Posted on 04/03/2003 4:07:57 PM PST by vannrox
Pyongyang, April 2 (KCNA) -- A seminar on Kim Jong Il's army-based policy was held in Moscow on march 25 on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of his election as Chairman of the DPRK National Defence Commission. Sazhi Umalatova, chairwoman of the Party for Peace and Unity of Russia, said in a report at the seminar that Kim Jong Il has wisely guided the DPRK with his extraordinary wisdom, a resolute stand and outstanding leadership.
Noting that it is Kim Jong Il's political philosophy that neither peace nor sovereignty and prosperity of the country would be thinkable without its army, she stressed that thanks to his army-based policy the Korean People's Army has grown to be a strong army which is so fully prepared ideologically and morally and equipped with such modern weapons that it can emerge victorious in any confrontation with imperialists.
The whole world has recognized the validity of his army-based policy and history will always praise him as the greatest statesman and most outstanding leader, she stated.
Speakers said that his army-based leadership is wise in that he has trained the KPA as a strong army in the world and achieved the single-hearted unity of the party, state, army and people.
Noting that thanks to his army-based policy the destiny of the Korean nation and socialism is firmly defended and the DPRK is taking a wide avenue of building a powerful nation, they added that the army-based policy is, therefore, a perfect mode of socialist politics and independent politics.
A message of greetings to Kim Jong Il was adopted at the seminar.
Sort of like judging the US based on Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi's passe bleatings.
America-bashing is in vogue now. No Russian politician dares voice support for the war in Iraq, even though they know full well that anything less than total American victory would mean bad days ahead for all non-Islamists.
They just wish the inevitable hadn't come so soon.
It's not Stalin's Russia anymore, and there's no going back. Let Sazhi Umalatova (a Chechnyan name, BTW) bleat on about the paradox of Juchi self-reliance while taking up collections for her starving Marxists.
The pendulum is already swinging our direction, judging from editorials I've been reading in Russian. Be wary of opinion polls, the average Russian is great at keeping his head down when the river is flowing the wrong direction.
They just wish the inevitable hadn't come so soon.
Do you mean that Russian politicians want the War On Iraq to happen later, but not now ? It there any particular reason ? Please enlighten me.:)
"Hardly any of the high-ranking officials in Russia today will risk saying aloud that it would be a catastrophe if the USA were defeated in the war... in the form of the Saddam remaining in power. The consequence of this would not only be a world economic crisis... but a final crash of the entire present international system of the values..."
"For this part of the human race, the Arab street, this would become a clear signal: much is now possible. Almost anything... the threat of new Chechnya, but on the scale of the entire North Caucasus, destabilization of central Asia, and especially by those possessing nuclear technologies, such as Pakistan, Iran and so forth."
"This, of course is an apocalyptical picture but the tendency is precisely such. An alternative to this nightmare would be the rapid victory of the USA in the war. The choice is between two versions, similar to what Comrade Stalin designated by his unique phrase "both worse". The first one is dangerous. The second one is disgusting from the point of view of Russian political philosophy. But history now and then does not allow other versions."
As far as sooner versus later, I'm still chasing down that op-ed which was on irak.ru until yesterday. Political commentary is a translator's nightmare, so it takes me awhile. Watch this space for further developments ;-)
Thanks for your efforts.:) Let me know if you find out what they meant by "sooner vs later".
Using Mind and Conscience
Vladimir Putin determines Russia's relationship to the Iraqi war
(Aleksandr Arkhangel'sk, Semen Novoprudskiy)
In Tambov Vladimir Putin met with regional journalists. Answering a question from our own correspondent for the first time since the beginning of Iraqi war he most clearly spelled out the Russian position: "For political and economic reasons Russia is not interested in the defeat of the United States. We are interested in transferring the solution of this problem on the United Nations."
The formula proposed by Putin is maximally pragmatic. It allows for Russia - which objected to the beginning of military operations - to preserve political face and simultaneously leaves a bridge for settling its own geopolitical and financial interests in postwar Iraq.
Until the Tambov meeting many observers had the vague feeling that Russia had not defined her stand, that she had missed another splendid chance to take her place as the independent player on the international scene, just as Putin had rigidly joined her to the anti-terrorist front after September 11th. At first Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov demonstrated miracles of flexibility, deviating from any clear account of a Russian position. Then he ceased to appear on any television programs, even though according to our information all channels in turn invited him.
And now the decision has been made, in spite of the silent majority and in accordance with the interests of the country. Russia does not side with Iraq, however much this is wanted by our military and political elite. She does not support the idea of a preventive war, however much that is wanted by the Americans and English. She simply selects the "smaller of the ashes" (lesser of two evils) and insists on the return to the process of making international decisions in the lawful framework of the United Nations. This is a position simultaneously both tactical and strategic, and actually makes it possible to preserve a faithfulness to her declared ideals while considering her current interests.
The economic interests of Russia in Iraq itself yield to an arithmetic calculation. The sum total of Russian petroleum contracts with the regime of Saddam Hussein are on the order of US$30 billions. About $8 billion is Iraqi debt to Russia. We will not obtain this during any distribution. In the UN program of "Oil for Food" Russia earned, according to various estimates, $1-2 billion per year. Bush's administration does not hide that in post-Saddam Iraq the US would want to monitor entire output and sale of oil for awhile. According to some information, the Americans have already picked out a candidate to manage the entire postwar Iraqi oil output - a subsidary of the Dutch- British firm Royal Dutch Shell. This means that the fate of all Russia's existing petroleum contracts depends on the US. There is no way the Americans will yield their right as main distributor of "contracts" for the reconstruction of Iraq to the UN. Therefore Russia has no reason to radically quarrel with America, and in so risk losing everything.
Even if theoretically we assume that the allies lose the war, Saddam would never be able to fulfill the conditions of his petroleum contracts with Russia - since there would once again exist sanctions against Baghdad. These would block the development of any new petroleum deposits, and so this is the reason why the Russian companies agreed on Iraq.
And thus, to say nothing of the importance of Russian-American commercial and economic relations, the only alternative with which Russia can rely on a presence in the Iraqi oil fields is a victory by the US. But the only alternative with which she can pretend to maintaining and amplifying her new role in the world is a demonstration of her faithfulness to her declared principles, upon consideration of the changing circumstances.
Just like France and Germany caved, so too will Russia. Nothing impresses more than success.
Thanks for your efforts. It is great to read views of Russian written by Russians themselves.
Who ever came up with the idea that the PRNK is prosperous lives in the same alternative universe and the Iraqi Minister of Information.
;~)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.