Draft Text of New U.N. Resolution on North Korea
Fred Fry gets a big hat tip for sending this, via the Inner City Press. And what an predictable disappointment it is — it “deplores” the North Korean tests and calls on U.N. member states to finally enforce the same resolutions they’ve been failing to enforce since 2006. But to be fair, this is still a draft.
Feel free to insert your own Hans Brix/Team America clip link in the comments.
Update 1: We’d all love to know what’s going into that blank paragraph in the draft resolution, and here are some of the reports on what it may ultimately say.
Jim Lobe, writing in the Asia Times, claims that “administration officials suggested that Washington may be preparing to re-impose Bush-era financial sanctions against banks and companies suspected of conducting illicit transactions on behalf of Pyongyang.” Obviously, I’d be all for that, and I predicted before that President Obama would be glad that he decided to keep Stuart Levey around. I have no doubt that Levey could accomplish more in 60 days than Chris Hill did in four years. Lobe also writes that Obama feels constrained by the situation of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, something that could not have been inadvertent on the North Koreans’ part. I swear, they have a word for that.
Yonhap claims that China is being less resistant to U.S. demands for strong financial sanctions, the kind that actually worked:
A draft resolution, distributed to the five permanent members of the council, plus South Korea and Japan, in a follow-up to the meeting held Tuesday, “bans loans to North Korea and virtually suspend all financial transactions between North Korea and foreign financial institutions,” a diplomat based in New York said. “We need to consult our respective capitals about the draft over the coming weekend.”
The draft also toughens the provisions of Resolution 1718, adopted by the council after North Korea’s 2006 nuclear and missile tests, so that the North would be barred from all weapons trade. [Yonhap News]
This probably means that China’s strategy is to vote for the resolution today and undermine it tomorrow. The same is probably true of the East Asia Bureau in our own State Department.
The Joongang Ilbo notes that in addition to the financial sanctions, the new resolution could “add more companies to the UN blacklist of those helping North Korea’s nuclear programs, to expand embargoes to cover all arms, to restrict flights to and from North Korea and to freeze assets.”
Update 2: The signals are mixed as to the degree to which China and Russia are willing to accept tough sanctions against North Korea, but let’s give appropriate credit to the Obama Administration for pushing for the kind of sanctions that really will work:
The administration is also seeking China’s cooperation in a global effort to disrupt the flow of money to North Korea’s ruler, Kim Jong-il, and his family, officials said. Some of that money is suspected to be held in Chinese-owned banks, making such an effort diplomatically sensitive.
Still, a senior official said he was “pleasantly surprised” by how open China was to cooperating with the United States. China has historically tolerated the erratic behavior of Mr. Kim, worrying more about a calamitous collapse of his government than about his nuclear ambitions. But the recent test and missile launchings, the official said, may have crossed a line with China’s leaders.
“At the level of Chinese irritation, this is historic,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. “Normally, the Chinese urge us not to react. But they are reaching a point where they could be agreeable to using more of their own weight. [N.Y. Times]
According to the unnamed UN diplomat, the proposals for expanded sanctions range from a broader arms embargo to an asset freeze on individuals and additional companies, restrictions on flights to and from North Korea, and restrictions on the country’s financial and banking operations. [AP]
The Wall Street Journal reports to some more critical rhetoric from the ChiComs, which means no more than China’s vote for past U.N. resolutions — in short, bupkes. I agree with Marcus Noland that China acts as North Korea’s enabler, and I’ve said before why I think China wants North Korea to be a threat to us. I did like this quote from OFK favorite David Asher:
“In many ways, the six-party process has allowed China to manage the U.S. as much as it manages North Korea,” said David Asher, a former State Department official who helped initiate the negotiating track during President George W. Bush’s first term. [Wall Street Journal]
Oddly enough, the Administration does not appear to be leaning toward putting North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. While I don’t believe that the terror-sponsor list is the most powerful of the sanctions at our disposal, I think the Administration would be making the wrong decision. First, it sends the wrong message to allow this concession to stand when the North Koreans reneged on the specific promise that induced it. Second, the Japanese desperately want the designation restored, and if diplomatic reasons justify lifting the designation, then diplomatic reasons justify restoring it. Reflexive advocates of multilaterialism ought to be more vocal about this — the interests of our allies matter. Third, the terror sponsor list has some significant consequences, my personal favorite being the exemption it provides under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (28 U.S.C. sec. 1603 et seq.). If you don’t see the value in this exemption, just ask the survivors of the U.S.S. Pueblo crew. And certainly Lisa Ling might find some use for it.