-
Best Defense
Robots: Killing Our Warrior Spirit?
-
The Cable
Whistleblower: I'm Being Bullied By State Dept.
-
Passport
Syria: Is It the Sunnis' or Shiites' Fault?
Posted By Colum Lynch
Tuesday, April 2, 2013 - 1:49 PM
The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly this morning to create the first international treaty regulating the global arms trade, a landmark decision that imposes new constraints on the sale of conventional arms to governments and armed groups that commit war crimes, genocide, and other mass atrocities.
The U.N. vote was hailed by arms control advocates and scores of governments, including the United States, as a major step in the international effort to enforce basic controls on the $70 billion international arms trade. But it was denounced by Iran, North Korea, and Syria, for imposing new restrictions that prevent smaller states from buying and selling arms to ensure their self-defense.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry praised the General Assembly for approving "a strong, effective and implementable arms trade treaty that can strengthen global security while protecting the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade."
Kerry said that the treaty "applies only to international trade and reaffirms the sovereign right of any state to regulate arms within its territory. As the U.S. has required from the outset of these negotiations, nothing in this treaty could ever infringe on the rights of American citizens under our domestic law or the Constitution, including the Second Amendment."
Kerry said the treaty would establish "a common national standard" -- similar to that already in place in the United States -- for regulating global trade in conventional arms. It would also reduce the risk that arms sales would be used to "carry out the world's worst crimes, including terrorism, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes."
The 193 member assembly voted 154 to 3 to adopt the treaty. There were 23 abstentions, including major arms traders like China, India, and Russia, as well as countries, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, that have been supplying weapons to armed opposition groups in Syria, The treaty, which will open for signatures on June 3, will go into force 90 days after it is ratified by 50 states.
The vote came four days after Iran, North Korea, and Syria -- three governments who would likely be targeted by the new measures -- blocked the adoption of the treaty by consensus, arguing that it failed to bar sales to armed groups or foreign occupiers, and that it would strengthen the ability of big powers to restrict small states' ability to buy weapons.
But the vote revealed broader misgivings about the treaty by dozens of countries -- including Egypt, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan -- that the treaty would grant an unfair advantage to the world's largest arms exporters. India's chief negotiator, Sujata Mehta, explained her government's decision to abstain, saying today that the treaty "is weak on terrorism and non-state actors." She previously objected that the "weight of obligations is tilted against importing states."
The United States, which co-sponsored the treaty, said that several U.S. agencies will conduct a review of the treaty before it is presented to President Barack Obama for signature. The treaty would also require ratification by the United States Senate.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) -- which has contended the treaty would weaken Second Amendment gun rights in the United States -- has pledged to fight the treaty's ratification in the Senate.
But U.S. officials and several non-governmental organizations, including the American Bar Association, an attorneys' lobbying group, have challenged the NRA's position, saying the treaty would have no impact on Americans' gun rights. The treaty language recognizes the "legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities."
Iran, meanwhile, protested last week that the treaty had provided specific protections for U.S. gun owners, while failing to provide protections for people living under foreign occupation.
Under the treaty, states are banned from transferring arms to countries, including Iran and North Korea, that are subject to U.N. arms embargoes, or to countries believed to be preparing to use them to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes.
The treaty would require governments to establish a national record-keeping system that would allow them to track the trade in conventional arms, and to ensure that weapons are not illegally diverted to terrorist organizations or other armed groups. It would also require that governments conduct a risk assessment to determine the likelihood that arms exports are being used to violate or abuse human rights, particularly against women or children.
The arms treaty would apply to several categories of conventional arms, including battle tanks, combat aircraft, warships, attack helicopters, missiles, and small arms. The treaty includes exemptions that would allow the consideration of defense cooperation agreements between governments and allow states to transfer weapons across international borders, so long as the weapons remain under that state's control.
Follow me on Twitter @columlynch
Posted By Colum Lynch
Friday, March 8, 2013 - 11:53 AM
Listening to North Korea's response to the latest round of U.N. sanctions, one might be forgiven for thinking that there is no U.N. Security Council, or China, for that matter.
It was America that did this to us.
In advance of Thursday's decision by the 15-nation council to impose additional sanctions on Pyongyang, the North Korean leadership threatened to go nuclear; but its target was Washington D.C., not the Security Council's 1st Ave. home in New York, and certainly not Beijing.
