North Korea, Tricontinentalism, and the Latin American Revolution, 1959–1970

A substantial body of scholarly literature has emerged concerning North Korea, encompassing diverse thematic emphases. A significant portion of these works is dedicated to the examination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons development and the intricate security dynamics between the two Koreas. Additionally, an extensive compendium of literature authored by defectors sheds light on their personal narratives of residing in and fleeing from North Korea, with a pronounced emphasis on the regime’s human rights violations. Nevertheless, a nascent yet expanding subdiscipline within the field of North Korean studies delves into the historical dimensions of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (hereafter, DPRK) interactions with nations in the Third World. I find Moe Taylor’s well-written book to be a valuable contribution to the emerging subfield, albeit with certain noteworthy concerns.Taylor undertakes an exploration of the historical entanglements between Pyongyang and Latin American nations spanning the period from 1959 to 1970. Notably, the majority of the narrative within this monograph is dedicated to the examination of North Korea’s diplomatic and political affiliations with Cuba. Taylor adeptly unveils hitherto undisclosed or overlooked facets of North Korea’s policy toward Latin America. One illustrative instance is the scrutiny of the Chollima Riders, a Stakhanovite labor brigade from North Korea whose collaboration with Cubans during the 1970 sugarcane harvest elevated them to the status of internationalist heroes in the Cuban state media. Taylor also delves into Salvadorian revolutionary Roque Dalton’s admiration for the North Korean revolutionary model and the “revolutionary traditions of the glorious Anti-Japanese Armed Struggle.” Taylor adeptly describes and acknowledges the parallels between Cuba’s foco theory and North Korea’s revolutionary line. Another fascinating section is the discussion of Puerto Ricans during the Korean War and the DPRK’s subsequent support for Puerto Rican nationhood. This publication is replete with compelling and distinctive insights into the dynamics characterizing the relationship between North Korea and Latin American countries.Nonetheless, this work aligns with a prevailing yet problematic trend observed within the scholarship of staunchly leftist North Korea analysts, such as in Bruce Cumings’s highly problematic 2003 book North Korea: Another Country.1 By articulating a palpable disdain for American Empire, the scholar diminishes the gravity of the tyranny and brutality exhibited by the Kim family regime, mainly toward its own citizens. At intervals, the narrative assumes an almost nostalgic tone for an era marked by revolutionary violence and DPRK-aided instability in the Third World, when the perceived demise of the American Empire appeared imminent. For example, in the conclusion, Taylor writes, “Washington has not been forced to account for the crimes against humanity it committed during the Cold War” (214). While acknowledging the reprehensible nature of Washington’s endorsement of despotic regimes in the Third World, exemplified by support for anti-communist dictators like Pinochet in Chile and Suharto in Indonesia, it is notable that the attribution of crimes against humanity is exclusively levied against the US government, not the North Korean government. This selectivity in condemnation evokes a classic manifestation of “whataboutism,” a prevalent feature within much of the ultraleftist scholarship on North Korea, illustrating a tendency to deflect criticism of North Korea’s atrocious human rights record by pointing to US transgressions elsewhere. Taylor does mention the “deeply hierarchical and authoritarian character” (216) of North Korea but largely excuses this behavior due to “given historical conditions.” In the conclusion, Taylor also writes, “The growing collusion between the US State Department, the Latin American far right, private mercenaries, and drug cartels is particularly alarming” (214). Naturally, no citation is given for this sweeping assertion. Regrettably, within the conclusion of an otherwise quality scholarly work, Taylor succumbs to well-worn and intellectually dubious political tropes.The organization of the book’s chapters introduces a measure of complexity. Initially, the narrative unfolds through a chronological lens, scrutinizing the North Korea–Latin America relationship in the first two chapters. Subsequently, a jarring transition emerges, characterized by a discernible shift toward a thematic approach in the ensuing chapters, the majority of which are dedicated to an examination of North Korea as a revolutionary archetype. The author intriguingly incorporates Spanish-language works attributed to Kim Il Sung. It is widely acknowledged that numerous writings ascribed to Kim Il Sung were not authored by the leader personally but were frequently ghostwritten. It is imperative to recognize that these works should not be construed as comprehensive compilations of the leader’s genuine thoughts; rather, they constitute a somewhat restricted assortment of writings subject to sanitization by the extensive North Korean propaganda apparatus.This work would have been enhanced by the inclusion of visual elements, such as photographs or other illustrative materials. Its textual density may pose challenges for readers less versed in the lexicon of the international Left, as the absence of visual aids limits accessibility. Additionally, the exclusive focus on Latin America and the Caribbean results in an exaggerated emphasis on the importance of this region within the broader Cold War framework of North Korea’s foreign policy. As detailed in my 2021 publication Guns, Guerrillas, and the Great Leader: North Korea and the Third World, it is pertinent to note that Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, played a predominant role in North Korea’s interactions with the Third World. Besides Cuba, Pyongyang predominantly regarded Latin America as the peripheries of the US hegemonic sphere, thus deeming the region not sufficiently worthy of substantial investment, particularly given its geographical distance across the expansive Pacific Ocean.Despite the outlined concerns, North Korea, Tricontinentalism, and the Latin American Revolution, 1959–1970 constitutes a contribution not only to the field of North Korean studies but also to Cold War international history and the historiography of the international Left. Its significance transcends the specific examination of North Korea and the Latin American Left, encompassing broader realms of historical inquiry into the diverse ideological strands of Third Worldism. This includes an exploration of the party’s role in Marxist theory and an examination of the interplay between revolutionary movements and guerrilla warfare strategy.