North Korea -- Waiting for China in the U.N. Security Council

United Nations -- Another nuclear test, missiles and threats from North Korea and the world is waiting for the Obama administration's reaction. But unless China takes firm steps, action from Washington can fall flat.

The first stop, before any bilateral action, is the U.N. Security Council, which reflects the national positions of its key members (the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France). Japan has a seat on the council this year and South Korea is involved in talks.

But diplomats said no action was expected this week and doubted a draft resolution would even be circulated. China, which is said to have agreed in principle to sanctions, has no instructions yet and is sending various proposals back to Beijing. The suggested list includes tightening sanctions imposed in October 2006 (resolution 1718) but never really enforced. Three Pyongyang firms (Korea Mining Development Trading Corp., Korea Ryonbong General Corp. and Tanchon Commercial Bank) are on a U.N. blacklist and more may be added. Some nations also want embargoes on Pyongyang's banking ties as well as flight restrictions and travel bans on designated officials.

North Korea is seemingly eager to attract US attention on national holidays. The 2006 test of its long-range Taepodong-2 missile came on July 4 and a second -- and this time successful -- underground nuclear test was on Monday, Memorial Day. But not everything happens on a holiday. On April 5, the North Koreans fired a three stage rocket from the Musudan-ri launch site in the northeast that they said was a communication satellite while the United States says the launch was a practice session for launching a nuclear warhead.

Since Memorial Day, the threats have mounted -- from restarting a closed nuclear reactor to warning South Korea of a military response if any of its vessels were searched. The United States has created the Proliferation Security Initiative, aimed at stopping ships that carry nuclear materials or other weapons of mass destruction. South Korea on Tuesday said it would join the PSI, which is permitted under the 2006 Security Council resolution. China is said to be reluctant to engage in such searches but its cooperation is needed, at minimum, to stop some of the weapons-related supplies from reaching or leaving its Korean neighbor.

China delivers fuel and food to North Korea and an estimated 80 percent of its consumer goods are made in China. While experts believe Beijing does not want its neighbor to have nuclear weapons, it also fears a collapse of the regime if there is too much pressure, driving more refugees over the border.

As John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told Fox News last month. "The problem for China is they're afraid if they apply to much pressure to North Korea, they'll collapse the regime entirely. There'll be reunification of the Korean peninsula, and they'll see American forces on the Yalu River. They didn't like that movie in 1950. They don't like it any better today."

Russia, which usually backs China on North Korea, appeared tougher than Beijing. Its U.N. ambassador, Vitali Churkin, this month's Security Council president, called the North's action "very serious" and in need of "a strong response." Officials in Moscow, talking to national news agencies, say Russia was talking precautionary security measures, fearing tensions could escalate to war.

Any U.N. Security Council resolution is bound to insist that North Korea rejoin the stalled six-power talks. But at this point the dialogue among China, the United States, Russia, Japan and North and South Korea has not impressed Pyongyang.

In Beijing, Xu Guangyu, a nuclear expert on the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, told Reuters: "North Korea's strategic objective has not changed. That objective is to win the attention of the Obama administration, to push the North Korea issue up the agenda."

"And China's goal is to ensure that the six-party talks process does not fall apart," Xu said.

The Obama administration's strategy is not clear on specifics. Nor has the president or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reacted with bombast as allies are being contacted on the next steps. Unclear also is whether there is a leadership battle in North Korea that may have prompted the latest provocations.

The Bush administration at first called North Korea part of an "axis of evil" and allowed a deal to lapse that closed nuclear reactors. It then offered concessions and entered six-party talks. But Pyongyang broke them off, saying parts of the deal had not been fulfilled.

Joel Wit, a former career foreign service officer now at Johns Hopkins University, says North Korea has hardened its position, especially since Monday's nuclear test was the first successful one.

"At the end of the Clinton Administration, North Korea was seriously interested in becoming a partner of the United States. It's hard for most people to understand, but that was the case," Wit told PBS' Newshour with Jim Lehrer.

"Today, North Korea is not interested in that anymore, and that makes it sound even harder to deal with them. And it will be. But we have no alternative, because if we sit back and let them stew in their juices, six months from now, the situation is going to be a lot worse than it is today," Wit said. "We need a combination of steps at the United Nations, bilateral sanctions against North Korea, but we also need to get back to the negotiating table and talk to North Korea and probe for possible ways that we can get ourselves out of this mess."

