back on track.
In capitalist ideology, the "Patriot Act" is an impediment to business competition,
because it gives the U.$. administration the right to set terms for the whole
international banking system. Amerikan banks then have an unfair advantage in lobbying
those who implement the Patriot Act. MIM has also argued before that the Patriot Act has
many similarities to the Enabling Act that sent Hitler on his way in Germany.
The imperialists themselves had a false sense of joy, a glee when U.S.
law enforcement activity nearly closed the small Macau bank concerned--Banco
Delta Asia (BDA).(1) Of course drug-running and bill counterfeiting
are easy to oppose. Yet, the way to oppose them is with international
government and global elimination of cash. The "Patriot Act" lacks the
transparency necessary for business competition under fair terms. Here
is what the Wikipedia had to say on April 12 2007:
The only way to obtain truly universal law enforcement is by removing the class interests
underlying it. In this case, the Amerikan bourgeoisie is rightly offended by other
exploiters who make profits on drugs or counterfeiting. At the same time, Chinese exploiters
are right within their capitalist logic that having their banks shut down by the "Patriot
Act" is both lackeyism and bad business for themselves. The Korean bourgeoisie is also
correct that if someone wants nuclear negotiations that someone needs to let
the Korean bourgeoisie run amok exploiting as much as the bourgeoisie from other countries.
Otherwise there is no seat at the bourgeois table so to speak. As it stands, the drug problem and
business is much larger in the united $tates than in East Asia. There would not be any U.$. banks
left standing if any with an account from a drug-dealer had to close.
The fact that U.S. law enforcement did not feel capable of taking on the Bank of China and sinking it
tends to raise a question of theory and analysis for Leninism. Shortly before Mao died, he said China would
be imperialist if it went capitalist. MIM and the Chinese state-capitalist regime have often argued
that China is still Third World, not imperialist. One could say that the Bank of China did not sink, because
China is imperialist itself and has reached an independent economic stage intertwining banks and the Chinese
economy. On the other hand, we could treat both the Bank of China and Banco Delta Asia as U.$-dominated
banks. Then the fact that law enforcement picked on one but not the other could be seen as having
parallels within the United $tates, where banks also go down in bankruptcy in scandals.
Whether China is imperialist or Third World, the Chinese rulers specialize in underselling Chinese labor to the West.
Even in Russia the exploited have a widespread suspicion that the United $tates actually picked Gorbachev and Yeltsin,
who in turn put in Putin. In contrast, MIM is of the opinion that Russia is its own imperialism. Likewise, one could argue
that Mao was right and the united $tates does not really choose China's rulers; hence, China could be imperialist too.
When Christopher Hill
said the State Department favored releasing the money in Macau, the
Chinese and Russians very politely said that was not good enough. Instead of holding the Amerikans
to their public statements on Macau's money for Kim in Pyongyang, the Chinese had further
talks with a different subdivision of the U.S. Government, headed by Treasury, which in the
past had held a different line on the question of money-laundering than the State Department.
The only reports of the Patriot Act's role that we saw came from McClatchy papers,
the Knight-Ridder company. Most of the international news we see comes from Associated Press.
Reuters is another big name. In this one rare instance, Knight-Ridder reported something substantially
different than other sources. Perhaps Knight-Ridder will now be accused of being "spies" by
Amerikan reactionaries used to reading CIA-certified AP stories. (MIM does not mean to imply that Knight-Ridder
is not CIA infiltrated.)
One would think reporting the Chinese view of the nuke talks would be good journalism, but
others might argue from a stupid bourgeois position concerning "credibility."
The late stage capitalist system allows social psychological advances that cruder class systems squelch.
The notion that there are degrees of "credibility" is an advance over the idea that the king
has divine authority. We Marxists have said that strong central governments such as monarchies
are helpful in organizing international trade for the bourgeoisie. On the other hand, Marxism of the Stalin
era also pointed to parliamentary democracy as normal once centralization had reached a sufficient
level.
Despite some advances in capitalist countries going beyond absolute
monarchy, the population in a capitalist system remains in the throes
of an essentially ad hominem system of pseudo-reasoning. If Prince Cheney says Saddam Hussein
had ties with Al-Qaeda, even the bourgeois non-monarchist segment of the population is likely
to go with "credibility comes first and Cheney is a real Republican, so therefore he is credible."