Labeling the Obama administration a "criminal threatening global peace" the Hermit Kingdom vowed preemptive nuclear action if the United States pressed ahead with the sanctions vote. It also announced it would revoke all its non-aggression deals with South Korea, America's "puppet."
"Since the United States is about to ignite a nuclear war, we will be exercising our right to preemptive nuclear attack against the headquarters of the aggressor in order to protect our supreme interest," said Pyongyang.
The United States, and the Security Council, brushed off the North Korean threat as another rhetorical blast signifying little. "Let us be clear: We are fully capable of dealing with that threat," White House spokesman Jay Carney, assured reporters, citing Pyongyang's limited ballistic missile capability.
That asymmetry may be at the heart of why North Korea continues to test its ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons in defiance of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions.
The country's new leader likely feels that the tests help consolidate his hold on power at home. And clearly, he is seeking to rattle his new South Korean counterpart at a time of political transition. Or maybe, as Jennifer Lind, an associate professor at Dartmouth University, suggested in a piece in Foreign Affairs, North Korea is simply conducting nuclear and ballistic missile tests because that what you need to do to improve your arsenal.
Whatever the motivation, North Korea has ample cause to blame the United States for its latest troubles. The United States took the lead in negotiating the past five Security Council sanctions resolutions.
But the most recent spate of sanctions wouldn't have happened without North Korea's dearest friend and benefactor, China.
The resolution adopted by the council on Thursday was hammered out in closed door negotiations between Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and her Chinese counterpart, Li Baodong. It was presented to the other council members as a joint U.S.-China resolution. And while Li had initially resisted the American push for sanctions, he finally came around and pledged to ensure that the council's measures are implemented in full.
That means China -- however grudgingly -- is on board for a sweeping range of financial, diplomatic, and military sanctions, including a humiliating luxury ban designed to deny Kim Jong Un and his inner circle the ability to buy yachts, racing cars, and fine jewelry.
So why hasn't Kim's propaganda brigade laid a glove on Beijing?
Analysts believe that while Beijing is truly irked by Pyongyang's nuclear bravado, its primary goal is avoiding a collapse of the regime, which could result in the flight of huge numbers of refugees into China, and lay the groundwork for Korea's unification and the possible deployment of Korean and American forces closer to its border.
"We have been socialized into expecting so little from China that there's excitement when China shows even a bit of sternness," wrote Victor Cha, Korea chair of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Ellen Kim, a fellow at the CSIS. But they added: "In the past, China-DPRK trade has increased in the aftermath of U.N. sanctions."
Dartmouth's Lind told Turtle Bay that Pyongyang "probably understands it is walking a pretty fine line when it comes to China" and does not want to antagonize its neighbor any more than it already has.
On the one hand, she said, Pyongyang's leadership recognizes that Beijing has an interest in preserving the North Korean regime to serve as a buffer between South Korea and its military protector, the United States. But she added that Beijing's relationship with Pyongyang threatens to become increasingly estranged as China's global interests diverge.
"China has growing interests and it wants to be a leading power. North Korea is like one of those friends you had in high school that you are a little embarrassed of when you get older," said Lind.
Follow me on Twitter @columlynch
Posted By Colum Lynch
Tuesday, March 5, 2013 - 6:43 PM
We know he loves basketball.
But how does North Korean leader Kim Jong Un feel about car racing?
A new U.S. and Chinese draft resolution condemning North Korea's latest nuclear test has imposed a broad range of measures aimed at limiting the regime's ability to develop its nuclear and ballistic missile program. But buried in the list of items barred from importation into North Korea are a handful of luxury items, including high-end jewelry, pleasure yachts, luxury automobiles, and race cars.
The U.N. Security Council had previously prohibited the export of luxury goods into North Korea in 2006, but it never specified which products should be considered luxurious enough to be banned. In April 2007, a U.N. sanctions committee ruled that each member state would be responsible for determining what fell under the ban. In Italy, high-end tap shoes were enough to trigger airport security to act. In Austria, government authorities cracked down on a businessman selling luxury yachts to the North Koreans.
A U.N. panel responsible for monitoring U.N. sanctions against North Korea in 2010 documented six illegal purchases of luxury goods by the North Koreans, including 2 yachts, 12 Mercedes-Benz vehicles, 37 pianos, and high-end cosmetics. In 2009, Italian customs officials at Fiumicino Airport in Rome seized "a shipment of electronic items, including a projector, some amplifiers and other electronic equipment suitable for a cinema hall seating 1,000 people." Later that year, Italian authorities in the Port of Ancona seized 150 bottles of cognac and 270 bottles of whisky.
