North Korea urged to return to 6 Party Talks by Reuters / International Crisis Group 5:47pm 8th Jul, 2006   July 16, 2006    UN imposes weapons sanctions on N Korea. (Reuters)    The United Nations Security Council has voted unanimously to impose weapons-related sanctions on North Korea in response to its spate of missile tests earlier this month.    Pyongyang has rejected the resolution, which demands that North Korea suspend "all activities" on its ballistic missile programs.    It requires all UN members to prevent imports from or exports to North Korea of missiles and missile-related items, as well as materials that could be used in weapons of mass destruction.    To avert a veto from China, the resolution does not mention Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which is used on a legally binding document.    But Security Council members say the resolution is mandatory because of the way it is worded.    China and Russia had originally proposed weaker language, but agreed to a tough resolution. They expressed fears that Chapter 7 would lead to military action, as in Iraq.    After the vote, Japan"s Foreign Affairs Vice Minister Shintaro Ito told the 15-member council its response was strong. "The council has acted swiftly and robustly in response to the reckless and condemnable act of (North Korea) in launching the barrage of ballistic missiles," he said.    North Korea "totally rejects the resolution," Pyongyang"s representative to the UN, Pak Gil Yon, said immediately after the text was unanimously adopted by the council. Mr Pak also condemned what he described as attempts by some countries to "misuse the Security Council for their despicable political aims" to isolate and put pressure on North Korea.    Defying international warnings, North Korea launched at least six missiles on July 5 and a seventh some 12 hours later. A long-range Taepodong-2, which could theoretically hit the continental United States, fell into the Sea of Japan within a minute of the launch.    North Korea, has rebuffed worldwide criticism of its missile tests and resisted pressure to return to talks on winding up its nuclear arms program, but its neighbours pressed on with diplomacy to resolve the crisis.    11 July 2006    Security Council split on North Korea. (BBC News)    The United Nations Security Council is divided on how to address North Korea"s ballistic missile testing last week.    On Monday, China"s UN ambassador Wang Guangya circulated a draft statement condemning the tests, but making no mention of punitive sanctions.    But the US, France and UK rejected it, choosing to support a Japanese draft resolution which includes sanctions. The BBC"s UN correspondent Richard Galpin says division within the Council is becoming increasingly acrimonious.    North Korea raised tensions last week when it test-fired seven missiles - including a long-range Taepodong-2, a weapon which is believed to be capable of reaching Alaska.    The much tougher draft resolution proposed by Japan brands North Korea a "threat to international peace and security" and invokes Chapter Seven of the UN charter. Resolutions made under Chapter Seven are legally binding and can authorise sanctions or even military action.    According to our correspondent at the UN in New York, China and Russia, which both have the power of veto in the Security Council, believe that using a UN resolution to impose sanctions on North Korea at this stage would be irresponsible and unconstructive.    Mr Wang said such action "could make the situation even worse" and that China was worried it could ultimately pave the way for military action against North Korea. Instead he believes that the best initial response is a statement by the Security Council calling on Pyongyang to stop the development of ballistic missiles and halt any testing.    The draft statement also calls on member states not to sell any technology or materials which could be used in North Korea"s missile and nuclear programmes.    The statement is backed by the Russian envoy to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, who said it provided "an excellent basis for a strong signal to Pyongyang" and "the right mode of action".    But the US, UK and France, also permanent members of the Security Council, say the statement is far too weak, especially as it is not legally binding. Britain"s UN envoy Emyr Jones Parry said the Chinese document "just really didn"t do the job" because "it did not respond sufficiently robustly to actually what the present threat is. Indeed it did not recognise that there was a threat".    All 15 members of the Security Council have at least agreed to hold off from voting immediately on a resolution calling for sanctions to give time for China to resolve the crisis through diplomatic means. A Chinese delegation arrived in Pyongyang on Monday to hold talks with North Korean leaders.    The US has repeatedly urged China to increase the pressure on Pyongyang, and persuade it to return to six-party talks on its nuclear programme, which have been deadlocked since November.    "The people who have put forward this resolution - and by the way, there are a number of co-sponsors to this resolution - believe very strongly that North Korea has to have a message from the international community that their current course is disruptive and will isolate them," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. "But we do think that the Chinese mission to North Korea has some promise, and we would like to let that play out," Ms Rice added.    But China has not confirmed it will raise the issue of the talks and after a meeting in Tokyo with the Japanese foreign minister, US nuclear negotiator Christopher Hill expressed doubts about the extent of Beijing"s influence over Pyongyang.    "I must say the issue of China"s influence on the DPRK [North Korea] is one that concerns us, because China said to the DPRK, "Don"t fire those missiles", and the DPRK fired them," he said. Mr Hill has been visiting many countries in the region as part of diplomatic moves to decide how to respond to last week"s tests.    7 July 2006    "The North Korea Missile Standoff: Direct Negotiations Remain the Only Path", Peter Beck on ABC News Online.    Now that the North has fired a series of missiles and could launch more in the coming days, we are faced with difficult choices. It is already clear that China and Russia will not support U.N. sanctions on North Korea for testing its missiles. South Korea is also not keen to squeeze Kim Jong-Il"s regime too hard lest it have to pick up the pieces if the country collapsed, or worse, lashed out. No one outside of North Korea can be happy about the North"s provocative act, but the missile firings have not been in breach of any international law, nor have they changed the security situation enough for these nations to take the tough action being urged by the Bush administration.    Washington could salvage the current situation and get five of those involved in the six-party talks on the same side if they give up their insistence on only talking to North Korea within that framework. The administration must recognise two key points: only direct talks with Pyongyang at a high level will work and the top priority must be ending North Korea"s nuclear program. Other issues — missiles, human rights, chemical and biological weapons, troop reductions and crime — should all be tackled when the nuclear risk is gone.    The reluctance of three critical members of the talks lays bare the flaw of U.S. policy in North East Asia over the past six years. Washington has tried to harness the region into a united front against Kim Jong-Il but only Japan has signed up with any enthusiasm. The policy has tied the hands of the U.S., handed over key security decisions to the Chinese and allowed North Korea to provoke splits among a group have increasingly different views on how much risk the North presents. China, Russia and South Korea all see the disintegration of North Korea as more dangerous than the current standoff and they have good reason; if the government in Pyongyang collapsed nobody knows how the vast army would behave or how many people would flee the country. It could mean civil war among forces with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to use or sell. South Korea would face a huge financial shock bailing out its bankrupt neighbor.    Although bilateral contact can now occur in the margins of the six party talks, this is not the same as top U.S. officials negotiating directly with their counterparts and ultimately with Kim Jong-Il himself, the only man in the country who can make a deal anyway.    Direct talks would also be less susceptible to the problem that killed off the last round of negotiations when one part of the U.S. government decided it was more important to punish Pyongyang for counterfeiting dollar bills than getting rid of a nuclear threat. That step undercut the progress made by skilled U.S. diplomats and illustrated that the Bush administration has no coherent policy on handling Pyongyang. High level direct talks would require that Washington develop a plan and stay with it.    It might stick in the throats of many to give Kim the attention and prestige he could gain by talking to the United States as equals but in the end it is a small price to pay. Kim wants security guarantees, a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War, a U.S. embassy and money — almost all of which will come from Japan and South Korea. The real costs to the U.S. will be low and the benefits significant. After the talks, the United States will be the most powerful country on earth and a lot safer. North Korea will be still be bleak, impoverished and a little less dangerous.    Not only would direct talks be more likely to succeed but they would open up other policy options if they failed, unlike the current situation in which the choices get more limited by the day. If Washington was seen to have put its heart into negotiations, any breakdown would be firmly blamed on Pyongyang and the three neighbours would be more likely to ratchet up the pressure. Only by talking directly can the United States get the unity it needs in North East Asia to deal with the threat from Pyongyang. Visit the related web page
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item