This is also a great time-saving device--to choose a handful of "credible" people and then act on that
basis. Now there is more than one credible persyn, just the king, but many continue to choose between
perhaps a Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid and a Republican leader like Cheney. It's
more than one leader, but it is still far from an ability to examine a problem from many sides and handle
something like the McClatchy report.
Even a large portion of people who read MIM's website do so to save time, because in the capitalist
system time is still money. There is no way to participate in politics meaningfully without shortcuts
under capitalism. Nonetheless, the important social and political truths do not rely on
any question of credibility or even "sources." Whether a Chinese diplomat said it, Knight-Ridder said
it or Cheney said it, the Patriot Act is the Patriot Act and it has been implemented a certain way.
Marxism teaches us to look at what large groups of people do, regardless of the individual levels
of "credibility" within those groups. To do that we also look for the interests of large groups of people,
some of which may be unconscious to the people with those interests. If the Patriot Act came before the
World Trade Organization set up by the GATT treaty participants, the Patriot Act might be struck down,
because Amerikans are not the only ones with banks, so business comes under international treaty
obligations, not just U.$. laws.
Now the deadline for shutting down Korea's nuclear reactor has passed, but
not by as much as the deadline on returning the $25 million, and the media makes
it look like the Banco Delta Asia issue mucked up the original deal. Christopher Hill is in the media making it
look like the BDA issue is resolved; yet this time, China is letting it be known through a minority of
media outlets, that China does not agree. Reuters and MSNBC stepped to the plate for that one.(3) It makes
for good news, because of the suspense of a deadline connected to a nuclear plant.
Whatever happens now,
the Banco Delta Asia issue has been used in public opinion. We should not be naive about law enforcement:
the fact that Banco Delta Asia has been punished but not the Bank of China proves that law enforcement
is subordinate to international politics and that the Patriot Act provision on banking has been used to
justify a warmongering climate against Korea and China. The Cheney followers were most adamant
to the point of putting the law enforcement operation above the nuclear negotiations.
From the U.$. point of view, if we were to take the U.$. media
seriously, perhaps it should have staged a withdrawal of funds out of its pocket to make
it look like the $25 million was a finished issue. China too is now
receiving a little bad press in the united $tates. If forced to
explain that the Korea nuclear deal went awry, the media will have to
take China's public statements and China will have to get into the BDA
issue. The Amerikan media is now predictably slur East Asian
business as counterfeiting, drug-running and money-laundering. The New
York Times became interested and concluded its story on the subject
this way:
At the same time, the $25 million is a distraction while other larger events are going on.
Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson visited northern Korea to obtain Korean War remains of
U.$. servicepeople. Even more importantly northern Korea sacked its premier, with the appearance that
there is some kind of opening to the West in the works. There is thus an impression of much bigger
things in the works.
At the moment, both the northern Koreans and Amerikans are taking the position that their
sides are not to blame for the snags in nuclear talks. Koreans are saying they will allow
nuclear inspectors as soon as they receive $25 million.(4) At the same time, the Amerikans are
claiming the Koreans should just go claim their money. Lost in the media blitz is that these
are just postures. Nor do we know what is going on behind the scenes that produced the Richardson
trip and the sacking of the Korean premier.
The White House ideology journal called the National Review reverted to the Cheney line saying that
the State Department was a fool for making a deal with Kim. The delay of a month in delivering the
$25 million even by U.$. standards went unparsed, but National Review pounced on the fact
that Korea did not turn off its nuclear plant on April 14.(5) One thing left out in all the National Review foaming about
Korean business activities was that U.S. law enforcement saw more of the same thing in the Bank of China,
which of course went untouched. The only thing that such discussion and law enforcement can
accomplish is whipping up a political climate against Korea and possibly China.
