|
||
North Korea: What's Next? Ask China
By Evelyn Leopold, at the United Nations
Until China agrees to tougher sanctions or other ways to discourage North Korea's military ambitions, the United States and its allies will have an uphill battle other than putting pressure on Beijing itself. After three hours of consultation in the UN Security Council on Sunday, the 15 members were deadlocked on North Korea's firing of a three-stage rocket, and agreed to consult further on "appropriate action...given the urgency of the matter," said Mexico's Ambassador Claude Heller, this month's council president. Members even spent 40 minutes discussing whether they should "express concern" at the launch, diplomats reported.
The United States is seeking support from Japan, France, Britain and others on a resolution it is drafting that would have the council extend and enforce a 2006 Security Council sanctions resolution that orders Pyongyang to "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program." For one, diplomats said Washington is considering expanding a list of North Korean companies and individuals on a UN black list and adding to a list of banned luxury items. At the moment enforcement is up to individual nations to bar exchanges or sales of dangerous weaponry with Pyongyang.
"The United States view is that the most appropriate response to an action of this gravity would be a Security Council resolution," said Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the United Nations.
But China, which like the United States, Russia, Britain and France, has veto power in the Security Council, is not so sure. "I think we are now in a sensitive moment," its UN ambassador, Zeng Yesui told reporters. He said that any action by Security Council had to be "cautious and proportionate."
China, which on North Korean questions is routinely backed by Russia, delivers fuel to North Korea and a good deal of its food and other supplies. While experts believe Beijing does not want its neighbor to have nuclear weapons (much less face a Japan that could insist on them also), it also fears a collapse of the regime if there is too much pressure. More refugees would stream over its border. And further down the road there could be reunification with the south and American troops on its frontier.
North Korea fired a three stage rocket from the Musudan-ri launch site in the northeast of the country and insists it only carried a communications satellite. But the United States, Japan, South Korea and other countries say the launch was a practice session to develop the capabilities of launching a nuclear warhead, and violates Security Council resolution 1718 of October 2006, adopted after North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test. But a is said to question whether the rocket violated the resolution if it carried a satellite, although the technology is similar, if not identical. Hence the South Korean defense minister, Lee Sang-hee, told his parliament that the rocket fell into the sea whereas the satellite would have remained aloft. The Pentagon gave a similar analysis.
"What was launched was not the issue," Rice told reporters. "The fact that there was a launch using ballistic missile technology is itself a clear violation of (the resolution) which prohibited missile related activity,"But she acknowledged there was no consensus on that issue, saying "members expressed varying views." (Russia and China were supported by Uganda, Libya and Vietnam, participants said.)
So why did North Korea do it? The theories are manifold. Among them is grabbing the attention of the Obama administration and giving the new president his first major foreign policy challenge in an effort to garner direct talks and ties to Washington. And then there was South Korea, whose current government gave up on the "sunshine" policy of his predecessor. And Japan, in whose direction the rocket was aimed, is considered by Pyongyang to be more hostile than usual. Both South Korea and Japan are participants in the stalled six-party talks (along with North Korea, the United States, China and Russia) aimed at getting Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons program. Some speculate that North Korea, even before these talks resume, wants another bargaining chip - and "look at me" attention.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
See Evelyn Leopold's Profile
Thanks for all the very interesting suggestions and comments on why North Korea launched the rocket. On the United Nations, it is a big place with many many forums and bodies, some functioning well and others not. But , it is very important the United States and Japan use the Security Council, even though there probably will not be decisive action on North Korea this week. Council action or inaction is by no means the end of the story – there are six -party talks and there could be bilateral negotiations between the United States and North Korea. But the Council is the only place where all the relevant parties can talk and size up each other’s reactions in one forum. The ambassadors of the major powers reflect their respective governments’ positions. So many sensible governments make it the first port of call.
I have another idea why kim may have fired this missile..Could be his people are without medicines and food because of our sanctions and are starving , no one is listening..
It is far too easy to speculate why NK went ahead with the launch. The Chinese though will protect them at the UN, individually, a lot of nations are going to impose sanctions. NK just cannot afford it. China does not have the moolah to loan anything to NK.
China is in as much trouble as the rest of the democratic world. Looking at China's growth and its inherent strengths of cheap labor and miniscule cost of operation for companies, a total collapse of the free market would be a death blow to the regime.
I would wait and see President O's response once he is back home. So far, the entire trip has not left him much leeway to address the issue with the severity it deserves.
The UN is broken as designed.
The Security Council made sense after WWII, but now is just a distorting influence by the old nuclear club.
We need a UN that truly adheres to democratic principles.
Probably need multiple assemblies:
"The UN House": Countries vote proportional to population.
"The UN Senate": Countries vote by GDP (or some fairer measure)
No Legacy privileges.