"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea remains actively engaged in the illicit procurement of luxury goods," the panel concluded. "Some of the luxury goods, such as the acquisition of the two luxury yachts, were facilitated by Office 39 of the Korean Workers' Party and obviously destined for use by senior regime figures."
China has always viewed the luxury ban as excessive -- a gratuitous penalty promoted by the west to humiliate the North Korean leadership -- and it has largely refused to enforce it. Commercial flights from Beijing to Pyongyang are routinely packed with luxury goods, according to an official who was recently in the country.
So China's agreement to ban specific luxury goods provides an indication of how angry Beijing must be at its troublesome neighbor and ally.
But will a ban on race cars really bite? A cursory search through Google and Nexis didn't turn up any stories about Formula 1 races or the leader's love of fast cars -- though I did come across a few stories about a new online car racing game based in Pyongyang.
My guess is that the new U.N. list was based on a luxury watchlist assembled by the U.S. Commerce Department, which includes racing cars, tobacco, silk, leather, furs, fake furs, perfumes, cosmetics, designer clothes, pearl- and gem-encrusted jewelry, flat-screen televisions, laptop computers, snowmobiles and ... recreational sports equipment. Hmmm, I wonder if they ban basketballs. Now, that would hurt.
Follow me on Twitter @columlynch
Posted By Colum Lynch
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 6:30 PM
As the U.N. Security Council weighs its reaction to North Korea's third and largest nuclear test, leader Kim Jong Un's government gave diplomats in New York something new to chew on.
Speaking at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, the North Korean official Jon Yong Ryong warned the gathering of international diplomats that his government was prepared to take action against South Korea.
"As the saying goes, a new-born puppy knows no fear of a tiger. South Korea's erratic behavior would only herald its final destruction," he said.
The remarks came on a day when South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak delivered his farewell address to the nation he will cease leading on Monday, when a new South Korean leader, Park Geun-hye, will take up the reins of power. Clearly, the North Korean leadership was hoping to see him off with a final goodbye kick on his way out.
But it was the second time in a week that North Korea has threatened military action, raising concerns in New York that Pyongyang is eager to stay on a path of confrontation for a bit longer. Last week, the North Korean government issued a similar statement warning the United States that it was prepared to take action if Washington pursues further steps to rein in its activities.
"If the United States makes the situation complicated by remaining hostile through the end we will have no choice but to take serial measures with more intense second and third response," the statement warned. It added that the interdiction of North Korean vessels "will be instantly regarded as an act of war and will lead to our relentless retaliatory strikes on their bases."
Last week, Reuters reported that North Korea has informed China, its most important ally, that is is preparing for a new round of missile launches or nuclear tests. The move suggested that Kim Jong Un, far from looking for a way to lower the temperature, was turning up the furnace.
But to what end?
North Korea's threats are unlikely to soften the Western response to its nuclear test. On Monday, the European Union agreed to impose a new round of sanctions aimed at further isolating North Korea from the international financial and banking communities.
Perhaps North Korea is hoping to scare China into blocking a new round of more intrusive U.N. financial and diplomatic sanctions being pressed by the United States and its Asian and European allies. In their preliminary discussion with Security Council colleagues, Chinese diplomats have urged their Western partners not to overact to the North Korean action. But some officials say that China, infuriated by North Korean's refusal to heed its calls for restraint, is now prepared to inflict some pain on its troublesome neighbor.
Some U.N. diplomats said they believe that North Korea is simply trying to strengthen its hand in its dealing with the United States.
"When a mischievous boy wants to get a girl's attention he will pull her pigtail," said one Asian diplomat who follows the issue. The main goal of the tough talk, the official said, is to scare the United States into re-engaging with North Korea. "I think the new leadership wants to show the Americans that they are capable of escalating."
George Lopez, a former member of a U.N. Security Council panel monitoring sanctions on North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, said Pyongyang's threats follow the usual pattern: "lots of bombast, lots of defiance, and then a moment of calm when they say let's talk."
But he said the world is confronting a country with a renewed level of self-confidence, brought on by a pair of highly successful ballistic missile and nuclear tests, within a very short time frame. "I don't treat this as bluster. They want to make a definitive statement that we are a power that needs to be dealt with," Lopez said.
