For CPM, mum146;s the word on N Korea

Despite its strong anti-proliferation stance and ideological opposition to armament of any form, the CPIM politburo is yet to formally put out its reaction to North Korea8217;s first nuclear test on Monday.

Despite its strong anti-proliferation stance and ideological opposition to armament of any form, the CPIM politburo is yet to formally put out its reaction to North Korea8217;s first nuclear test on Monday. This was the same party that spoke out against India8217;s own government after Pokhran-II in 1998.

Again, the August 1999 draft report of the National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine saw CPIM leaders meet then prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and later say they were opposed to nuclear weaponisation and deployment. The CPIM believed it had reason to be upset with the draft report for it said that in the absence of global nuclear disarmament India8217;s strategic interests required effective, credible nuclear deterrence and adequate retaliatory capability should deterrence fail.

Could fraternal relations have come in the way of its ideological stance to give a thumbs down to the nuclear test by the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea? Time and again, and every time foreign affairs and US hegemony has figured in CPIM meetings, so has DPRK. In fact, North Korea is presented as either standing tall to the US and a victim of the US8217;s machinations, its heroism always juxtaposed against the CPIM8217;s hatred of the US. The DPRK, the CPIM believes, is a victim because it does not fall in line with America8217;s 8220;hegemonic plans8221;.

For instance, at the CPIM8217;s last party congress in April 2005, when Prakash Karat became general secretary, the political resolution said its fears of the US using 9/11 to 8220;expand the imperialist offensive8221; had come true. After Iraq, the US was targeting two other countries in President George Bush8217;s 8216;axis of evil8217; 8212; North Korea and Iran.

The CPIM8217;s lack of response could be explained from the same political resolution that said, 8220;While reserving the right to produce new weapons and expanding the use of nuclear weapons, the US embarked on a counter-proliferation campaign targeting countries such as Iran, North Korea and Brazil to prevent them from developing nuclear technology. In contrast, Israel, under the special protection of the US, is allowed to keep nuclear weapons.8221;

In March this year, the International Department of the CPIM Central Committee stood shoulder to shoulder with its fraternal party to condemn plans for holding an 8216;international rally8217; in Brussels that was to highlight human rights violations in North Korea. The CPIM saw this differently, saying it was a 8220;smear campaign aimed at tarnishing the image of DPRK8221;.

Such common purpose with North Korea has often been on view, despite Kim Il Jong8217;s questionable reputation on the human rights front and the widely held view that he heads a regime that can scarcely be trusted to be responsible with weapons of mass destruction.

Story continues below this ad

Back in September 2003, the CPIM central committee prepared a report on 8220;current developments it chronicled how the US had been forced into negotiations with DPRK when the latter refused to halt the re-commissioning of a nuclear power plant. Sanctions, the CPIM said, could not be imposed because of opposition from China. 8220;The United States insisted on North Korea unilaterally dismantling its nuclear programme before any economic or political issues from North Korea could be discussed. This was rejected by the DPRK,8221; the CPIM document said.

The CPIM is more than quick in reacting to important developments. But, for the last two days there was no official word from the party on North Korea8217;s nuclear test. The only notice put up was for a blood donation camp on Saturday in view of the large number of dengue cases in the Capital.