But none of this can succeed without China.

Comments

[Evelyn Leopold - Huffpost Blogger]

UPDATE: A draft resolution, drawn up by the United States and Japan, was circulated to Security Council members but it left blank a section on possible new sanctions. It condemns the May 25 test, calls on existing sanctions to be enforced, demands North Korea abandon its nuclear weapons and related programs and open them up to inspections. Discussions continue this week on new punitive measures.
Asked by this writer about China’s position, Britain’s U.N. ambassador, John Sawers, told reporters that Beijing was still reviewing options and that it sometimes had less influence on Pyongyang than many believed. “The Chinese, I think, would have much preferred to have this nuclear test not to have taken place. We believe they took action to dissuade the North Koreans from going down that path and their advice was brushed aside” he said on Friday.
------
Thanks for all the comments, some of which were most interesting in trying to analyze where the North is heading and how to rid the world of stockpiles of nuclear arms (estimated at 30,000 owned by the United States and Russia alone). But there is always a knee-jerk reaction whenever the United Nations is mentioned and comparisons are immediately made to areas where it failed. However, all U.S. administrations – Republican and Democratic – have gone to the Security Council as a first step when it is in their interest to do so. North Korea is one such case.

Keep the comments coming!

[watchTVgetSTUPID]

China likes the possibility of using N Korea as a surrogate. Wait until this escalates to North Korea shooting down all our military satellites as they pass over. As long as N Korea can destroy Seoul, Pusan, Osaka, and Tokyo, there will be nothing that Hillary can do about it.

China will be happy to make this happen without looking responsible.

Meanwhile Obama is forcing GM's auto factories to move to China as part of his allegence to unfair trade agreements.

[Zeroes]

Having lived in South Korea for 5.5yrs while in the military. I can say one thing. It's going to be a very very fluid fight with many people (U.S. Troops) dying...they have 10,000 artillery pieces aimed at Seoul. If you throw a rock off a hill in Seoul, you're going to hit a Kim or Lee. Many more will be captured and taken north. So pushing back over the DMZ isn't going to cut it. They will have to be completely beaten. You all should thank your lucky stars Cheney is gone...he would of stopped us from winning this one.

[JJenius]

Here we go again. United Nonsense (UN) trying to do it's sanction thing that works so well, and making decisive decisions so quickly too. Can hardly wait for the new "tough ones" that'll make all the difference in the world!
Here's a better plan. Concerned nations can get rid of dictators that threaten peaceful nations by simply cutting off all imports and exports to the dictator's country until a regime change happens either voluntarially or by assasination via any group that wants to try or finally by atomic bomb. People living as slaves under a nut-case dictator will likely be relunctant to die for someone they know in their hearts is evil. They may not want to be around him either. Let's get real. All this other stuff is just a joke. It's putting off what needs to be done until another day when things are worse. Cut the cancer out before the surrounding tissue dies!

[Twentylaws]

The US will not assassinate a leader nor do we torture! However, we have dropped atomic bombs! But why must this horrific task to bomb North Korea's nuclear facility fall on the US shoulders? It's time for Russia or China to put North Korea in check.

[jackwaddington]

We talk of 'Non-Proliferation', But only after we have got them and are reluctant to get rid of ours. This is the ultimate in terms of arrogance. 'Non-Proliferation' is a political impossibility unless we threaten anyone trying to build one by Nuking them. Oh forgot though, if we Nuke them, chances are we'll get caught up in the fall-out. Mmmmm.

[kimleehan]

Israel invades Gaza and commits human rights violations. The U.S. illegally invades a sovereign country without a U.N. Security councils authorization and commits war crimes, And the U.N. s goes after North Korea for test firing a nuclear missle.

[Hannah Moss]

you're missing the whole point. many points really. 1. Gaza is Israel's( get our your history book) they can invade on squatters any time they want. 2. We're not a dictatorship. The US is bound to its people by its people (this is why you and I can discuss stuff like this, we're free); however North Korea is a dictatorship. You must understand, North Korea is bound by nothing except the whims of a dictator who at all costs hates freedom, because it undermines HIM. So put away your cloak of high maintenance and realize that there are leaders in North Korea who hate you because you are free, and they don't worry about being half as polite as us in "testing" nuclear missiles. North Korea's leader is wicked and his people can prove it, their blood soaks the earth, and it wasn't voluntary, they were his murder victims. So please, please dont' try to equate what we do with what North Korea does, we are not North Korea's counterpart, and it makes your comparison outrageous and not a little tacky. Open your eyes. Get real.

