Member for

4 years 9 months
Submitted by ctv_en_4 on Mon, 07/17/2006 - 17:00
The UN Security Council on July 15 unanimously adopted a resolution imposing sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) after the country unilaterally tested seven missiles two weeks ago. Immediately, Pyongyang rejected the resolution and warned that it would carry out further missile launch exercises as part of its efforts to bolster its military strength.

The resolution coded 1695 demanded that the DPRK immediately return to the negotiation table without condition, dismantle nuclear weapons and related programmes, and suspend any ballistic missile programmes. It also asked Pyongyang to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other safety regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

 

However, the resolution was revised to drop a reference to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which is legally binding and can authorise tough economic sanctions or even military action in case of non-compliance. The move was proposed by China and Russia to rule out the possibility of using military force against Pyongyang.

 

The UN resolution immediately received strong opposition from Pyongyang.

“We totally reject the resolution,” said DPRK Ambassador to the UN Pak Gil-Yon, adding that Pyongyang would continue missile launch exercises in the future and that the resolution aimed to isolate and bring more pressure to bear upon the Pyongyang government. He stressed that the DPRK’s ballistic missile programme is the key to balancing strength and maintaining peace and stability in North-east Asia.

 

According to analysts, Pyongyang’s reaction seems predictable as the North-east Asian country has been aware of sanctions to be imposed by the UN. But why did the country still launch missiles despite strong opposition from the international community and possible UN sanctions?

 

Although a DPRK spokesperson affirmed that the missile tests were just aimed at increasing its missile defence capacity, the underlining causes of the move may be that the DPRK wants to heighten its position in the six-party talks and warns against any threats from western countries, particularly the US.

 

Analysts said the DPRK aim is to draw the US into the bilateral talks that Pyongyang has pursued for years. However, the resolution showed the UN and the international community’s clear-cut attitude towards Pyongyang’s nuclear programme. That the US and the West accepted the revision of the resolution without articles of Chapter 7 indicated their concession to Russia and China.

 

In fact, the DPRK had defied the efforts of the international community and the goodwill of Russia and China to unilaterally test-fire missiles. This explained why Russia and China agreed to sign the resolution asking Pyongyang to stop launching missiles. Previously, Russia and China had rejected any sanctions against the DPRK. Furthermore, UN Security Council members dropped a reference to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, allowing the use of armed forces if an additional detailed resolution is approved. In return, China did not veto Resolution 1695 to impose sanctions on the DPRK.

 

Russia's Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin said the Resolution provided an adequate signal to the DPRK, asking Pyongyang to keep calm and obey all regulations relating to missiles. In addition, Chinese Ambassador to the UN Wang Guangya said that China is willing to join with all sides in a concerted effort to maintain peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the north-eastern Asian region. It is apparent that the DPRK does not have many choices.

 

In fact, the current situation has become more tense due to new concerns from Western countries, especially the US and Japan. Two months before the DPRK launched missiles, news about its missile tests had dominated the world media. Analysts said that from the DPRK’s missile tests, the US and Japan might not get any harm but instead could even “fish in troubled waters”. For the US, the UN Security Council’s approval of the resolution on imposing sanctions against the DPRK would be a “lesson” for Iran or other potential rivals. Moreover, the US could use this pretext to deploy its own ballistic missile system, as well as expand the prestige of the Republican Party prior to the upcoming US Congress vote. In short, less harm than good has been done to the US, and as US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton put it, if the DPRK did not accept the Resolution, the US and other UN Security Council members would take “further action”. This means the US is tough on this issue.

 

It is common among the general public that the DPRK would better show its goodwill and abide by the international laws. However, this also depends on goodwill from all sides.

Add new comment

Đăng ẩn
Tắt