Tag: sanctions

China firm against sanctions-only approach toward North Koreahttps://t.co/hWZ52sJACS

— NorthKoreaRealTime (@BuckTurgidson79) January 27, 2016

38 North has an op-ed in response to the recent article that a ROK Drop favorite Joshua Stanton contributed to on CNN.  The author Joseph DeThomas doesn’t believe that the targeted sanctions that Stanton advocates for will work:

A recent op-ed by Sung-Yoon Lee and Joshua Stanton highlights what should happen in dealing with North Korea. Unfortunately, for this long-time practitioner in the field of nonproliferation sanctions, it also highlights what cannot happen—or at least what cannot happen at an acceptable level of risk with the limited knowledge and the complex agendas that policymakers face.

At the highest level of analysis, Lee and Stanton get some key points right. The effort of multiple US administrations to negotiate away the threat of North Korean nuclear weapons has been a truly bipartisan failure. Four US presidents—two of each party—have tried and yet it seems the story of failure repeats itself in very familiar ways. However, the authors certainly over-simplify the story of those efforts. It is worthy of note that the four administrations came at the problem from very different perspectives and initially tried tactics that ranged from highly confrontational to being predisposed to engagement. Yet, all ended up more or less in the same policy dead-end. This might lead one to suspect that the problem with North Korean policy might not rest primarily with naiveté in Washington but rather with a single-minded Pyongyang that has a very limited diplomatic repertoire.

Lee and Stanton are correct that it is extremely unlikely that any set of negotiated incentives will ever induce the DPRK to give up its nuclear weapons. They are probably also correct that—if North Korea were to be coerced into giving up its weapons—it would require regime-threatening measures to be put into play. But, that does not mean that such measures can be created at this time. Moreover, it does not mean they should be implemented unless a careful calculation of the costs and benefits can be made.  [38 North]

You can read the rest at the link.

A couple of interesting Op-eds have been published recently.  The first op-ed published on CNN includes Joshua Stanton a ROK Drop favorite that blogs over at One Free Korea.  The op-ed emphasizes two key points

The only way to change this equation is to persuade Pyongyang that its regime preservation is dependent on reform and disarmament.

Washington may achieve this with a two-pronged strategy targeting Pyongyang’s systemic vulnerabilities: First, block the Kim Jong Un regime’s offshore hard currency reserves and income with financial sanctions, including secondary sanctions against its foreign enablers. This would significantly diminish, if not altogether deny, Kim the means to pay his military, security forces and elites that repress the North Korean public.

Second, delegitimize Kim’s rule in the eyes of his people and the world by engaging them through broadcasting and other information operations directed at the North Korean people, reinforced by a sustained diplomatic campaign to demand accountability for the regime’s crimes against humanity.  [CNN]

Here is probably the most important paragraph of the op-ed:

Through each of Pyongyang’s previous nuclear and long-range missile tests, U.S. policymakers have harbored the illusion that Beijing’s patience with Pyongyang must have finally run out.

But all Beijing has done so far is demonstrate a disingenuous pattern of diplomatic ambidexterity. China will not solve the North Korea problem for the United States until China sees the Kim regime as a financial liability, a threat to its own security or a threat to stability along its own border.

The Kim regime knows that they can survive any sanctions as long as the Chinese continue to believe that regime stability is in their strategic interests.  This is why they continue to conduct provocations like the latest nuclear test despite Chinese objections because they know they can get away with it.  China’s strategic interests in regards to North Korea much shift before any real change in North Korea can occur.

.@BonnieGlaser says there are many more ways the US could pressure #DPRK by applying sanctions that have not yet been applied @HouseForeign

— CSIS Korea Chair (@CSISKoreaChair) January 13, 2016

I am not sure how much effect these sanctions will have on an individual or company from the Kim regime who is unlikely to own any assets in the US.  However, it should create a chilling effect on banks wanting to do business with these individuals and companies if the Treasury Department threatens these banks with losing access to the US banking system:

The United States imposed sanctions on North Korea’s ambassador to Myanmar on Friday for involvement in Pyongyang’s weapons proliferation efforts, the first time a sitting North Korean ambassador has been sanctioned.

The Treasury Department said it has added Amb. Kim Sok-chol to its Specially Designated Nationals List (SDN), along with three other North Koreans, Hwang Su-man, Kim Kwang-hyok and Ri Chong-chol, all of them linked to Korea Mining Development Trading Corp.(KOMID), accused of weapons proliferation.

The envoy operates as a KOMID facilitator, the department said.

“Today’s action is designed to counter North Korea’s attempts to circumvent U.S. and United Nations (UN) sanctions, as well as maintain the effectiveness of U.S. sanctions on individuals and entities that are linked to the North Korean Government’s weapons of mass destruction procurement network,” the department said.

Under the sanctions, any property or interest in property of the designated persons in the possession of U.S. persons or within U.S. jurisdiction must be frozen and transactions by U.S. persons involving the designated persons are generally prohibited, the department said.

“North Korea’s continued violation of international law and its commitment to the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction pose a serious threat to the United States and to global peace and security,” Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Adam J. Szubin said in the statement.

