North Korea sanctions -- meaningful?

Great Debates
1

Full text of sanctions resolution available here:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/14/sanctions.text.reut/
According to news reports, an earlier draft of this resolution would have allowed inspections of ships going to and from the DPRK on the high seas, but China balked. That is consistent with my read of the final resolution, which does not contain any language which, IMO, would allow such inspections, at least not without the cooperation/permission of the nation where the ship is registered.

First question: Does anyone disagree with this? In other words, does anyone read this as allowing high seas inspections?

China shares a border with the DPRK. I’m aware that there is (or at least was) active cross-border trade. Russia also shares a border with the DPRK, but it’s relatively small and remote from Russia’s manufacturing and population centers.

Second question: Do you expect real efforts by the Chinese to enforce this resolution with thorough border inspections? Initial news reports on this issue seem contradictory. How about the Russians?

Third question: Assuming that the Chinese and Russians enforce this with more than just window dressing, I can see this resolution may hamper (somewhat) North Korean efforts to purchase and maintain the high-level conventional weapons systems that are the subject of this embargo. Beyond that, though, I don’t see this resolution as accomplishing much. Even if 95% of the exporting nations in the world faithfully try to prevent ships from leaving their shores with luxury goods bound for the DPRK, Kim is still going to get his caviar and bigscreen TVs. All Kim’s agents have to do is charter a ship, load the desired luxury goods at another location along with some food supplies, and have that ship travel to some third world nation with a minimum of effective customs or law enforcement. Unload some big boxes there, and then travel to the DPRK. How’s anyone going to prove that the cargo unloaded there contained anything other than the permitted food? Same thing for nuclear supplies, plus see question 4.

Fourth question: Who was selling the DPNK nuclear supplies pre-resolution? If the answer is that no one was openly doing so (in other words, such sales were clandestine), then how does the resolution accomplish anything in this regard?

Fifth question: Kim announces, tomorrow, that one ship is leaving North Korea with missiles and a nuclear device. Five ships leave port the next day. Nothing to be done, right? (How a few boxes from the ship could then find their way ashore in Iran, or Lebanon as one of those Korean ships passes near the Middle East is, I trust, obvious.)

Am I missing something, or does this resolution do little other than annoy?

2

My comments probably don’t address the exact questions you pose, but I’ve been steamed about this for days, so here goes: the proposition that cutting off luxury goods from North Korea is going to actually result in anything is probably the flat-out stupidest thing I’ve heard, ever. Even if the embargo were completely successful, does anyone have any illusions that keeping the Dear Leader separated from his cognac is going to change anything? And the White House argues that this is a better idea than one-on-one negotiations?

This is a pretty clear signal that we don’t have a damn clue as to how to deal with North Korea.

3

Nothing’s going to keep Kim separated from his luxury goods. He’ll still manage to get the stuff.

4

Although I agree with you that the luxury embargo is a joke (except maybe as political PR - it reminds everyone that Kim lives like a Roman emperor while his people starve) I disagree with you about the 6 - party talks issue.

My read is that denying Kim 1-1 meetings is wise. That makes it easier for him to convince others that the U.S. shares the blame when his antics and failure to honor promises prevent a resolution. If it’s 5 parties on the rational side, Kim’s ability to avoid blame is diminished.

5

It reminds everyong but his own people. That’s the advantage he has of controlling information in his country.

6

Does it? How so? Do you think anyone involved in the nuclear program isn’t aware of how China is the key trading partner, and that it has all the bargaining chips that matter?

7

Read some stuff from people who’ve fled North Korea, John. The “filter” that people in North Korea use to interpret what they see is very strange.

8

well, the 6 party talks have been so successful, that obviously it would be stooopid to try 1:1 talks. seriously, if plan A doesn’t work, should stay the course instead of trying ehat you opponent seems receptive to

9

Do you have any links in particular or books you recommend? After reading that Diane Sawyer is going to be reporting from North Korea, I was interested in reading more about life inside from those who know.

10

Uhhh… you are aware that North Korea has been boycotting those multilateral “talks” for most of the last three years? How much progress are we making if we can’t even sit down with the other side at Six Party Talks?

11

Uhhh… I am well aware of that. Am also well aware that North Korea has been playing games and breaking agreements fairly regularly for years before that, and had agreed to the 6 party format. We’re ready, willing and able to sit down at the six party talks. But Kim refuses.

I see no benefit to 2 party talks, which are even more likely to be a circus. If N. Korea is prepared to break agreements with 5 nations, and ignore 5 nation pressure, what makes you think that agreements with (and pressure from) one nation will have more effect?

Further, the United States is not the world’s policeman. It’s not the world’s bargaining representative. Any slim chance of reining in Kim will require both a carrot and a stick, and there’s no reason why both have to come from us. China, South Korea and Japan are more directly threatened by Kim’s actions, and they should share in the costs of any agreement. Accordingly, those nations need to be part of the bargaining process. China, especially, has to be on board for there to be any chance of this working.

Finally, Kim has never been able to articulate any comprehensible reason why 2 party talks are necessary. IMO, it just makes it easier for him to blame the US if the talks fail, or if he later breaches an agreement.

Don’t forget, there was an agreement. It amounted to a hefty bribe to the DPRK in exchange for limits on nuclear activities. Kim breached it.

