Wednesday, 22 October 2014


By Carlos Martinez

It doesn't make sense to me that there are socialists and anti-imperialists that don't support North Korea.

1. For whatever problems and contradictions, DPR Korea has for the last 60+ years been engaged in a project of building socialism. Y'know, that thing we always talk about? Where society is run "for us, by us"? Korean socialism is far from perfect, but what experiment in building socialism is perfect? Is (much more fashionable) Venezuela perfect, for example? Where countries are making a historic transition in the direction of socialism - in a massively hostile and difficult international context - surely our default position should be one of support.

2. The DPRK continues to face an ever-present threat of military annihilation by the United States - the most heavily-armed political entity in the history of mankind.

3. It continues to face cruel economic sanctions, the sole purpose of which is to suffocate and destabilise a country that refuses to go along with imperialist domination. These sanctions (imposed on a global level by the US) are the principal contributor to the economic problems the DPRK has undergone over the last two decades.

4. It is treated with the most unbelievable levels of contempt, hatred and demonisation by the western press. Why? Are Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia - far less democratic, far less equal, far more violent states - treated that way? No. Most of the anti-Korea propaganda is transparently nonsense, but very few have the guts to question it.

5. DPR Korea stands unambiguously and unashamedly with Cuba, Syria, China, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Belarus, Nicaragua and *all* the progressive and socialist countries worldwide. North Korea's international solidarity has included providing military training and assistance to historic liberation struggles, such as those of Zimbabwe, Vietnam and Nicaragua.

6. Most people brought up in a western political culture find it nearly impossible to relate to the open adoration of political figures (we save that for sportspeople, crap musicians and unelected feudal-relic royals), but nevertheless it should be recognised that Kim il Sung was one of the most remarkable revolutionaries of the twentieth century. On the awesomeness scale, he ranks a lot higher than Justin Bieber or Prince Harry.

7. DPRK has had to make a lot of sacrifices just to survive. Without a massive focus on military self-defence, there is no way that it would still exist. It would long ago have been forced into a semi-existence of servitude in the global economy - the result of which would be a society far poorer and more unjust than it is today. The lessons of Libya and Iraq should be clear enough by now.

Support for DPRK - along with support for Cuba, Venezuela, China, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, Bolivia and elsewhere - is a basic principle of anti-imperialism. ALL socialist and progressive countries have good relations with DPRK and support it in its life-or-death struggle against the US. So why don't you?



Gough Whitlam , Prime Minister of Australia during the historic Prime Ministerial visit to the People's Republic of China, 31 October – 4 November 1973

First days of the Whitlam govt saw Australia offer diplomatic recognition of The Peoples Republic of China - Mao still alive then, 1972 - abolished university fees, pulled Australian troops out of the Vietnam war, abandoned Australia's imperialist ambitions in PNG, Asia etc. over the next year and a bit with Al Grassby introduced 'multiculturalism', not as some naff cultural thing but framed in terms of economic redistribution. Dumped the silly song God Save the Queen as 'national anthem', tried to 'buy back the farm' with Rex Conner, got caught up in sex scandals because of appointing the first female, and non-Anglo, parliamentary secretary - Junie Morosi - and .... Well, the Age or SMH stories tell it better, but I just add that it has been backwards thinking since then... And yes, right now there is some sort of twittersphere national(ist) mourning for Gough, but rather than denounce this I see it as a forlorn cry of disaffection that looks at what we presently have (global race war, chaos, criminal PMs and no-hopers) and senses that It's Time. - John Hutnyk

Gough Whitlam dies aged 98; former PM remembered as 'giant' of Australian politics


Former Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam has been remembered as a visionary and a giant of federal politics by figures across the political spectrum.

Mr Whitlam led the country through a period of massive social change from 1972 to 1975 before his ousting by governor-general Sir John Kerr, in the infamous dismissal episode.

Despite being in power for only three turbulent years, Mr Whitlam launched sweeping reforms of the nation's economic and cultural affairs, cementing his place as one of Australia's most revered leaders.

He stopped conscription, introduced free university education, recognised communist China, pulled troops from Vietnam, abolished the death penalty for federal crimes and reduced the voting age to 18.

"Our father, Gough Whitlam, has died this morning at the age of 98," Mr Whitlam's family said in a statement on Tuesday.

"A loving and generous father, he was a source of inspiration to us and our families and for millions of Australians.

"There will be a private cremation and a public memorial service."