“Today’s designations underscore our ongoing efforts to obstruct the flow of funds used to augment North Korea’s nuclear capabilities,” he said.

In addition to the four individuals, the U.S. also sanctioned EKO Development and Investment Co., a North Korean government entity located in Egypt, for helping KOMID market North Korean weapons systems to foreign countries, the department said.  [Yonhap]

Yonhap: U.S. imposes sanctions on 2 N. Korea firms for missile technology proliferation: WASHINGTON… http://t.co/QNRBrex3wX #KoreaNews

— Korea News Summary (@ROKreport) September 30, 2015

These are just words on the part of the Chinese leader which are important, but I am more interested to see what action they would take in response to the next North Korean provocation:

In an apparent warning to North Korea, Chinese President Xi Jinping said Friday he opposes any action that violates U.N. Security Council resolutions as he and President Barack Obama reaffirmed their commitment to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.

Xi made the remark during a joint press conference after summit talks with Obama at the White House as concerns have grown that North Korea could launch a long-range rocket or conduct a nuclear test next month in violation of U.N. resolutions.

“We reaffirm our commitment to realize the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful way and we oppose any action that might cause tension in the Korean peninsula or violate U.N. Security Council resolutions,” Xi said.

Xi did not mention North Korea by name, but it was pretty clear that he was referring to Pyongyang.

It is highly unusual for a Chinese leader to publicly issue such a warning, given that Beijing has been reluctant to criticize North Korea and has usually urged all sides to exercise calm and restraint when it comes to tensions on the Korean Peninsula.”

Xi also said that a 2005 agreement on North Korea’s denuclearizations and U.N. resolutions should be “implemented in full and all relevant parties should work together to firmly advance the denuclearization process of the Korean peninsula and maintain peace and stability so as to achieve enduring peace and stability in Northeast Asia.”  [Yonhap]

You can read the rest at the link.

https://twitter.com/freekorea_us/status/619644495597043712

I wonder if the Iranians were using this shipment as a way to test US willingness to strike a deal?

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, right, welcomes North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Su Yong, for a meeting in Tehran, Iran, Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2014

North Korea supplied several shipments of missile components to Iran during recent nuclear talks and the transfers appear to violate United Nations sanctions on both countries, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

Since September more than two shipments of missile parts have been monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies as they transited from North Korea to Iran, said officials familiar with intelligence reports who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Details of the arms shipments were included in President Obama’s daily intelligence briefings and officials suggested information about the transfers was kept secret from the United Nations, which is in charge of monitoring sanctions violations.

Critics of the U.S.-led nuclear framework agreement reached in Switzerland earlier this month have said one major deficiency of the accord is its failure to address Iran’s missile program, considered a key nuclear delivery system for the Islamist regime.  [The Washington Free Beachon]

You can read the rest at the link, but if the Iranians saw that the US was allowing this ship to travel to Iran unmolested then that may have been a sign to the regime that the US was eager to cut a deal and overlook obvious sanctions violations. Anyone else have any other theories on the timing of this shipment?

This is an example of why I have always believed that when these ships are caught smuggling prohibited goods they should not be returned to North Korea because they are masters at building front companies to do their dirty business with.  If the ships were auctioned off after seizure there would at least be a steep financial cost on the regime for violating sanctions:

A North Korean shipping company that famously tried to hide fighter jets under a cargo of sugar later sought to evade U.N. sanctions by renaming most of its vessels, a new report says.

The effort by Pyongyang-headquartered Ocean Maritime Management Company, Ltd. is detailed in the report by a panel of experts that monitors sanctions on North Korea. The report, obtained by The Associated Press, makes clear the challenge of keeping banned arms and luxury goods from a nuclear-armed country with a history of using front companies to duck detection.

The U.N. Security Council holds consultations Thursday on the report, which also says North Korea’s government persists with its nuclear and missile programs in defiance of council resolutions.

North Korea’s mission to the U.N. did not respond to a request for comment.

The council last year imposed sanctions on OMM after Panama in 2013 seized a ship it operated that carried undeclared military equipment from Cuba. Panamanian authorities found two Cuban fighter jets, missiles and live munitions beneath the Chong Chon Gang’s cargo of sugar.

The council’s sanctions committee said that violated a U.N. arms embargo imposed in response to North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. At the time, U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said that imposing a global asset freeze on OMM meant that the company would no longer be able to operate internationally.

But the new report says that in the months after the sanctions were imposed, 13 of the 14 ships controlled by OMM changed their owners and managers, “effectively erasing” the company from a database kept by the International Maritime Organization. Twelve of the ships “reportedly stayed, visited or were sighted near ports in foreign countries,” and none were frozen by member states as the panel of experts recommends.

The new report explores the shipping company’s global reach, using people and entities operating in at least 10 countries: Brazil, China, Egypt, Greece, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Russia, Singapore and Thailand. The report recommends updating the sanctions list with 34 OMM entities and says all 14 vessels should be subject to sanctions.

No interdictions of the kind that Panama made in 2013 were reported in the period between Feb. 8 of last year and Feb. 5 of this year. But the new report warns that the panel of experts sees no evidence that North Korea “intends to cease prohibited activities.”  [Associated Press]

You can read more at the link.