Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Drive for Sanctions Likely in Wake of North Korean Test

The reaction by the Obama administration to North Korea’s nuclear test will send a message about how the new president intends to confront foreign policy crises.

(Inter Press Service)

North Korea’s May 24 underground nuclear test drew strong condemnation from U.S. President Barack Obama who suggested that Washington will seek strong international sanctions by the U.N. Security Council and possibly impose tough unilateral measures of its own.

According to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) in Vienna, the blast slightly exceeded the force of Pyongyang’s first nuclear test in 2006. U.S. analysts said the test was likely to pose an especially difficult policy challenge for China, which also condemned it.

Theoretically, China enjoys enormous leverage over Pyongyang due to North Korea’s dependence on Beijing for the delivery of essential food and fuel supplies. At the same time, however, China has long worried that withholding those supplies could precipitate the collapse of the Communist regime, sending hundreds of thousands of desperate refugees across the border into China and possibly inviting South Korean and U.S. intervention.

On May 25, the 15-member U.N. Security Council held an emergency meeting that ended in a unanimous condemnation of the nuclear test. The Council said it would begin work on a new resolution in response to Pyongyang’s “clear violation” of international law.

“The big issue going ahead now is what will happen in the way of further sanctions that will actually bite, and that really depends on what China is prepared to do,” said Alan Romberg, a former senior Asia specialist at the State Department, who is now based at the Henry L. Stimson Center, a Washington think tank. “It faces very difficult decisions.”

Noting that the test was quickly followed by the launch of two short-range missiles, Romberg and other analysts predicted that these would likely be followed by additional provocative actions on Pyongyang’s part, including the possible launch of one or more ballistic missiles and hostile naval incidents against South Korea.

North Korea’s latest provocations took place amid rising tensions with the United States and despite Obama’s recent offers to send his special envoy, retired Ambassador Stephen Bosworth, to Pyongyang to try to persuade the North to re-join the Six-Party Talks with South Korea, China, Russia, and Japan to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula.

The latest escalation in tensions began April 5 when Pyongyang launched a long-range missile which it said was designed to put a communications satellite into orbit but which, according to the United States and its western allies, violated a 2006 Security Council resolution that “demanded” that the North not “launch … a ballistic missile … (and) suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme.”

While China and Russia rejected a western-backed draft resolution imposing new sanctions on Pyongyang for the test, the two powers agreed that on April 13 the Council president would issue, a formal condemnation of the launch andwould direct the U.N. sanctions committeeto develop a list of North Korean companies involved in missile and nuclear technology that could also be sanctioned.

Pyongyang reacted by announcing its permanent withdrawal from the Six-Party Talks and ordering inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to leave the country after removing surveillance devices and other equipment from the mostly disabled Yongbyon nuclear plant.

Spurning calls to return to the talks, Pyongyang announced at the end of April that, barring a reversal by the Council, it would start a uranium enrichment program‑in addition to rebuilding Yongbyon – and conducting new nuclear and ballistic-missile tests.

The only surprise about the May 24 test, whose force was roughly equivalent to the U.S. bombs that devastated most of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, was that it took place so soon after Pyongyang had issued its threat. Most U.S. analysts believed it would take more time for the North to follow through.

In a written statement issued by the White House well before dawn on May 25, Obama noted that both the test and the missile launches were “not a surprise” but were nevertheless “of grave concern to all nations” and “constitute a threat to international peace and security”.

“North Korea is not only deepening its own isolation, it’s also inviting stronger international pressure,” Obama told reporters just before noon. “That’s evident overnight, as Russia and China, as well as our traditional allies of South Korea and Japan, have all come to the same conclusion: North Korea will not find security and respect through threats and illegal weapons.”

“We will work with our friends and allies to stand up to this behavior, and we will redouble our efforts toward a more robust international nonproliferation regime that all countries have responsibilities to meet,” he added.

Pyongyang’s increasingly aggressive behavior has been subject to a number of different interpretations by U.S. analysts, some of whom insist link it to an internal succession struggle that has intensified since the country’s leader, Kim Jong-il, apparently suffered a stroke last summer. In this view, Kim is both trying to reassure hardliners who dominate the military and gain their support for his preferred line of succession.

While not ruling out the domestic motivation, other analysts have argued that Pyongyang’s actions are partly motivated by the belief= that brinkmanship will make Washington more responsive to its basic concerns.

These include humanitarian and economic assistance and security guarantees, as well as formal recognition as a nuclear-weapons state and even an eventual arrangement similar to George W. Bush’s deal with India.

But virtually all U.S. analysts agree that Obama is very unlikely to respond in the ways that Pyongyang hopes, particularly regarding U.S. recognition of North Korea as a nuclear-weapons state. That “would create a crisis of confidence in the alliance with Japan as well as with (South Korea),” according to a recent article in the South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo by Victor Cha, a North Korea specialist at Georgetown University who served on Bush’s National Security Council staff.

“They may have miscalculated in believing that the United States will in fact accept their nuclear status and will negotiate bilaterally with them on normalization in these circumstances,” said Romberg, who added that Pyongyang also may have miscalculated about Russia and China’s willingness to go along with the April 13 Security Council statement.

Indeed, much attention is now being focused on China’s response to the test. Initially, Beijing reacted relatively mildly, denouncing the test but calling for calm. Two hours later, however, China’s foreign ministry issued a more pointed statement “demand(ing) that the DPRK live up to its commitment to nonnuclearization on the Korean Peninsula, stop any activity that might worsen the situation and return to the track of the Six Party Talks.”

The statements, according to the the Nelson Report, a private newsletter considered a must-read for U.S.-based Asia specialists, “seem to indicate that Beijing may be approaching a level of exasperation and concern which will‑for the first time in real terms since 1994‑force China to accept and implement a real sanctions regime against the DPRK.”

Meanwhile, Obama administration officials suggested that Washington may be preparing to reimpose Bush-era financial sanctions against banks and companies suspected of conducting illicit transactions on behalf of Pyongyang.

At the same time, the administration’s response may be tempered by concern over the fate of two young Asian-American film-makers arrested by Pyongyang along the Chinese-North Korean border in March. On June 4, they are due to go on trial for “hostile acts” against the government.

Jim Lobe writes for PRA’s Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/) and the Inter Press Service. His blog on U.S. foreign policy is at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share