After so many lectures about giving up Marx, Lenin and Stalin from the U.S. State Department, it appears
that northern Korea got down to the business of smuggling cigarettes to make a profit, at least according
to the U.$. imperialist media. Yet still those imperialists complain. So the point is that the profit-mongering
that Koreans do is "illegal" and "criminal" while the exploitation of U.$. imperialists is above
reproach. So naturally the Korean, Russian and Chinese bourgeoisie might say to the U.$. imperialists, "then change the laws."
And so it goes forever until there is a proletarian-led world government.
Note:
MIM previously commented on some southern Korean lackeys of U.$.
imperialism that are now seeing northern Korea as some kind of nuclear
strategic asset to the united $tates, which was plausible in that
Korea can use its existing delivery systems to hit China, Japan and
Russia much more easily than the united $tates. These are the kind of
lackeys that April 9 2007 are still saying things like:
Southern Korea is the most successful colony the united $tates ever had. We say
colony because to this day the united $tates is in charge of the military in
southern Korea. We say "successful," because in 2005, Korea was the only colony
to ever surpass $20,000 in per capita income and the only one to make it into the
top 10 world economies. Even Puerto Rico has not quite cracked the $20,000 mark yet(2) and
Korea has been a U.$. colony a shorter period of time.
MIM has pointed out before that the depth, breadth and favorability
of the trade deals with the united $tates since the Korean War are all a result
of the real global class struggle. There was not much proletarian class struggle within the united $tates
or other labor aristocracy-dominated populations.
There was a class struggle where the united $tates attempted to detach a new Korean
labor aristocracy, a model for the rest of the world. As we reported before, for the Korean
model to be applied to the rest of the world is impossible, because there simply is not that
much trade that can occur. Nor has the united $tates faced the compulsion of defeating Mao so
desperately as in Korea. That was the real class struggle, countries composed of mostly formerly
exploited people up against imperialists.
Thanks to these kinds of Korean lackeys now it is not surprising to see that the CIA has stepped
forward to say that the Korean nuke test in October 2006 was a failure and
that the United $tates does not regard Korea as a nuclear power. At
the same time, the New York Times continues to report that northern
Korea does have 6 to 8 nuclear weapons,(3) despite the CIA director's
latest statements. It will be interesting to see if the New York Times
eventually changes its tune to match the CIA director or whether the
word "strategic" will be finessed.
Another derisive story at the same time said that northern Korea really wants to junk its old reactor anyway.(4)
Although derisive, the story adds to a thaw climate, because it downplays fears in the united $tates.
Russia is the occasional beneficiary of such stories as well.
For suspicious minds used to thinking in geopolitical chess terms, the Bush administration has coughed up
something else. On Easter, the New York Times reported that northern Koreans deliver tank parts to the
Ethiopians for cash and the United $tates bites its tongue, because Ethiopia is perceived as fighting against
Al-Qaeda in the Horn of Africa. So now it is possible to see northern Korea as having conventional
strategic value against Al-Qaeda. If China has an oil deal with Sudan and northern Korea is an arms supplier for
anti-Al Qaeda forces, there is even a potential anti-China element in the mix; although the State Department
recently defended China's role in Sudan.(5)
At the same time, Democratic candidate for president Bill Richardson landed in northern Korea on Easter as part
of a bipartisan mission regarding remains of U.$. troops from the Korean War.(6) By Amerikan standards the trip is an important
political signal.
With the completion of a trade deal with great fanfare with southern Korea as all this was happening,
perhaps the southern Korean lackeys of u.$. imperialism will calm down. 58.5% of Koreans approved the April 2
trade deal, according to Gallup.(7) Now it is the turn of Australia to cry: "US-Korea agreement shows Australia is losing out in bilateral deals,"
screams one headline.(8) Interesting to note is that the story is by the China reporter of "The Australian."
"The Australian" managed to tie the Korea deal to a need for a global multilateral deal along the same lines and
it ended with a quote from Morgan Stanley on the rise of protectionism against China in the Bush administration.
Morgan Stanley sees the anti-China wind as ominous for the world economy.
The thaw in U.$.-Korea relations is real. The U.$. rhetoric has racheted down for now. Robert Joseph
had to quit over the degree to which the aggressive posture toward Korea has toned down.(9)
The Pentagon hawks had visions of bombing northern Korea, destroying the economy and causing the
collapse of the government there. For China, the U.$. hawks' vision translated into refugees at its borders
and an emboldened U.$. outpost, southern Korea--all at the expense of a Chinese treaty partner. Now there
is an appearance by the united $tates and China of trying to go another route on the Korea question.