Condolences have flowed in for the former Labor leader, with Prime Minister Tony Abbott saying he inspired a legion of young people to become involved in public life.

"Gough Whitlam was a giant of his time. He united the Australian Labor Party, won two elections and seemed, in so many ways, larger than life," Mr Abbott said.

Federal Labor leader Bill Shorten said Mr Whitlam redefined Australia, and in doing so helped improve the lives of many people.

"Today, the party that I lead - the Labor Party - has lost a giant. And I think it is fair to say, regardless of one's politics, the nation has lost a legend.

"He was sacked, unprecedented in Australian history. But of all leaders, therefore, none had arguably more cause to carry an anvil of hatred. But he did not.

"In defending tolerance and defending democracy, Mr Whitlam defined his character and his values and our nation's."

Following the news of Mr Whitlam's death, Federal Parliament was suspended for the day as a mark of respect.

MPs instead devoted the sitting day to paying tribute to the former prime minister.

Mr Whitlams close friend and veteran Labor MP John Faulkner said his role was to change the country.

"To liberate the horizons and uplift the talents of the Australian people."

Former Labor prime minister Bob Hawke said today was a time to remember the "great life" of Mr Whitlam.

"This is not a time for sadness," he said at a press conference in Sydney.

"Gough was ready to go, and his family was ready for him to go. Rather, it's a remembrance of a great life.

"The simple truth is that Australia is a better country because of the life and work of Gough Whitlam."

Mr Hawke also remembered Mr Whitlam's "biting wit" and humour.

He said he learnt from Mr Whitlam the importance of building consensus within Labor and of thinking beyond Australia to the region, particularly to China, but that Mr Whitlam's "weakness" was a lack of interest in the economy.

Mr Hawke revealed that he warned Mr Whitlam that his government would "live or die on your economic performance".

He said he offered to arrange weekly "sessions" with a leading economist for Mr Whitlam but the offer was never taken up.

Gough Whitlam, Giant of Australian Politics, Dies at 98
Whitlam Was First Western Leader to Recognize Communist China; Led Country Through Rapid Transformation


Former Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, a fierce proponent of rights for indigenous Australians and the first Western leader to recognize communist China, died Tuesday aged 98.

Mr. Whitlam led the country for three turbulent years from 1972 to 1975—a period during which he brought Australian troops home from the Vietnam War, abolished university education fees, and triggered the nation’s biggest constitutional crisis.

While many of Mr. Whitlam’s social-welfare reforms endure, his period in office was overshadowed by the 1975 dismissal of his center-left Labor government by the representative in Australia of Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II, Governor-General John Kerr —who appointed conservative leader Malcolm Fraser as caretaker prime minister following a political impasse over budget spending.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott called Mr. Whitlam a “giant of his time,” and ordered flags to be lowered across the nation as a mark of respect. The leader of the Labor opposition, Bill Shorten, said the former prime minister had molded Australia’s identity more profoundly than any other political leader before or since.

“He changed the lives of a generation and generations to come,” Mr. Shorten said, adding: “He reimagined Australia, our home, as a prosperous, modern and multicultural nation where opportunity belonged to everyone.”

Noted for his masterful political oratory and acerbic wit, Mr. Whitlam delivered his most famous speech standing on the steps of Australia’s former Parliament building after his government was dismissed. Taking the microphone from an official who had concluded his announcement of the dissolution with the traditional salutation, “God save the Queen,” Mr. Whitlam declared: “Well, may we say God save the Queen, because nothing will save the governor-general.”

The politician could also be blunt to the point of rudeness, once telling an opponent during a right-to-life debate: “Let me make quite clear that I am for abortion, and in your case sir, we should make it retrospective.”

Mr. Whitlam swept aside more than two decades of conservative postwar rule with his 1972 victory—promising reforms designed to end a period of political lethargy in Australia and social unrest triggered by U.S. and Australian involvement in the unpopular Vietnam War, while introducing welfare policies closer to those in Europe than the U.S.

Mr. Whitlam’s success in that election ushered in a period of dramatic political change, including universal health care, reforms giving women higher pay, abolition of the death penalty, an end to compulsory military service, and a tilting of foreign policy to be more Asia-focused. His “crash through or crash” approach to his reformist agenda won him bitter opponents as well as the adoration of his supporters.