"The United States is going to say we've been here before, but North Korea wants to present itself as having risen to a qualitatively different stage" in its military status.
Follow me on Twitter @columlynch
Posted By Colum Lynch
Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 4:49 PM
Two decades of U.N. condemnations, threats, and sanctions have not stopped North Korea's nuclear ambitions. So, what does the Security Council have left to throw at Pyongyang?
The U.N. Security Council first called on North Korea to rein in its nuclear ambitions in 1993; more than a decade later, in 2006, it imposed its first round of sanctions to compel Pyongyang to freeze its nuclear and ballistic missile tests.
The U.N. pressure campaign -- punctuated by perennial bouts of nuclear diplomacy with Pyongyang -- has left Democratic and Republican administrations with little to show for their efforts. During the Obama administration, the Security Council has expanded the sanctions and threatened four times to impose additional penalties on North Korea if it continues to flout international demands to halt its nuclear program.
Pyongyang demonstrated once again this week it has no intention to heed those threats. In a press statement issued shortly after North Korea set off its third nuclear test on Monday, Pyongyang responded to the chorus of international condemnation with the usual bluster: North Korea, the statement asserted, has been forced to develop a nuclear deterrent to counter what it calls a "hostile" U.S. campaign to threaten its existence, and deprive it of what it sees as its legitimate right to launch satellites into space.
"If the United States makes the situation complicated by remaining hostile through the end we will have no choice but to take serial measures with more intense second and third response," the statement warned. It added that the interdiction of North Korean vessels "will be instantly regarded as an act of war and will lead to our relentless retaliatory strikes on their bases."
Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, hit back, pledging a "swift, credible, and strong response by way of a Security Council resolution that further impedes the growth of DPRK's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs and its abilities to engage in proliferation actions."
But Rice encountered immediate resistance from China during the council's closed door session on Tuesday. China's deputy U.N. envoy, Wang Min, said that Beijing was firmly opposed to North Korea's action and underscored the importance of a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. But he also sought to water down the council's response, initially arguing that the nuclear test posed no threat to international peace and security and needed to be addressed through dialogue with the government.
Wang ultimately yielded on that point after Rice read out North Korea's statement to the council, in which she posed a simple question: How can North Korea's nuclear test, coupled with a threat to strike out at the United States, not constitute a threat to international peace and security?
But Wang secured a concession -- the removal of a provision underlining the council's intent to begin negotiation of a Security Council resolution under Chapter Seven -- that signaled China's ongoing reluctance to impose further sanctions on North Korea. (Chapter Seven is the provision in the U.N. Charter that it invokes for the imposition of sanctions). In its place, the council issued a statement pledging to consider "appropriate measures" in response to Pyongyang's action. Western diplomats noted that previous North Korean nuclear tests have resulted in Chapter Seven resolutions, and it would be unthinkable that a resolution adopted in response to the latest test would not be under Chapter Seven.
So what measures could the U.N. Security Council take, short of military action (which virtually no country advocates), to convince North Korea to halt its nuclear program?
North Korea is already perhaps the most isolated country in the world. Its trade is scrutinized at foreign ports. Ships carrying North Korean supplies are routinely boarded and searched. Its banks largely shy away from doing business in the world's main financial markets.
Rice provided few details, saying simply that the United States would seek to "tighten" and "augment" a set of existing sanctions aimed at limiting North Korea's capacity to develop its weapons programs. The U.S. envoy recalled that the Security Council had just warned Pyongyang last month that it would face "significant action" from the council if it launched a ballistic missile or tested a nuclear weapon. "And indeed, we will do so," she assured reporters.
Turtle Bay has compiled a list of possible sanctions targets:
- For a start, the U.N. Security Council could strengthen a set of financial sanctions that are designed to restrict North Korea's access to international financial markets. In January, the council adopted a resolution that calls on governments to "exercise enhanced vigilance" in preventing their nationals from engaging in financial transactions linked to North Korea's ballistic missile or nuclear program. Those provisions could be made mandatory.
- The Security Council sanctions are primarily targeted at North Korean ballistic missile and nuclear technology. Sanctions could be expanded to hit other segments of North Korea's already ailing economy. While this approach could increase economic pressure on the leadership in Pyongyang, it would likely contribute to even further hardship and suffering for ordinary North Koreans, with limited chance of changing government behavior. The North Korean leadership has been willing to allow its people to endure extreme hardship, and China would never assent to a sanctions strategy that threatened to tip North Korea into chaos, triggering a potential exodus of starving citizens across the border into China.
