Security Council resolution on North Korea by the four calculations all come to nothing replica watch reviews
Global China Daily online news: After last month Security Council consultations, the June 12 adoption of a second nuclear test North Korea fired six missiles, and to expand the sanctions resolution 1874. The main content of the resolution: ban all North Korean exports of weapons, but to allow it to continue to buy small arms, the arms purchase must be reported to the United Nations; requires Member States to suspicious vessels entering and leaving North Korea to inspect, not for violations of the arms embargo on North Korean ships could to fuel supply, and in addition to humanitarian and development projects, not with North Korea have a new financial links. compared to previous years
Resolution 1718 adopted by this time expanded the content of the sanctions, mainly on the DPRK is to strengthen the arms embargo, financial sanctions, intended to cut off North Korea sources of income, this is a new resolution, a move that is more stringent. Korean foreign exchange shortages, cutting off their sources of income, will give North Korea a considerable moral and financial pressure. From the wording of analysis, the original of this resolution, the United States than in Japan and South Korea some of the wording a little euphemism.
overall purpose of the resolution is to require North Korea to fulfill denuclearization promise past and stop nuclear testing and implementation of the new test, to ensure the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, making it towards stability, security, direction. Some Council members had made North Korea back into the “support terrorism” list view has not been adopted.
resolutions adopted by the Council with a mandatory, member states must implement. Now, the four North Korean plan to take drastic measures have all come to nothing.
Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin that because North Korea “radical judge the situation”, and then take a series of “aggressive measures”, leading to the DPRK caught in the “full passive” dilemma, and today was the second of sanctions situation.
First of all, the DPRK “to super-tough on the tough” strategy and did not return for the Obama policy of compromise toward the DPRK government, the opposite is more severe stance. Second, the first nuclear test did not test the practice of the international community in exchange for recognition and sympathy, there has been a Fanduizhisheng. Thirdly, the DPRK said that “North Korea did not participate in” the NPT “,”, said a nuclear test and missile tests as a sovereign state should have the legal right to return to the United Nations member states as the understanding of its nuclear policy. However, some representatives of developing countries pointed out that as early as 1991, the DPRK and the ROK leaders signed a “Declaration on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” North Korea many years ago that the legal instruments to do the denuclearization of the solemn commitment, North Korea today to do the opposite interpretation, understanding how people do this? Fourth, the DPRK Fang Xianxuan cloth “forever” to exit the six-party talks and does not perform “inter-Korean Armistice Agreement negotiations”, and after this statement in the Security Council sanctions against North Korea if the resolution, it means “tear up the agreement”, intended to demonstrate the moral standing on the side of the DPRK. But in fact, that the practice of reversing black and white has been criticized by the developing countries.
Security Council passed a new sanctions resolution, the international community expects North Korea took the opportunity to reflect on their North Korea policy is also a good opportunity to make adjustments and the turning point. Developing countries that there is the possibility that through diplomatic negotiations to resolve the nuclear issue. If so, the international community will be warmly welcomed. But there is another possibility that the DPRK side will continue to hold “super tough” attitude to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles such as the response. This is the situation of people do not want to see, and the view of the DPRK only harmful to profits. If so, the Korean Peninsula will be the emergence of various uncertain factors, which in peace and development into the mainstream of today, more people should strive to avoid the situation. In short, the DPRK actions merit close attention, and the relationship between parties should also do more to persuade and work to stabilize the situation. Of course, some people have to guard against “fishing in troubled waters.”
(of: Wu Miao-fat, China Daily Commentator and former Counsellor, Permanent Mission of China, alternate representative of the Council of Foreign PEN members)