Mr. Whitlam started negotiations with various indigenous communities that led, in some cases, to the handing back of rights to traditional land. In 1975, he traveled to the Outback and poured sand through the hands of a local Gurindji leader in a symbol of ownership that marked a turning point for the indigenous-land-rights movement. Aboriginal flags were lowered in the central Australian city of Alice Springs on Tuesday as a sign of respect for Mr. Whitlam’s pivotal place in indigenous rights.

“He united the Australian Labor Party, won two elections and seemed, in so many ways, larger than life,” Mr. Abbott, who heads Australia’s center-right government, said in a statement on Tuesday. “He established diplomatic relations with China. China is our largest trading partner. That is an enduring legacy.”

In later years, the memories of political tumult surrounding Mr. Whitlam’s government—including conspiracy theories of Central Intelligence Agency involvement in his dismissal—faded and he emerged as an imperious but immensely popular public figure, viewed affectionately on both the left and right of politics.

He will be remembered, among other qualities, for his sharp intellect, dry humor and booming “comrade” greeting both to colleagues and former political opponents. In 2000, Mr. Whitlam was named a living “national treasure” by Australia’s National Trust. Asked on his 80th birthday how he’d greet his maker, Mr. Whitlam quipped: “I do admit I seem eternal. You can be sure of one thing, I shall treat him as an equal.”

Anthony Albanese, a senior Labor lawmaker, said on Tuesday that when Mr. Whitlam came to power as a champion of equal opportunity in Australia’s sprawling suburbs, much of the country’s largest city, Sydney, didn’t have working sewerage systems.

“These basic necessities, support for transport, jobs in our outer suburbs, is what Gough Whitlam drove through,” he said on Australian television. “There is a whole generation of Australians such as myself who are the first in our family to go to university.”

Mr. Whitlam’s four children released a statement praising their father’s legacy. “A loving and generous father, he was a source of inspiration to us and our families and for millions of Australians,” they said.


Turmoil in Hong Kong, Terrorism in Xinjiang: America’s Covert War on China

China is facing increasing pressure along two fronts. In its western province of Xinjiang, terrorists have been stepping up destabilization and separatist activities.

In China’s southeast Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong, protests have disrupted normality in the dense urban streets, with protest leaders seeking to directly confront Beijing while dividing and destabilizing both Hong Kong society and attempting to “infect” the mainland.

What is more troubling is the greater geopolitical agenda driving both of these seemingly “internal” conflicts – and that they both lead back to a single source beyond China’s borders. With the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) now implicated in receiving, training, and employing terrorists from China’s Xinjiang province, and considering the fact that ISIS is the result of an intentional, engineered proxy war the US and its allies are waging in the Middle East, along with the fact that the unrest in Hong Kong is also traced back to Washington and London, presents a narrative of an ongoing confrontation between East and West being fought on the battlefield of fourth generation warfare.

ISIS: Washington’s Global Expeditionary Force
If one was asked to name a global-spanning military and intelligence operation opposed to Syria, Iran, Russia, and China, they might say the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the US Government – and they would be right. But they could also easily answer by saying the “Islamic State” or ISIS/ISIL as it is also known. This is especially true after revelations surfaced that US-backed Uyghur separatists in China’s western-most province of Xinjiang have joined ISIS for training with intentions of leading an armed rebellion against Beijing upon their return.

Reuters in their article, “China militants getting IS ‘training’,” would claim:
Chinese militants from the western region of Xinjiang have fled from the country to get “terrorist training” from Islamic State group fighters for attacks at home, state media reported on Monday.
The report was the first time state-run media had linked militants from Xinjiang, home to ethnic minority Uighur Muslims, to militants of the Islamic State group of radical Sunni Muslims.

China’s government has blamed a surge of violence over the past year on Islamist militants from Xinjiang who China says are fighting for an independent state called East Turkestan.

However, it isn’t just China’s government that claims militants in Xinjiang seek to carve out an independent state in western China – the militants themselves have stated as much, and the United States government fully backs their agenda to do so. Indeed, first and foremost in backing the Xinjiang Uyghur separatists is the United States through the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED). For China, the Western region referred to as “Xinjiang/East Turkistan” has its own webpage on NED’s site covering the various fronts funded by the US which include:
International Uyghur Human Rights and Democracy Foundation $187,918To advance the human rights of ethnic Uyghur women and children. The Foundation will maintain an English- and Uyghur-language website and advocate on the human rights situation of Uyghur women and children.

