Here is an article translated from the newspaper Proletären, given out by one of the Swedish revisionist “communist” party. The reading itself is interesting though and fends of some lies about DPRK.
Few political leaders in our time have been as demonized and lied about as monstrously as Kim Jong Il. At one moment he is a dictator with power over everything and everyone in DPRK, later he is a bizarre jerk who’s only interested in wine, women and western films. That the two different images doesn’t go together isn’t worrying those who came up with them. In the propaganda war everything’s allowed, even the impossible.
Now when Kim Jong Il’s dead, media is instead full of speculations of what to come, each speculation worse than the other.Suddenly the world turned into an unsafe place to live in without Kim.
The speculations is always motivated by that it’s impossible to know and understand what’s going on in the closed DPRK. It’s true that it’s not that easy, but it’s not completely impossible. It’s just all about not to get fooled by the lying propaganda.
Kim Jong Il succeeded his father Kim Il Sung back in 1994, but not as president. That post is always tied to the country’s father Kim Il Sung and is no longer an active function, but as the frontman for the country’s leadership.
The succession was hard to accept for communists world world, But beyond the principled objections were rationality. The Korean leadership wanted to be assured against the destructive power struggles that occurred in the Soviet Union after Stalin and China after Mao, by guaranteeing stability in the leadership after the legendary Kim Il Sung, which resulted in the in Asia not unusual, family solution.
It is claimed that it was Kim Il Sung himself that appointed the son as his successor, as Kim Jong Il now appointed Kim Jong Un. Neither of the two is true.The succession is a result by a decision from a broad leadership. The myth of the of the autocrat is just a myth.
One can hesitate to the family solution, but one can’t let himself be fooled by the myth of the bizarre autocrat. The politics of the DPRK is rational and predictable, if you just look on the country’s actual situation that it have been at war since 1950.
There is armistice in the Korean war, but no actual peace. The US refuses to sign a peace agreement.
Kim Jong Il came to power in 1994. The very same year, the US and DPRK signed an energy agreement, that included that DPRK should shut down it’s one and only plutonium-producing nuclear plant, which the US considered dangerous, in exchange to that the US should have built a new and less dangerous plant. DPRK fulfilled it’s part of the agreement, but the US never intended to fulfil their part.
President Bill Clinton acknowledged the planned agreement failure from the US side. The US calculated that DPRK should collapse within a few years under Kim Jong Il, therefore Clinton could sign any kind of agreements.
The US mistook the strength of DPRK, despite the worlds most comprehensive intelligence reports. Just that says a lot about Kim Jong Il. He came to power in a difficult time where the fall of the Soviet Union removed DPRK’s previous trade relationships. DPRK also got hit by repeated natural disasters that drenched large agricultural areas with seawater, and also soon by a difficult energy crisis due to the result of the US agreement failure.Even with these events in mind the “North Korea-analysts” prognoses survived.
How all this was even possible if the country was autocratically governed by a bizarre jerk, we’ll leave to others to answer.
We just confirm state that DPRK just didn’t only survived the difficult crisis in the 1990’s but also that the country’s now again is going forward.
How can you describe Kim Jong Il’s leadership? Anyone who have been to DPRK or who just follow any news knows that he constantly was out travelling. Every day he visited factories, collective farms to give advice and guidance, something the bourgeois media always try to make something fun out of. There’s no coincidence died on a train. He was probably more on the train or the car than in Pyongyang.
No wonder about that the people is mourning. It’s not about a cult of personality. Kim Jong Il was a present political leader.
To be among the people and mediate the party’s and the government’s politics was Kim Jong Il’s most important mission, which also denies the dictator with power over everything and everyone. No human can do all this at one time, especially not if he at the same time is drinking a lot of wine, women and western films. No other descriptions does give Kim Jong Il more superhuman skills than those in the western caricatures of him.
So what consequences will the death of Kim Jong Il have? Probably no significant ones. Of course there are conflicts within the Korean leadership, as in all leaderships, but due to the country’s exposed situation there’s more that unites.
The country’s leadership isn’t dramatically affected by the death of Kim Jong Il, despite his iconic reputation, or maybe due to his iconic reputation. It’s easier to replace icons, if so wise and politically significant, than autocrats.
Kim Jong Un will now take over Kom Jong Il’s role as frontman. He’s young and inexperienced and it will take time for him to get into the role. But it’s not especially dramatic. The leadership’s role is as mentioned rational, that base itself in actual circumstances and act consequent in relation to them, something that every serious analyst says.
A war is something DPRK doesn’t want, but the opposite. DPRK wants peace on the Korean peninsula and the possibilites to develop it’s trade relations with more countries than China, so it is more the outside world’s reaction we have to worry about.
If the US and South Korea imagine an increased pressure will result in a collapse of the DPRK as Clinton’s analysts calculated back in 1994, then the situation can turn dangerous. The dangerous nutjobs is in Washington and Seoul, but the risk is very small. It is risky to challenge a nuclear power.
The original text can be found here