TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 8 °C Sunday 26 May, 2013

North Korea unlikely to obey latest UN sanctions

The Security Council voted on a resolution condemning North Korea’s rocket launch in December that sent a satellite into orbit.

File picture of North Korea's Unha-3 rocket lifts off from the Sohae launch pad in North Korea.
File picture of North Korea's Unha-3 rocket lifts off from the Sohae launch pad in North Korea.
Image: (AP Photo/KCNA, File)

THE LATEST SANCTIONS against North Korea will have little impact on its nuclear and missile programme, despite the added clout of China’s support for the UN measures, analysts said today.

The action announced by the UN Security Council yesterday was a clear compromise that expanded the list of North Korean entities on the UN’s sanctions list, but stopped short of imposing any tough new penalties.

It followed weeks of intense negotiations between the United States, which wanted a strong response to the North’s long-range rocket launch last month, and China which sought to shield its ally from any harsh measures.

The resolution added North Korea’s space agency, a bank, four trading companies and four individuals to the UN list of entities subject to an assets freeze and travel ban.

“The sanctions themselves amount to little more than a slap on the wrist,” said Kim Yong-Hyun, a professor of North Korean studies at Dongguk University in Seoul.

Sanctions

“But the North is likely to be upset at China yielding to pressure from other members of the UN Security Council and accepting the resolution,” Kim said.

The US-proposed resolution was adopted unanimously by the 15-nation council and included a threat of “significant action” should Pyongyang stage a nuclear test in the future.

As North Korea’s sole major ally and economic lifeline, China is seen as the only country with any genuine leverage over the impoverished, isolated and nuclear-armed state.

At the same time, Pyongyang has played on Chinese fears of the consequences of North Korea’s collapse to defy Beijing’s efforts to rein in its nuclear weapons programme.

Most analysts agreed with Kim that the real import of Tuesday’s sanctions announcement lay in Beijing’s backing, rather than the actual measures themselves.

“Any kind of Chinese move is important,” said Robert Kelly, professor of Political Science and Diplomacy at Pusan National University.

“North Korea would collapse without Chinese support. So when China backs sanctions, even if they aren’t that tough, it’s significant,” Kelly said.

Missile

Pyongyang’s reaction to the UN measures was swift and defiant, with the North’s foreign ministry denouncing the resolution and vowing to strengthen the country’s nuclear and missile capabilities.

Its response is likely to fuel speculation that Pyongyang is preparing a third nuclear test, following its previous detonations in 2006 and 2009.

“The problem is that North Korea has far too much invested — financially and politically — in its nuclear programme to step back now,” said Kelly.

“The best that sanctions have done and can do is slow the march to nuclearisation and make it harder to proliferate,” he added.

Speaking to reporters after the Security Council announcement, China’s UN ambassador Li Baodong made it clear that Beijing was equally sceptical about the effectiveness of sanctions.

“The policy of sanctions and resolutions alone does not work,” Li said, calling for an early resumption of six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear issue that have been held intermittently since 2003

Pyongyang walked out of the negotiations in April 2009, a month before it carried out its second nuclear test, and in its statement Wednesday the foreign ministry appeared to rule out any return to the table.

“There will be no dialogue to discuss denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula,” the ministry said.

- © AFP, 2013

Read: North Korea loosens mobile phone restrictions for visitors >

Read next:

Comments (12 Comments)

  • marcoop 23/01/13 #

    All he’s missing now is a white cat,revolving chair and a monicle.

    Reply
  • In their monolithic pursuit of nuclear weapons the North Korean and Iranian regimes have only succeeded in stifling economic development.
    Yet these two regimes could have just as easily stirred their countries toward prosperity for the greater good of their people.
    As things stand now, Iran has all but abandoned hope of seeking the country’s old Persian greatness; and North Korea daily has to contend with the far superior standard of living in its sister state.
    Exactly how long will it take for these regimes to realize that in today’s world might is measured in economic terms?
    indeed, even if North Korea or Iran had managed to amass Russia’s nuclear arsenal neither of them would be better off economically.
    So what’s the point of this relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons when they no longer count?

    Reply
    • They still count to a degree. Put yourself in their position for just a second. You’re a dictator ruling over millions of people. You’re extremely powerful an wealthy but you don’t get along with the US or their allies. Your relationship is hostile at the best of times.

      Then look towards the past of the nations you don’t get along with. Each one has a long history of overthrowing regimes they don’t like either when they have to or when public opinion demands it. The only nation they never managed to topple was one with nuclear weapons. What are you as a dictator going to do?

      The thing is Iran is actually developing nuclear technology for a genuine economic reason. They acknowledge that the golden days of oil are coming to a close and need some way to fulfil their huge energy demand without it. They’re weaning themselves off oil and want nuclear energy to replace it. The technology could be used to develop nukes yes but, if they do, I don’t see the problem as India and Pakistan has them and haven’t blown up that whole region

      Reply
    • North Korean military has numbers and artillery thats it.Its air force is decrepit,its army is highly indoctrinated but also has decrepit equipment.Its missles are a proven failure and pose zero international threat.The west keeps up this whole charade of it being a threat to appease the Dear Leaders vanity and prop the state up.

      Reply
    • mattoid 23/01/13 #

      @Jason,
      According to the IAEA there is “credible information from multiple sources” that Iran has engaged in activities which are completely incompatible with a peaceful nuclear programme, and can only be connected with an aspiration to develop nuclear weapons.

      Whether they should or shouldn’t have nuclear weapons is a different argument, but there is no doubt that they want them and are trying to develop them.

      Reply
  • Israell has violated 32 UN Resolutions and nothings done.Different rules for different circumstances.The biggest threat posed by North Korea is dissolution and masses of millions of impoverished people moving south and north.Militarily they would level most of Soeul in an opening salvo but would be obliterated within a week.

    Reply
    • Different stroke for different folks. I don’t think anyone can argue that Israel has any right to a UN security council veto, being a pop. of 7 million. The UN is a joke which has only ever existed to protect the terror state that is Israel from the people it oppressed.

      Why shouldn’t North Korea have nuclear weapons if the US, China, the UK, Russia, Israel etc do?

      Reply
    • The UN Charter was signed in 1945 with the goal of protecting Isreal which only existed in 1948?
      Mmm…interesting.
      So the UN is a vast Jewish conspiracy to protect their “terror state” which exists amongst all its neighbouring states that have loved freedom since the 50s, like Egypt and Syria and Iraq and Saudi and Iran.

      What can I say, but condemn those dartadly Jews with their Time Machines!

      I agree about the nukes too. The US army can have nukes, so why can’t I have one?
      I pays me taxes.

      Reply
    • denisj 23/01/13 #

      Different rules for different circumstances is a fairly sensible way to play things when one of the countries you’re talking about is very, very unlikely to use a nuclear weapon and the other one is as likely as not to. If I paraphrase what you’re saying Riobaird it sounds a lot like the biggest threat posed by North Korea is that they might kill 11 million people before being obliterated (so another 22 million give or take). Just how does that stack up with what you perceive the biggest threat posed by Israel to be?

      John, positions on the UN security council aren’t given to countries based on the size of their population. The UN has existed for a wide variety of reasons, most of which it succeeds at much better than it is ever given credit for. And to come full circle, North Korea shouldn’t have nuclear weapons because it has been ruled by a family of psychopaths for more than half a century.

      Reply
  • I wonder if the Chinese will rue the day that they supported this regime. It’s like keeping a rabid dog in your backyard. Some day it is going to bite them. It’s the nature of the beast.

    Reply
  • Ww3

    Reply
  • Really? You think they won’t?

    Reply

Add New Comment