International Uyghur PEN Club $45,000To promote freedom of expression for Uyghurs. The International Uyghur PEN Club will maintain a website providing information about banned writings and the work and status of persecuted poets, historians, journalists, and others. Uyghur PEN will also conduct international advocacy campaigns on behalf of imprisoned writers.

Uyghur American Association $280,000To raise awareness of Uyghur human rights issues. UAA’s Uyghur Human Rights Project will research, document, and bring to international attention, independent and accurate information about human rights violations affecting the Turkic populations of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

World Uyghur Congress $185,000To enhance the ability of Uyghur prodemocracy groups and leaders to implement effective human rights and democracy campaigns. The World Uyghur Congress will organize a conference for pro-democracy Uyghur groups and leaders on interethnic issues and conduct advocacy work on Uyghur human rights.

ISIS Conveniently Targets Washington’s Adversaries Worldwide
The next step Washington appears to be taking in China is an attempts to enhance the menace of terrorists in Xinjiang. In addition to assisting US attempts to destabilize territory in China, ISIS has also threatened to launch a campaign against another US enemy – Russia – this in addition to already directly fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, the governments of Syria and Iraq, and with ISIS claiming to be behind attacks in Egypt against the military-led government that ousted the West’s Muslim Brotherhood proxies.

With both Russia and China now in ISIS’ sights, the global public must begin asking questions as to how and why ISIS just so happens to be arraying itself against all of Washington’s enemies, by-passing all of its allies including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, and where exactly they are getting the weapons, cash, intelligence, logistical, and administrative capabilities to do so.

So suspicious is ISIS’ appearance, agenda, and actions, many across the world have long-ago concluded they are simply the latest creation of the US and other Western-aligned intelligence agencies, just as Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood was before them, So loud has this narrative become, establishment newspapers like the New York Times have begun writing columns to tamp down what they are calling “conspiracy theories.”


The New York Times would report in a piece titled, “Suspicions Run Deep in Iraq That C.I.A. and the Islamic State Are United,” that:
The United States has conducted an escalating campaign of deadly airstrikes against the extremists of the Islamic State for more than a month. But that appears to have done little to tamp down the conspiracy theories still circulating from the streets of Baghdad to the highest levels of Iraqi government that the C.I.A. is secretly behind the same extremists that it is now attacking.
The New York Times dismisses these claims, despite reporting for the past 4 years on the CIA’s presence along the Turkish-Syrian border dumping weapons and cash into the very hotbeds of extremism and terrorism ISIS rose from. Upon closer examination, not only are these claims plausible, they are documented fact.
As far back as 2007, Pulitzer Prize-winning veteran journalist Seymour Hersh would warn of the creation of just such a terror group in his 9-page report in the New Yorker titled, “The Redirection Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” He stated that (emphasis added):
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
That “by-product” is ISIS. It is through America’s own premeditated conspiracy to plunge not only Syria, but the entire region and now potentially Russia and even China into genocidal sectarian bloodshed that gave intentional rise to ISIS. The creation of ISIS and its use as a proxy mercenary force for Western designs is once again revealed in ISIS’ otherwise irrational declaration of war on Russia first, and now China.

America Opens Second Front in Hong Kong
It was in April of 2014 that two co-organizers of the so-called “Occupy Central” protests now ongoing in Hong Kong, would sit in Washington DC giving a talk hosted by the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED). There, Martin Lee and Anson Chan set the stage for the impending “Occupy Central” demonstrations, introducing soon-to-be famous “characters” like US-cultivated “activist” Joshua Wong, as well as repeating, verbatim, the agenda, talking points, and slogans now flooding the airwaves and headlines regarding Hong Kong’s unrest.

While the US attempts to peel off Xinjiang province by brute force, it is using a more subtle and insidious method in Hong Kong. During Lee and Chan’s talk in DC earlier this year, a representative from the Council on Foreign Relations would literally proclaim it was hoped that ongoing movements in Hong Kong would “infect” mainland China. Indeed, while militancy and terrorism is being sown in China’s west, sedition, political instability, and social divisions are being cultivated in China’s east.

America’s Long War With China
The adversarial nature of Washington’s posture toward Beijing has become increasingly obvious as tensions are intentionally ratcheted up in the South China Sea between US proxies and mainland China, as well as in Hong Kong. This is simply the latest in a much longer proxy war waged against Beijing since as early as the Vietnam War, with the so-called “Pentagon Papers” released in 1969 revealing the conflict as simply one part of a greater strategy aimed at containing and controlling China. While the US would ultimately lose the Vietnam War and any chance of using the Vietnamese as a proxy force against Beijing, the long war against Beijing would continue elsewhere.

