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.

Print Friendly

(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

Clare Lopez is a former CIA officer and rightwing activist who has argued that the Muslim Brotherhood and a shadowy “Iran Lobby” are working to shape Obama administration policy.


Michael Ledeen, a “Freedom Scholar” at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has long been obsessed with getting the U.S. to force regime change in Tehran.


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


The daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney has emerged as the most visible advocate of hardline security policies in the Cheney family.


Bret Stephens is a columnist for the New York Times who previously worked at the Wall Street Journal and the neoconservative flagship magazine Commentary.


Joe Lieberman, the neoconservative Democrat from Connecticut who retired from the Senate in 2013, co-chairs a foreign policy project at the American Enterprise Institute.


Former attorney general Edwin Meese, regarded as one of President Ronald Reagan’s closest advisers despite persistent allegations of influence peddling and bribery during his tenure, has been a consummate campaigner on behalf of rightist U.S. foreign and domestic policies. He currently serves as a distinguished visiting fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


Print Friendly

Trump’s reorganization of the foreign policy bureaucracy is an ideologically driven agenda for undermining the power and effectiveness of government institutions that could lead to the State Department’s destruction.


Print Friendly

Spurred by anti-internationalist sentiment among conservative Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration, the US is headed for a new confrontation with the UN over who decides how much the US should pay for peacekeeping.


Print Friendly

Decent developments in the Trump administration indicate that the neoconservatives, at one point on the margins of Washington’s new power alignments, are now on the ascendent?


Print Friendly

As the end of Donald Trump’s first 100 days as president approaches, it seems that his version of an “America-first” foreign policy is in effect a military-first policy aimed at achieving global hegemony, which means it’s a potential doomsday machine.


RightWeb
share