usa

UN compromise tightens clamp on North Korea

But sanctions fall short of far-reaching penalties that the Trump administration had demanded just days ago

NYT
16:52 September 12, 2017

UNITED NATIONS: The UN Security Council on Monday ratcheted up sanctions yet again against North Korea, but they fell significantly short of the far-reaching penalties that the Trump administration had demanded just days ago.

While the sanctions were described in Washington and other capitals as the most extensive yet, in the end they amounted to another incremental increase of pressure on the country, even after it detonated its sixth and most powerful nuclear device.

It was far from clear that the additional penalties would accomplish what the Trump administration said was its goal: To force North Korea to halt its nuclear and ballistic missile tests and reopen some kind of negotiation toward eventual nuclear disarmament.

The North has claimed that last week’s detonation, in an underground site, had proved it could build a hydrogen bomb, far more powerful than ordinary atomic weapons. It is still unclear how far along the road to a hydrogen bomb the country has gone.

Although the resolution won backing from all 15 council members, the weakened penalties reflected the power of Russia and China. Both had objected to the original language calling for an oil embargo and other severe penalties — with President Vladimir Putin of Russia declaring last week that such additional sanctions would be counterproductive and possibly destabilising.

Either could have used their status as permanent members of the Security Council to veto the measure.

The original demands from the United States for a new resolution, made by US Ambassador Nikki R Haley, were toned down in negotiations that followed with her Russian and Chinese counterparts.

Late Sunday, after a series of closed-door meetings, a revised draft emerged, setting a cap on oil exports to North Korea, but not blocking them altogether.

The resolution asks countries around the world to inspect ships going in and out of North Korea’s ports (a provision put in place by the Security Council in 2009) but does not authorise the use of force for ships that do not comply, as the Trump administration had originally proposed. The resolution also requires those inspections to be done with the consent of the countries where the ships are registered, which opens the door to violations. Under the latest resolution, those ships could face penalties, but the original language proposed by the United States had gone much further, empowering countries to interdict ships suspected of carrying weapons material or fuel into North Korea and to use “all necessary measures” — code for military force — to enforce compliance.

The resolution also does not impose a travel ban or asset freeze on the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, as the original US draft had set out. And the new measure adds a caveat to the original language that would have banned the import of North Korean labourers altogether, saying that countries should not provide work authorisation papers unless necessary for humanitarian assistance or denuclearisation.

The resolution does ban textile exports from North Korea, prohibits the sale of natural gas to North Korea and sets a cap on refined petroleum sales to the country of two million barrels per year. That would shave off roughly 10 per cent of what North Korea currently gets from China, according to the US Energy Information Agency.

Even so, US officials asserted that the resolution would reduce oil imports to North Korea by 30 per cent.

Despite the weakened penalties, Haley cast the resolution as a victory in her Security Council remarks.

Haley credited what she called President Donald Trump’s relationship with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, in achieving the toughened sanctions — the second raft of UN penalties against North Korea since August.

Haley said the resolution demonstrated international unity against the regime in Pyongyang, and she claimed that the new sanctions, if enforced, would affect the vast majority of the country’s exports.

But in contrast to her assertion last week that the North was “begging for war,” Haley said Monday that Pyongyang still has room to change course.

“If it agrees to stop its nuclear programme it can reclaim its future,” she said. “If it proves it can live in peace, the world will live in peace with it.”

Ultimately, analysts said, diplomatic success would be measured not by the strictness of sanctions, but by the ability of world powers to persuade Pyongyang to halt its nuclear and ballistic missile tests.

“There’s no only-sanctions strategy that will bring the North Koreans to heel,” said Daryl G Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a disarmament advocacy group based in Washington. “It has to be paired with a pragmatic strategy of engagement. But those talks are not yet happening.”

In a nod to Chinese and Russian arguments, the resolution also calls for resolving the crisis “through peaceful, diplomatic and political means.” That is diplomatic code to engage in negotiations.

In his remarks, the Chinese envoy, Liu Jieyi, warned the United States against efforts at “regime change” and the use of military force. “China will continue to advance dialogue,” he said.

China and Russia have jointly proposed a freeze on Pyongyang’s missile and nuclear tests in exchange for a freeze in joint military drills by South Korea and the United States. The Americans have rejected that proposal.

Russia’s envoy, Vassily A Nebenzia, said it would be “a big mistake” to ignore the China-Russia proposal. “We will insist on it being considered,” he said.

Diplomats said the language in the new resolution, which was negotiated surprisingly swiftly after the North’s latest nuclear test, reflected a tough but balanced measure designed to address Chinese and Russian concerns.

French Ambassador Francois Delattre, told reporters that a unified Security Council position was “the best antidote to the risk of war.”

“By definition, this is a compromise in order to get everyone on board,” he said before the vote.

“Everyone should be able to live with the resolution as it now stands,” said the Swedish ambassador, Olof Skoog.

There was no immediate reaction to the new resolution from North Korea. But on Sunday the North warned that it would inflict the “greatest pain and suffering” on the United States, in the event of tougher international sanctions.

The fact that Russia and China did not veto the resolution suggested that both are increasingly concerned about the behaviour of Kim, who has often taunted his neighbours and suppliers. But the Chinese in particular were reluctant to pass any sanction that could destabilise Kim’s regime.

US intelligence agencies say they are expecting North Korea to test another intercontinental ballistic missile, building on two tests in July. But the new test, they speculate, will not be into a high launch into space, but will be flattened out to demonstrate how far the missile can fly.