This containment strategy would be updated and detailed in the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute report “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral” where it outlines China’s efforts to secure its oil lifeline from the Middle East to its shores in the South China Sea as well as means by which the US can maintain American hegemony throughout the Indian and Pacific Ocean. The premise is that, should Western foreign policy fail to entice China into participating in the “international system” as responsible stakeholders, an increasingly confrontational posture must be taken to contain the rising nation.

This includes funding, arming, and backing terrorists and proxy regimes from Africa, across the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and even within China’s territory itself. Documented support of these movements not only include Xinjiang separatists and the leaders of “Occupy Central” in Hong Kong, but also militants and separatists in Baluchistan, Pakistan where the West seeks to disrupt a newly christened Chinese port and pipeline, as well as the machete wielding supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar’s Rakhine state – yet another site the Chinese hope to establish a logistical hub.

It is not a coincidence that ISIS is standing in for and fulfilling America’s deepest imperial aspirations from North Africa, across the Middle East, and now inching toward the borders of the West’s two largest competitors, Russia and China. Nor is it a coincidence that “Occupy Central” protesters are parroting verbatim talking points scripted in Washington earlier this year. It is no coincidence that the US State Department’s NED is found involved in every hotspot of instability and conflict both within China’s borders and beyond them. It is a documented conspiracy that is now increasingly seeing the light truth cast upon it. Whether or not that is enough to end the unnecessary barbarism and bloodshed that has resulted from the West’s hegemonic aspirations remains to be seen.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.


Marcel Cartier and I meeting Marika Sherwood (now 74 years young), an incredible, tireless researcher and scholar who has published books such as 'Malcolm X: Visits Abroad', 'Claudia Jones: A Life in Exile', 'After Abolition: Britain and the Slave Trade Since 1807' and 'Pan-African History: Political Figures from Africa and the Diaspora since 1787, (also with Hakim Adi) amongst other titles. 

She is featured here on the doc-film on Claudia Jones which you can watch here.

- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm

Friday, 17 October 2014


Socialist Vietnam and Korean leaders Ho Chi Minh and Kim Il Sung



In 2000, twenty-five years after the Vietnam War ended, both North Korea and Vietnam admitted for the first time that, as had long been rumored but never before officially confirmed, North Korean pilots had flown in combat against U.S. aircraft over North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. No further details of North Korea’s involvement were provided, however, and subsequently very little information has been provided. An official Vietnamese military history published in 2001 contained only the following general statement: “Under the terms of an agreement between Korea and Vietnam, in 1967 a number of pilots from the Korean People’s Liberation Army were sent to Vietnam to provide us training and the benefit of their experience and to participate in combat operations alongside the pilots of the People’s Army of Vietnam. On a number of flights Korean pilots scored victories by shooting down American aircraft.”[1] Vietnamese military histories usually refer only to an unidentified regimental-sized flying unit called “Group Z” [Doan Z]. Except in a few isolated instances, these histories provide no information about the exact size, composition, or activities of the mysterious “Group Z,” except that it was based at Kep Airfield northeast of Hanoi from early 1967 through 1968. An article published in a Vietnamese newspaper in August 2007 reported that in 2002 the bodies of the 14 North Korean Air Force personnel killed during the Vietnam War had been buried in a cemetery in Vietnam’s Bac Giang Province and had been disinterred and repatriated to North Korea. In a letter to the newspaper to correct several mistakes made in the original article, a retired North Vietnamese major general who had worked with the North Koreans revealed that a total of 87 North Korean Air Force personnel had served in North Vietnam between 1967 and early 1969, during which time the North Koreans had lost 14 men and had claimed to have shot down 26 American aircraft.[2]

According to the documents below, taken from an official People’s Army of Vietnam (PAVN) historical publication, on 21 September 1966 an official North Korean request to be allowed to send a North Korean Air Force regiment to help defend North Vietnam against U.S air attacks was officially reviewed and approved by the Vietnamese Communist Party’s Central Military Party Committee, chaired by General Vo Nguyen Giap. During subsequent discussions held 24-30 September 1966 between a PAVN delegation headed by the Chief of the PAVN General Staff and a North Korean military delegation headed by the Chief of the North Korean General Staff, a detailed agreement was worked out for the dispatch of a North Korean Air Force contingent to fight in North Vietnam. The agreement stipulated that the North Koreans would provide pilots for one North Korean Air Force regiment consisting of two companies (ten aircraft each) of MiG-17s and one company of MiG-21s, while Vietnam would provide the aircraft and all necessary technical equipment, maintenance, and logistics support for the North Korean flyers. The agreement included a timetable for the phased arrival of the individual North Korean flight companies and specified that the North Korean units would operate under the command and control of the North Vietnamese Air Defense Command.