- Expand the category of goods that North Korea cannot trade. The U.N. Security Council has identified a long laundry list of dual-use industrial items -- from vacuum pumps to high grade maraging steel -- that can potentially be used in a ballistic missile program or in the construction of centrifuges. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said that the council could tighten the chokehold by expanding the prohibition on the range of prohibited items. "I think it works better to simply say all goods that could be used in a nuclear program are prohibited," Albright said. "It's easier to detect and enforce. And it will cause a lot more disruption in their supply chain."
- When the Security Council wants to ratchet up pressure on North Korea it has periodically added the names of individuals and companies to its sanctions black list. The North Koreans have sought to circumvent that move by creating front companies and changing the names of enterprises hit with financial sanctions. Expect to see the council add to that list.
- The U.N. Security Council has already imposed fairly comprehensive arms embargo on North Korea. But there is one glaring exemption: small arms. China has blocked previous efforts to include these weapons. Look for that exemption to come up for review.
- Infuriated by North Korea's 2006 nuclear and ballistic missile tests, Japan then quietly floated a proposal for a naval blockade on North Korea. The initiative never saw the light of day and is almost certainly not going to get past this time around. "It's a bridge too far," said one diplomat, explaining that virtually no one thinks it's sensible to cut off the already isolated government entirely, saying it could fuel mass starvation.
- The U.N. Security Council has already provided states with wide scope to search vessels transporting North Korean goods at port. The search and seizure provision has served to harass North Korean shippers, leading to the seizure of prohibited goods. The U.N. has not authorized states to board vessels in international waters -- a step that would bring the council into conflict with the seafaring protections contained in the Law of the Sea. And there is little chance that the council will push any further in that direction.
The 800-pound gorilla in the debate about the effectiveness of any sanctions is China. By the end of 2010, the last date for which there are records, China's trade with North Korea had boomed, surpassing $3.06 billion, up nearly 10 percent over 2008, according to figures cited by a U.N. panel monitoring enforcement of the North Korea sanctions.
A major share of North Korea's imports arrive via the Chinese port of Dalian, or across the border by land. George Lopez, a professor of peace studies at Notre Dame University and former member of a Security Council panel monitoring North Korea sanctions, said China could have a major impact on the sanctions if it enforced them more aggressively.
For instance, he said, they could conduct random inspections of goods entering the country, and they apply pressure on Chinese companies that trade with the north not to supply prohibited goods. Chinese banks, he added, could choose to clamp down on financial transactions by firms suspected of violating sanctions. But he said the United States may have to convince Beijing that it recognizes its interest in forestalling a collapse of the North Korean economy, and provide greater assurances that it has no intention to back the downfall of the regime in Pyongyang.
Follow me on Twitter @columlynch
Posted By Colum Lynch
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 1:49 PM
The U.N. Security Council this morning issued a statement that "strongly condemns" North Korea's detonation of nuclear explosives as a "grave threat" to world peace and pledged to immediately start negotiations on a legally binding Security Council resolution that would impose unspecified new measures against Pyongyang.
The council statement was read out by South Korea's Foreign Minister Kim Sung Hwan, whose government is serving as the Security Council's president for the month of February. Speaking on behalf of his country, Kim said the "nuclear test poses a direct challenge to the whole international community" and that Pyonygang "will be held responsible for any consequences of this provocative act."
The 15-nation council's action set the stage for another high-level U.S.-led effort to convince China to support a tougher Security Council resolution on Pyongyang's provocation. Western governments were hopeful that North Korea's open defiance of its powerful benefactor in Beijing would support fresh penalties against its leadership.
The blast on Monday comes about two months after Pyongyang launched a satellite into space in violation of U.N. resolutions and just weeks after the Security Council adopted a resolution expanding the list of North Korean individuals and companies subject to U.N. sanctions. Before the meeting, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, who negotiated that resolution with the Chinese, sounded an exasperated note as she prepared for a new round of negotiations. "We'll do the usual drill," said Rice.
Following today's meeting, Rice said the United States would seek to "augment" the range of financial and diplomatic sanctions on Pyongyang. "The Security Council must and will deliver a swift, credible and strong response by way of a Security Council resolution that further impedes the growth of [North Korea's] nuclear and ballistic missile programs."