Notes:Patriot Act delays Korea nuke negotiations?
"An
audit by Ernst & Young revealed no evidence that the bank had
facilitated money laundering and according to the 2006-10-18 filing by
the bank's U.S. attorneys there was almost no way that North Korea
could have laundered counterfeit U.S. currency through the bank. The
allegations against the bank were levied under a provision of the
PATRIOT Act that provides for an administrative procedure that doesn't
permit the bank to see the evidence of the accusations or defend
itself in court while allowing the United States to freeze a foreign
bank out of the U.S. financial system."
"Successful" law enforcement under the current system only exacerbates
bourgeois conflict. So in this case no sooner did a massive sting bring success involving 59 arrests(2), than the
nuclear negotiations with northern Korea fell apart. The reason for that is that bourgeois
class interests do underlie all diplomacy. Even within the U.$.'s "success" in law enforcement,
the small fish got fried while the Bank of China went scott-free, despite the fact that
the Amerikans in law enforcement saw much more supposedly criminal activity coming from the Bank of China. It could be no other
way, because the people in charge of law enforcement in China have their operations run
out of the Bank of China. The rulers and business are intertwined. This is also the same
very reason that the "war on drugs" can never win under capitalism. The appearance of law enforcement
is created when all that really happens is that law enforcement determines which drug dealers make the money,
and which fronts lose, fronts such as the Banco Delta Asia reputedly. At the geopolitical level, bourgeois law enforcement questions
only serve to be used by politicians who want to whip up a war climate against this country or that country.
"'Banco Delta may be a sacrificial lamb in some
people’s minds, but it is not about Banco Delta,' he said. 'It’s about
Macao, Macao’s government, China, the Chinese government and their
complicity and their accommodative behavior towards North Korea’s
illegal activities, proliferation activities and leadership financial
activities.'"
So maybe China should have coughed up $25 million to avoid press like that.
From reading the media it is still as of April 14 impossible to tell why some guys with
suitcases do not walk out of BDA with $25 million. The Amerikans say the money is not
frozen, but media sources say that in the midst of the business turmoil and changes
of ownership it is unclear if northern Korea will be deemed to own the bank accounts.
The "Patriot Act" caused a change of the bank's board of directors.
1. "N. Korea: No money, no deal:
Snag arises when no bank will accept the North's frozen funds."
By Tim Johnson - McClatchy Beijing Bureau
Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, March 23, 2007 http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/142602.html
Later the International Herald Tribune picked up the story and added that the Bank of China was even more
tied up in money laundering. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/11/asia/bank.php?page=3
2. "The Money Trail That Linked North Korea to Macao,"
By DONALD GREENLEES and DAVID LAGUE, April 11, 2007, New York Times
3. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18076316/
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/04/12/china_suggests_nkorea_funds_issue_not_resolved/
4. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/36d7c728-e846-11db-b2c3-000b5df10621.html
5. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/13/opinion/main2682839_page2.shtml
Lackeys get their say:
Strategic value of northern Korea being re-evaluated
"To speak English fluently has been a long-held dream for almost all
Koreans since national liberation in 1945. That's because English has
proved to be one of the most effective tools to succeed in our
society."(1)
In no other country in the world would "liberation" be called learning the
language of the colonizer's country.
1. Korea Times editorial gushing on the trade agreement with the United $tates
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/Engnews/20070409/910000000020070409075025E0.html
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico Southern Korea is between Puerto Rico at $19,100
GDP per capita and Mississippi at $21,587 per capita GDP.
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/world/asia/07korea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
4. "N. Korea plant to be shut down dilapidated," By Richard Halloran
THE WASHINGTON TIMES, March 30, 2007, http://washingtontimes.com/world/20070329-111347-4739r.htm
5. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18060465/
6. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-08-nkorea-remains_N.htm?csp=34
7. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15324
8. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21523956-643,00.html
9. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40B16F73C540C728EDDAA0894DF404482