General Vo Nguyen Giap’s Decision On North Korea’s Request to Send a Number of Pilots to Fight in Vietnam

21 September 1966

During a meeting of the Current Affairs Committee of the Central Military Party Committee, Comrade Phung The Tai, the Commander of the Air Defense-Air Force Command, reported that our allies had requested permission to send a volunteer air force unit to fight in Vietnam. The request stated that their personnel would be organized into individual companies that would be integrated into our air force regiments, that they would wear our uniforms, and that they would operate from the same airfields as our air force. Our allies said that they could send a large number of technical [support] personnel but that we would be totally responsible for providing ground technical support and for providing supplies for their unit.

After a discussion by the Current Affairs Committee of the Central Military Party Committee, as the presiding officer Comrade Vo Nguyen Giap reached the following decision: The North Korean air force personnel would be called “specialists” but in reality they would be volunteer soldiers. For that reason, we had to agree to respect our allies but at the same time we had to maintain our own sovereignty. During the course of their training and combat operations, we had to clearly delineate their area of operations and assign them both a primary and an alternate airfield. With regard to command arrangements, we would be their superiors, but within the allied [North Korean] regiment they would directly command their own forces with the assistance of representatives from our side, who would give them their specific operational missions. General Giap demanded that coordination arrangements between the two sides must be very clear and precise to avoid any unfortunate complications in the future.


Document 2

Source: Vietnam Ministry of Defense Central Archives, Central Military Party Committee Collection, File No. 433. Obtained and translated for NKIDP by Merle Pribbenow.

Signing of a Protocol Agreement for North Korea to Send a Number of Pilots to Fight the American Imperialists during the War of Destruction against North Vietnam
30 September 1966

Following the agreement in principle between the Labor Party of Vietnam and the Korean Workers’ Party, to implement the guidance issued by the Current Affairs Committee of the Central Military Party Committee on 21 September, from 24 to 30 September 1966 Vietnamese military representatives led by Chief of the General Staff Van Tien Dung and North Korean military representatives led by Chief of the General Staff Choi Kwang held talks in an atmosphere of honesty and sincerity and then signed a protocol agreement covering the following six concrete points:

1. - In late October or during November 1966 North Korea would send Vietnam enough specialists to man a Vietnamese MiG-17 company (a company consisted of ten aircraft). In late 1966 or early 1967, after Vietnam had prepared sufficient aircraft, North Korea would send enough specialists to Vietnam to man a second Vietnamese MiG-17 company. During 1967, after North Korea finished preparing specialists and after Vietnam was able to prepare sufficient aircraft, North Korea would send to Vietnam sufficient specialists to man one Vietnamese MiG-21 company.

2. - To facilitate internal administration and combat command, the North Korean specialists would be organized into individual companies, and eventually into a regiment. Prior to the formation of the regiment, the North Korean specialist companies would be assigned to a Vietnamese air force regiment and would be deployed to that regiment’s airfields.When the Korean side had its full complement of three flying companies, a North Korean regiment would be organized and the regiment would be assigned its own separate airfield.

3. - The specialist companies assigned to the Vietnamese air force regiment would be subordinate to the regiment headquarters and would be under the guidance and direction of Vietnam’s Air Defense-Air Force Command.

4. - Coordination between air force units and between the air force and anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missile units would be carried out under the guidance and direction of Vietnam’s Air Defense-Air Force Command.

5. - All command and technical support, such as communications and technical support and maintenance of the aircraft would be provided by the Vietnamese side.

6. - North Korea would provide the basic technical and tactical training to the specialists in North Korea. After their arrival in Vietnam, Vietnam would only provide them with the on-the-job training necessary to adapt to the battlefield conditions, weather conditions, and their battle opponents.

In addition, the protocol also laid out the agreement on providing housing, living supplies, transportation equipment, medical support, policy regulations [death, injury, sickness, discipline], and commendations and awards.