Rice recalled that the Security Council had previously warned North Korea that it would undertake "significant action" against Pyongyang in the event of another nuclear or ballistic missile test "and indeed we will do so."
Any action in the council will require the backing of China, which has the power to veto any Security Council decisions. It remain unclear how far Beijing was prepared to go in punishing its neighbor. China issued a statement that reiterated its previous call on North Korea "not to take any further actions that would worsen the situation" and counseling caution by Western powers not to overreact.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, a former South Korean foreign minister, also denounced North Korea, telling the Security Council: "I strongly condemn Pyongyang's reckless act, which shows outright disregard for the repeated call of the international community to refrain from further provocative measures. The test is a clear and grave violation of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council."
"I am profoundly concerned about the negative impact of this act on regional stability. It is deplorable that Pyongyang has chosen the path of defiance," Ban added.
"This third nuclear test by Pyongyang is a serious challenge to global efforts to curb nuclear proliferation. The DPRK is the only country that has carried out nuclear tests in the 21st century. The authorities in Pyongyang should not be under any illusion that nuclear weapons will enhance their security. To the contrary, as Pyongyang pursues nuclear weapons, it will suffer only greater insecurity and isolation."
Follow me on Twitter @columlynch
Posted By Colum Lynch
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 7:59 PM
Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has a reputation for diplomatic sparring. Her battles with the Russian envoy, Vitaly Churkin, and the French ambassador, Gerard Araud, have been epic.
But Rice has generally held her punches in negotiations with Li Baodong, China's reserved, formal, U.N. envoy -- a man who has shown little taste for the diplomatic joust.
That is, until now. Early today, the big power envoys squared off in a closed-door Security Council session over competing views about how the 15-nation body should react to North Korea's missile launch.
Rice urged the Security Council to swiftly respond to North Korea's surprise launch of a satellite (via a ballistic missile) with a statement condemning Pyongyang's action as a violation of U.N. resolutions and characterizing it as a provocative act that "undermines regional stability."
Li pushed back, saying that there was no need to condemn North Korea, and that its test constituted no threat to regional stability.
"That's ridiculous," Rice shot back, according to one of three council diplomats who described the encounter.
"Ridiculous?" a visibly angered Li responded through an interpreter. "You better watch your language."
"Well, it's in the Oxford dictionary, and Churkin -- if he were in the room -- he would know how to take it," retorted Rice.
The reference to Oxford dictionary refers to Churkin's riposte, in December 2011, to a public broadside by Rice, who charged him with making "bogus claims" about alleged NATO war crimes in Libya to divert attention from charges of war crimes against its Syrian ally.
"This is not an issue that can be drowned out by expletives. You might recall the words one could hear: bombast and bogus claims, cheap stunt, duplicitous, redundant, superfluous, stunt," said Churkin to Rice. "Oh, you know, you cannot beat a Stanford education, can you?" said Churkin, mocking Rice's alma mater. Rice, a former Rhodes scholar, later noted that she also went to Oxford.
Today, however, Li countered that Rice's remarks were consistent with an American foreign policy approach that seeks to impose its will on other states.
In the end, however, Rice and her council allies were able to secure a clear condemnation of Pyongyang, though they dropped the provision suggesting the test has undermined regional stability. A Security Council statement condemned the missile launch, calling it a "clear violation" of U.N. Security Council resolutions banning ballistic missile tests. The council took note that it threatened last April to take action against North Korea if it launched further tests, and it vowed to "continue consultations on an appropriate response."
The United States, working with Japan and South Korea, is expected to lead efforts in the coming weeks to forge a tougher council reaction, preferably a resolution imposing sanctions. But they are expected to encounter tough resistance from China, which indicated it was not prepared to support a confrontational resolution penalizing Pyongyang, according to council diplomats.
And the man Rice will have to persuade to impose the council's will on North Korea is her new sparring partner, Li Baodong.
Follow me on Twitter @columlynch
Andrew Burton/Getty Images
Posted By Colum Lynch
Friday, April 13, 2012 - 2:30 PM
The U.N. Security Council issued a mild statement deploring North Korea's failed launch of a satellite rocket on Friday, but stopped short of imposing any fresh penalties on the government for its defiance of previous U.N. demands.
U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, who is presiding over the council's rotating presidency this month, said that Pyongyang had violated two U.N. Security Council resolutions banning missile launches.
"The Security Council deplored this launch, which is in violation of Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874," said Rice, speaking on behalf of the 15-nation council. "Members of the Security Council agree to continue consultations on an appropriate response."
