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

The Foreign Policy Initiative, founded in 2009 by a host of neoconservative figures, was a leading advocate for a militaristic and Israel-centric U.S. foreign policies.


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a close confidante of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


Blackwater Worldwide founder Erik Prince is notorious for his efforts to expand the use of private military contractors in conflict zones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mark Dubowitz, an oft-quoted Iran hawk, is the executive director of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The time has come for a new set of partnerships to be contemplated between the United States and Middle East states – including Iran – and between regimes and their peoples, based on a bold and inclusive social contract.


Print Friendly

Erik Prince is back. He’s not only pitching colonial capitalism in DC. He’s huckstering ex-SF-led armies of sepoys to wrest Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and perhaps, if he is ever able to influence likeminded hawks in the Trump administration, even Iran back from the infidels.


Print Friendly

Encouraged by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statement late last month that Washington favors “peaceful” regime change in Iran, neoconservatives appear to be trying to influence the internal debate by arguing that this is Trump’s opportunity to be Ronald Reagan.


Print Friendly

When asked about “confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing in world affairs,” 22 percent of those surveyed as part of a recent Pew Research Center global poll expressed confidence in Donald Trump and 74 percent expressed no confidence.


Print Friendly

A much-awaited new State Department volume covering the period 1951 to 1954 does not reveal much new about the actual overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq but it does provide a vast amount of information on US involvement in Iran.


Print Friendly

As debate continues around the Trump administration’s arms sales and defense spending, am new book suggests several ways to improve security and reduce corruption, for instance by increasing transparency on defense strategies, including “how expenditures on systems and programs align with the threats to national security.”


Print Friendly

Lobelog We walked in a single file. Not because it was tactically sound. It wasn’t — at least according to standard infantry doctrine. Patrolling southern Afghanistan in column formation limited maneuverability, made it difficult to mass fire, and exposed us to enfilading machine-gun bursts. Still, in 2011, in the Pashmul District of Kandahar Province, single…


RightWeb
share