[FairTalk]

I love the way we believe that China should be called on to help us deal with those who threaten us, but then we do not recipricate. How can we expect China to fight our battles with us, when we continue to view China as an enemy, and not as an ally? If we continue to fuel militants agression against China and provide santuary when the millitants get caught, why would China see us as trustworthy?
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.3326/pub_detail.asp
http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/CEF/Quarterly/May_2006/Guang.pdf

[ezeflyer]

I don't see anyone trying to force nuclear powers to de-nuke though they've invaded, bombed, occupied, bantustanized, devastated and killed millions of people in non-nuke countries. Halting the spread of communism and Islam is virtuous as long as they don't have nukes. If they do, we trade with them, borrow their money, owe them our asses and try to make nice. Are N Korea and Iran too stupid to see this, or is the American public?

[Logout]

The UN is a failed institution because of China. A non democratic country cannot have a Veto while ignoring India. Period!

[OneTop]

You have no idea how the UN is set up do you?

[oxi]

"The UN is a failed institution because of China. A non democratic country cannot have a Veto while ignoring India. Period!"

And where was the democratic vote to authorize the attack upon Serbia back in 1999 or Iraq in 2003? I read the NATO Treaty and unless one member state is attacked or threatened they could envoke Article 51. Serbia never threatened a single NATO state and no vote was held within the UN Security Council. So what happened to your precious democracy?

Oh wait, you believe in selective democracy so that when it appeals to you, you respect it and when it does not work for you, you ignore it. Sounds like your the communist/dictator type...

[dogrobber]

Like it or not, N Korea is a soverign nation and a member of the nuclear club. I don't look for anything to change, the UN is all but worthless. If they can't prevent "peace keepers" in the Horn of Africa from raping women, how can they keep N Korea's finger off the nuclear trigger. Every time the N Koreans need something, they drag out their bad behavior and threats until they get what they want. This is a typical of the tail wagging the dog through diplomacy.

Remember the Pueblo, the US Navy ship the N Koreans grabbed off international water in 1968? They kept the crew for approx. a year and continue to hold the ship (go to Google Earth and enter Pueblo North Korea.) N Korea knows we're suckers and how to play us. Time for Barak and Hillary's A game (if one exists).

[mtwashingtonmike]

Barack and Hillary are going to do nothing. Aside from talking to China and trying to convince them to do something what can they do? He is not going to risk war. If he is going to board a ship he had better be 100% sure it has nuclear material aboard. The last thing he needs right now is war. Short of a direct attack on South Korea, or Japan expect this to fade away.

BTW I would not rule out a skirmish on the DMZ or a naval incident in the Yellow Sea, but these have happened before with little overreaction.

[i am nav]

A lot of pride is gained when a country crosses the nuclear threshold. Seeing how the North Korean underground test was a success, it will be quite difficult to persuade them to roll back their programme. Unless of course, some within the international community, namely the US, decide to engage directly with North Korea. North Korea wants to be respected, as well as feel secure. By engaging directly with North Korea in a bilateral manner , and offering security guarantees, the US will address both the respect and security that North Korea seeks. In exchange of course, North Korea would have to cease its hostile actions and permanently roll back its nuclear programme as well as sign on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

It would be in China's interest to support such a scenario because it would prevent the regime in Pyongyang from collapsing, which would ensure its buffer zone with South Korea and by association the US.

[melpol]

A North Korean army of over a million highly trained soldiers protects the Chinese border.They exist only as a buffer zone army. Unification of the Korean peninsular would move thousands of American forces to the Yalu River. They could quickly over throw the Chinese Communist government. China will never let its neighbor unify with the South. North korea is its bodyguard.

[mtwashingtonmike]

If North Korea collapsed, ROK troops would move to the Yalu. Why would American troops do such a thing? It would be a totally unnecessary provocation. There are 20,000 US Army trrops in the ROK and 500,000 South Koreans under arms. There may be a handful of America advisors attached to ROK units, but no organized Army or Marine formations. Remember the Fall/Winter of 1950? Overthrow the Chinese government?!! In your dreams.