The mild response reflected concern among key council members, including China, that a harsh rebuke could complicate international efforts to contain the nuclear power, prompting North Korea to respond with a fresh nuclear test. It set the stage for lengthy discussions at the U.N. on how to calibrate the council's response.
U.S. officials say they are unlikely to pursue a new round of tough sanctions on Pyongyang in the Security Council, but that they would seek to tighten the enforcement of existing U.N. sanctions. The White House, meanwhile, announced it was backing away from plans to provide humanitarian assistance to North Korea.
The move followed a public rebuke of North Korea from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's office. A spokesman for Ban, who is in Geneva, issued a statement saying that "despite its failure, the launch of the so-called "application satellite" by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on 13 April, 2012, is deplorable as it defies the firm and unanimous stance of the international community."
"The Secretary General renews his call on DPRK authorities to work towards building confidence with neighboring countries and improving the life of its people," read the statement. Ban also reaffirmed his commitment to "helping the people of DPRK, in particular, addressing the serious food and nutrition needs of the most vulnerable."
Follow me on Twitter @columlynch
JUNG YEON-JE/AFP/Getty Images
Posted By Colum Lynch
Thursday, December 29, 2011 - 2:55 PM
The U.N. flew its flag at half-staff this week for recently departed North Korean ruler Kim Jong Il, honoring the passing of one of the world's most repressive political leaders and ending an internal debate about whether it was appropriate to do so.
When Kim's death was announced, the U.N. flew its flag half-staff at its headquarters in Pyongyang, but not at U.N. headquarters, where the flag is traditionally lowered upon news of the death of a head of state.
U.N. officials in New York debated whether Kim should be granted the honor, since he had never been recognized within his own country as the head of state.
That distinction had been reserved for his father Kim Il Sung, who was posthumously named North Korea's president for eternity following his death on July 8, 1994. In 1998, North Korea amended its constitution to "hold the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung in his esteem as the Eternal President of the Republic."
But the U.N., which has been expanding its humanitarian operations this year in North Korea, known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, has been struggling to walk a fine line between avoiding being seen as honoring one of the world's nastiest regimes while trying not to offend the government as it goes through a delicate succession.
"This case is unique," a senior U.N. official explained to Turtle Bay. "Everything in that country is unique. I can't think of another country where the head of state is permanently dead."
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's office issued a statement offering his condolences to the people of North Korea upon Kim's death, though not to his government, and vowed continued support for the desperately poor North Korean people.
"The Secretary-General has learned that the leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), Kim Jong-il, passed away," read the Dec. 19 statement. "The Secretary-General extends his sympathy to the people of the DPRK at this time of their national mourning."
But on Wednesday, the U.N. relented and agreed to set its flag at half-staff at all of its offices around the world after the North Koreans asked.
"We were requested by the DPRK mission [to fly the flag at half-staff] on the day of the funeral and as a matter or protocol we did it," Ban's spokesman Eduardo Del Buey told Turtle Bay. "These decisions are taken in consultation with the members states and when we take a look."
Asked if this meant the United Nations had finally recognized Kim as the country's head of state, Del Buey said "you have to ask the DPRK mission to tell you who their head of state is and was." I'm still waiting for the answer.
Follow me on Twitter @columlynch
STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images
Posted By Colum Lynch
Saturday, January 1, 2011 - 10:31 PM
Ban Ki moon has never been known as a straight talker. But tonight he seemed to reach new heights of circumspection, seemingly declaring his intention to run for a second five-year term as secretary general without actually saying so.
The revelation was buried in an official U.N. readout of a New Year's day exchange Ban had with South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak. In it, Ban offers his best wishes to the South Korean president-- the only leader to be so honored-- underscoring the importance the U.N.'s South Korean secretary general continues to place in maintaining close ties with the government that helped promote his rise to the world's top diplomatic job.
Ban's readout--which was issued Saturday evening without fanfare and while most of the press corps was on holiday -- seemed innocuous enough on first glance. Ban praised Seoul for its "active contribution to the work of the United Nations, including through an increase in overseas development assistance and greater participation in peace operations, as well as to global efforts to address climate change and promote green growth," according to the readout. Ban also lauded Lee for his "successful" hosting of a G-20 summit and for South Korea's continued "economic and social development" in 2o10.