"We need a UN that truly adheres to democratic principles"
That would be the responsibility of its members, especially the 5 permanent ones!
Bingo. Democracy is not what the UN stands for right now.
The UN is a joke, just like its a joke that the politicians in our own government are looking out for the peoples best interest. Every country involved is going to look to their own best interests first. China is still a Communist nation even if our government now thinks they are ok becouse they have a semi-capitolist economic system. Anyone see the problem here. How do you pressure the country that now owns half of your national debt. We have no true say in anything untill we start being self sufficent and stop selling our country off to a nation we shouldn't even be trading with untill they have addressed there own human rights issues. Asking China to moniter NK is like asking the banking system to regulate itself. We can all see how well that worked.
This is a great saying and with good reason. "If you owe the bank a million $ it owns you. If you owe the 100 million, you own the bank".
north korea wants attention and money. this is the only way they think they can get it. Someone shoud tell kim that unless they find oil or some other fuel in the ground in north korea we don't care what they do. That's why we care about iran so much more. They have oil.
A N. Korean missile could only reach as far as Alaska.
So this is Palin's problem and not Obama's problem.
If Palin were president she would be handling this in a much better way.
Rejuvenating U.S. manufacturing, eliminating the trade deficit, and cutting reliance on foreign borrowing should be top priorities anyway. Let's just get on with it. That's where real national security lies.
Very True!
Since we are asking why did they do it. It could be a simple thing like kim was not invited to the g20 talks and like the little boys way ,showed them he is still a force to be aware of, Or it could be the UN promised Kim certain things and failed to deliver, or he is simply following the example of bush and obama of invading countries because he can..
True, indeed, However the only relative answer would be the answer from North Korea.
Once the World has that answer then the wise thing would be to contemplate and discuss what actions should & will be taken; with or without all parties included!
Couldn't this merely be a cry out for help...
Something worth considering
UN Security Council?
What happened with Serbia 1999, Iraq 2003, Israel and Gaza?
Now all of a sudden the U.S. wants tough sanctions from the UN Security Council? NO!
Either you respect the UN in all areas or you don't. The U.S. cannot be selective on following UN Security Council rules. This is the shame of the West folks.
If the U.S. and NATO can ignore the Security Council, guess what? So can North Korea.
Sanctions did nothing to our former ally Saddam in Iraq and is doing little in Iran yet only the people suffer so why the heck do you think they are gonna work with North Korea?
The ties between N Korea and China are closer than the ties between the US and China. China must agree to the actions. They possibly coordinate their actions.
They may be testing our capabilities.
I agree !
Obama will soon realize that North Korea cannot be trusted and that no matter what it agrees to, it will break its word soon thereafter. Since the U.S. has no stomach for war in Korea (and shouldn't), North Korea, like Iran, will become a full-fledged nuclear power. All of those who blamed Bush for the last eight years will soon realize that Bush was not the problem - Kim Jong Il was. And I suspect that he will play Obama like a fiddle too.
What could Bush or his predecessors have possibly done to thwart North Korea's military self-determination?
I haven't read many proposals that are substantially more nuanced then shock-and-awe, presumably followed by duck-and-cover.
We can't always stop people we don't like from doing things we don't want them to do.
I really wouldn't worry about it. By gutting our missile defense, joining the UN in-Human Rights Commission, and promising to reduce our nuclear stockpile, President Obama has added a weapon to our arsenal that Kim Jung Ill simply cannot ignore: "Moral Authority." Imagine all of the pressure he'll be under at the next annual convention of homicidal deranged autocrats: "KJ I, under Barack Obama, the United States is really nice now! There is no more need for you to hold hostage your population, to torture children for the dissent of their parents, and to seek weapons of mass destruction. Now let me buy you another apple-tini."
That's funny!
I just typed the same type of statement a moment ago, then when I pressed refresh and read Your statement I realized that was the case.
Yes, I guess having one or 2 jury rigged missiles capable of delivering dud bombs to somewhere near an Alaska island will greatly outweigh our 10,000 hydrogen bomb tipped accurate ballistic missiles, fully capable of reaching North Korea. I can see why this would constitute American surrender, in the fevered mind of a Republican.
So, NK is a nightmarish hellstate because we point missiles at it, not the other way around. Insightful! I always forget to blame ourselves first. Thank you.
Easy answer.
Let us inspect your missiles' pay load before launch, since no one in range (except the people giving you the missiles) trusts you.
Yes, however the North Koreans might say no to oversight.
However, even so, that would put the North Koreans in a World-Bind if they say no to oversight of such efforts, that's if the Leaders & Media Companies of the Countries that are concerned about North Korea would make more of a point to point-out the denial of such CIVIL REQUEST!
World Leaders should come to terms with the fact that the Majority of People respond better to Civil Behavior then non-civil acts, and that hold true in all cases.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