[northstar11]

you had better think that strategy through..

what if it fails------ like iraq.

[FairTalk]

Interesting theory. I am not sure that I agree with it. If No Korea is defeated, and Korea is united, why would we have an army there?

China has resolved all border disputes, with the exception of one small section with India, which is our doing, and of course the Taiwan issue. But I don't see China being able to resolve border disputes with the US, because the US does not want China to continue to exist.

[Robertx5]

Joel Wit touches on a little known issue in the whole North Korea debacle What is left out of the comment is why did that opportunity wither away. and regretably the U.S. government has to take much of the blame. Kim Jong-il had visited South Korea and had been given indications of a state visit to the U.S.A. but in 2001 the new administration decided that North Korea was not a regime that they wanted to associate with, finally culminating in them being cited as part of an 'Axis of Evil'. For Kim and his advisors that was a huge personal humiliation and probably severely weakened their position internally, their only real option to rebuild that position was to re-embrace the nuclear programme.
I suspect much of their current sabre rattling (now that they are in a better position to sabre rattle) is an end result of of that perceived betrayal from years ago and an ongoing mistrust that going forward the U.S.will act in good faith.

[wedgie1959]

First, Kim Jong-il never visited S. Korea. Second, the treaties and/or agreements with the Clinton Admin were never honored by N Korea and in fact uranium production was continued, in violation of that agreement, through Clinton Admin and into the Bush years. The "Axis of Evil" statement was just calling the kettle black.

Witt's comments about bilateral talks is deja vu and serves only to appease China, the latter of which stands to lose more than any other member of the six party talks. Three out of six of the nations at the table are China's largest trading partners; S. Korea, Japan, and the U.S. N. Korea's belligerence towards S. Korea and Japan threatens the Chinese economy. Leopold is correct in her mentioning that nothing cannot be accomplished without China.

[Robertx5]

My mistake, It was the South Korean President who visited N. Korea in June 2000 at which time there were greatly improved hopes of progress. It is however still unclear whether or not in 2001 they were breaking any agreements they had made, or if their public statements that they had, were merely a response to the ending of the hoped for improved relations with the U.S. We will probably never know, but I sense an opportunity was missed..

[peterg73]

Are you on drugs? The North Koreans have been playing us the whole time. Every petty dictator wants nuclear weapons and no amount of negotiation will stop them. It's not Bush's fault they have nukes. It is either give them aid and they build nukes or don't give them aid and they build nukes. There is nothing we can do to stop them. In fact we should pull our troops out of there as the initial artillary barrage will probably render most units ineffective.

[FairTalk]

I think the underlying issue is currently we are still at war with No Korea. No Korea wants to meet with the US and sign a peace agreement, but the US refuses. (to end the war) The US wants "multilateral" talks, which go no where, the No Koreans want respect and security, and unilateral talks.

Stalemate.

[oxi]

The United Nations has been replaced by NATO, where have you been?

The UN lost their credibility (thanks to the West) when NATO attacked Serbia in violation of not only the NATO Treaty but the UN Charter which the NATO Treaty is placed under. Article 51 could not even be enforced because Serbia never even threatened a single NATO state!

Furthermore UN Resolution 1244 states Kosovo is to remain a part of Serbia. Guess which nations again violated UN rules and recognized an independent Kosovo? The West as usual!

Iraq was not even approved by the UN Security Council and once again Iraq did not threaten the U.S. whatsoever. The argument by the West is the usual that Russia or China would have vetoed any actions against Iraq. But isn't that what democracy, rules and protocol is about? If you cannot get the 5 permanent members to agree then something is wrong here? Sure is and just look at Iraq with its widespread destruction and humanitarian situation since the U.S. invaded.

Bottom line, YOU CANNOT BE SELECTIVE WHEN IT COMES TO THE UNITED NATIONS, either you respect their rules and authority or you don't. You cannot argue UN Security Council action with regards to North Korea yet ignore them with Serbia, Kosovo and Iraq!

Justice and respect for the rule of law should be fair and equal among all nations AND NOT JUST THE ONES THAT GET IN THE WAY OF THE WEST ALL THE TIME! Enough!

[LMPE]

I still say that we should badmouth Bush and then they'll probably like us.