12

Actually, it’s fairly clear that the US wanted an embargo that was tougher. It was China and Russia that kept it limited.

I’m not clear on what you position is on this. You poke fun at the luxury goods part of the embargo. Would you have broadened it to include other things? Would you have made it more enforceable?

Or would you just give in, and write Kim a big check?

What would you do to solve this problem?

13

But I don’t want to get completely off topic. Except for a short comment by Monty, no one’s addressed the initial questions.

14

Its a resolution of compromise…what do you expect? The various nations can’t agree on exactly what they think is the right thing to do because they have various takes on what it all means, as well as how directly threatening it is. This is why the UN is usually hog tied…nations have their own interests and also have their own assessments of what is or is not a theat (and how threatening things are to them) and they push an agenda based on what is in their own best interest. So…in the end, you get a watered down series of compromises that are in essence useless. This is a good case in point. The farce happening with Iran is an even better example, as in that case there are serious economic considerations for various countries, further watering down any kind of internation action.

Short answer is…no. Of course not.

Nope…not a snowballs chance in hell.

Do you REALLY think that, given its druthers, Bush and his merry men would think this set of sanctions enough?? This has ‘compromise’ written all over it. I’m pretty sure that Bush et al KNEW they couldn’t push through a hard line resolution and get other countries on board, so (most likely at the Euro’s urging, perhaps with South Korea and a nudge from China) compromised on this as the least bad course.

By ‘we’ I assume you mean the US here. Going on that, my question to you would be…why is it exclusively up to the US to fix this problem? North Korea isn’t OUR neighbor after all. We aren’t the worlds policemen…and we are singluarly bad at being that when the role is thrust upon us (or when we decide to go forth on our own, badge in hand). China is the one who should (and can) be doing something about NK…if they so chose. They have the leverage, much more than the US, to make the NK’s change their policy.

-XT

15

Well ‘we’ did unilaterally label them as members of an axis of evil, and then take military action against another member of that axis. A big part of NK’s ‘paranoia’ stems from ‘our’ saber rattling. Japan, SK, China, Russia can’t do anything about that. Only ‘we’ can.

16

:stuck_out_tongue: … :rolleyes:

So what? THEY have been calling us such things for quite a long time…and still do from time to time as the whim strikes them. Its rhetoric…and they are well aware of it, being as how lil Kimmy and his merry men are masters at it. I’m sorry, but serious…this is a bullshit arguement. They were frightened about Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil’ speech, so they started their nuke program up again (probably a few months/years before hand)? Complete bullshit.

And its horseshit that only the US can do something about this. China has the most leverage with the NK’s…if anyone can do something about them and their nuke fixation, its them.

-XT

17

All their leverage can’t alter our bellicosity. Perhaps that’s just talk when we apply it to NK, but the example of Iraq would make it foolish for them not to take it seriously.
Sure the other five countrys have a role to play in resolving this mess, but the part of the US is unique.

18

It already appears that China isn’t going to do much. They’re still working on a fence, but we know how well fences work. It’s really just geopolitics and an aversion to refugees that’s motivating China, as well as the need to save “face”. So they’ll wag their fingers, frown, and search some trains. Kim is the devil they know, and they’re more comfortable with that than the alternatives. They’re clearly more intelligent than the U.S. leaders in that they see the disaster a destabized DPRK will cause, and know token wrist-slaps are the only sane course of action. If Japan gets Nukes (which they’ve so far denied they want), well, maybe that’s a different story, but for now it’s apparently not a problem for China.

Seriously, what’s to be done? DPRK gets its nukes or…? Well, millions of refugees stream into China and Seoul gets flattened, that’s what. We’re talking a staggeringly huge humanitarian disaster on the Korean peninsula, will hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions dead before it’s all over. The real time to deal with this constructively was ages ago, and now it’s quite too late.

19

:dubious: Perhaps they had a time machine or a seer or something and predicted US bellicosity toward Iraq/Afghanistan and thus started their nuke program up again (assuming for a moment they ever actually DID stop it), ehe? Its sort of a catch 22 situation they are in…the only reason the US cares about the NK’s at all is that they HAVE started up their nuke program again. Without that, we wouldn’t give two shits about them, and the chances of a US invasion/military strikes would be essentially nill. 'Course, then 'lil Kimmy wouldn’t be in the spotlight and would be essentially ignored…

Hold on a sec…there is a though, ehe? :stuck_out_tongue:

Why? I don’t get it. Everyone here bitches (rightfully) about US taking basically unilateral action in Iraq, yet essentially you want us to handle the NK situation alone. Is the internation community able to deal with local region problems without the US or not? Is China a local super power in that region or not? Japan? South Korea? Are they unable to do anything without the US or not? If not…well then, my suggestion to the international community is that you are fucked if you need to rely on the US to handle all your problems. Look at the masterful way we handled Iraq. The US, with our fickle public and politicians from hell will always server up such half assed solutions, driven by the public opinion of the hour…which will change in a few weeks and become just the opposite.

Wanted (needing) the US to unilaterally go into talks with the NK’s to solve all the problems, especially with THIS administration, is perhaps the single stupidest idea I’ve ever heard. Its a riot that folks here are advocating that, as if its a good idea.

-XT

20

Never said that. Unilateral talks could help solve some of the problems. You’re right about this administration never going for them though. It’s as much as they can stomach to approach the evil with 5 other countrys backing them up.