Log in

View Full Version : UN sanctions on north Korea



Severian
16th October 2006, 06:16
Here's the text (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/14/sanctions.text.reut/) of the unanimously adopted UN Security Council resolution on sanctions against North Korea.

It's supposed to just be an embargo on weapons and luxury goods...and things which could be useful for "Weapons of Mass Destruction. The last is a vague category.

Among other things the resolution prohibits the import, export, or transfer of:

(ii) all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology as set out in the lists in documents S/2006/814 and S/2006/815, unless within 14 days of adoption of this resolution the Committee has amended or completed their provisions also taking into account the list in document S/2006/816, as well as other items, materials, equipment, goods and technology, determined by the Security Council or the Committee, which could contribute to DPRK's nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programs ;

The Committee has the same members as the Security Council.

Now, I haven't been able to find anything about these lists in these documents - but lemme just remind everyone of how the "Committee" in charge of Iraq sactions decided these things. It even rejected a request to buy pencils because the graphite might conceivably have been used for some kind of radar shield.

And levies these financial sanctions:

(d) all Member States shall, in accordance with their respective legal processes, freeze immediately the funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are on their territories at the date of the adoption of this resolution or at any time thereafter, that are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the persons or entities designated by the Committee or by the Security Council as being engaged in or providing support for, including through other illicit means, DPRK's nuclear-related, other weapons of mass destruction-related and ballistic missile-related programs, or by persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, and ensure that any funds, financial assets or economic resources are prevented from being made available by their nationals or by any persons or entities within their territories, to or for the benefit of such persons or entities;

Without financial transfers, international trade is impossible. Which "entities" may be designated by the Committee? Who knows? But since it's the north Korean government which conducts both normal trade and the nuclear weapons program, a clear distinction seems unlikely. Potentially any north Korean enterprise could be used to avoid sanctions and make weapons-related purchases - potentially any north Korean enterprise could have its accounts frozen under suspicion of doing so.

One thing that's not in this resolution: a specific authorization for the navies of the U.S. and others to enforce it.

But there's nothing to stop 'em from doing so, either.

Even without this resolution, ships have already been stopped on the high seas, without any legal justification. This is part of the U.S.-led "Proliferation Security Initiative", which is one of its "coalitions of the willing".

socialistfuture
16th October 2006, 06:44
its not like north korea wouldnt know the consequences of what it did, it was a spite to america - and america cant handle not being in charge and control of shit. its like sum spoilt kid.

cant say kim isnt similar, sucks that north korea as a whole has to suffer the consequences. be cool for people to maybe send aid to north korea if it was welcome - like to the communities itself, and for observers to be in - i imagine its a bit of a police state tho. anyone read blogs from north korea?

Janus
16th October 2006, 10:32
The sanctions are supposed to prevent the importation of any military hardware and the freezing of the accounts of the dealers. The problem is gonna be with enforcing it as Chinese and Russian opposition forced the UN to moderate their original proposal and it seems that the US is still trying to get China to follow it.

chimx
16th October 2006, 11:10
not to mention south korea as well.

Guerrilla22
16th October 2006, 21:00
Sanctions against the DPRK, that resolution is completely worthless. Washington is just trying to act tough.