For good measure, the readout notes that Ban and Lee discussed the crisis on the Korean peninsula. Ban -- who has been seeking a mediation role there since his first months as secretary general-- said he appreciated Lee's recent decision to try to resolve the nuclear standoff through the resumption of six-nation political talks, a move that effectively sidelines the U.N. Still, Ban appeared hopeful, offering once again to "provide any assistance, as appropriate, in facilitating peace and stability in the region in close coordination with the concerned countries."
But down in the final sentence of the readout, Ban's office blandly notes that the "secretary general looks forward to the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit to be hosted by the ROK[Republic of Korea], an event which would significantly contribute to strengthening the global nuclear non-proliferation regime." A careful reader will recall that Ban's first five-year term expires at the end of 2011, meaning he would need to be reelected in order to attend the Korean summit as secretary general.
Although Ban has signaled for months his intention to run for a second term, he has been declined to publicly announce his plans. Pressed on his intentions last month during a year-end press conference, Ban appealed for patience but said he would make his intention known soon. I'm not sure whether this counts.
Follow me on Twitter @columlynch
Posted By Colum Lynch
Saturday, December 18, 2010 - 8:25 PM
The Russian government called today for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council to try to ease a standoff between North Korea and South Korea, and launched an initiative to enlist U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki moon's support in trying to calm tensions between the Korean rivals.
The move came as South Korea prepared for an artillery drill on an island near the North Korean border. North Korea said it would retaliate against the south if it proceeds with the drill, which was delayed today because of poor weather.
The United States, which is in the presidency of the Security Council, has backed the south's plan to carry out a military drill. At Russia's request, it has scheduled a Security Council meeting for Sunday morning at 11 A.M.
The Russian initiative comes nearly a month after North Korean troops opened fire on Yeonpyeong Island on November 23, killing four South Korean nationals. South Korea recently announced plans to carry out a live artillery drill in the waters southwest of Yeonpeong between December 18-21.
Russia began criculating a confidential draft statement to Security Council. The draft, which was obtained by Turtle Bay, calls "on all parties concerned to excercise maximum restraint" and stressed the need to undertake steps to de-escalate the conflict. It also requests the U.N. secretary general dispatch a special envoy to Seoul and Pyongyang to "consult on urgent measures to settle peacefully the current crisis situation in the Korean Peninsula."
"We are seriously concerned about possible further
escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula," said Russia's U.N. envoy Vitaly I. Churkin,
according to Reuters. The situation there, he added, "directly affects the national
security interests of the Russian Federation."
Ban, South Korea's former foreign minister, has long sought a role in mediating the dispute on the Korean Pensinsula. But he has faced resistance from the key powers -- including China, the United States and Japan -- managing stalled political talks with North Korea.
Here is a copy of the Russian draft statement
Draft Press Statement of the President of the Security Council
The Members of the Security Council have
considered in an emergency meeting of the Council on 18 December 2010 a
dangerous aggravation of the situation in the Korean peninsula. They
heard a briefing by _____________________.The Members of the Security Council called
upon all parties concerned to exercise maximum restraint and to avoid
any steps which could cause a further escalation of tension in the
Korean peninsula and the entire region.The Members of the Security Council stressed
the need to undertake efforts to ensure a de-escalation of tension in
the relations between the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea, resumption of dialogue and resolution of all
problems dividing them exclusively through peaceful diplomatic means.The Members of the Security Council
requested the Secretary-General of the United Nations to dispatch
without delay his special representative to the Republic of Korea and
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to consult on urgent measures
to settle peacefully the current crisis situation in the Korean
peninsula.The Members of the Security Council also
requested the Secretary-General of the United Nations to stay in close
coordination with other countries concerned in this regard.Follow me on Twitter @columlynch
Posted By Colum Lynch
Friday, July 9, 2010 - 7:08 PM
Friday's U.N. Security Council statement condemning the March sinking the South Korean warship Cheonan, but not fingering the culprit, may look like another example of the grubby compromises required to close a deal here.
But it could have been a lot worse. In the final stages of the closed door negotiations of the text, North Korea's veto-wielding champion, China's U.N. envoy Li Baodong, sought to gut the statement of any language that even hinted at North Korean responsibility, diplomats familiar with the talks told Turtle Bay.
China's efforts on behalf of North Korea reflected Beijing's concern that its nuclear-armed neighbor might respond provocatively if it were confronted by a direct charge of committing an act of war. So, China dedicated weeks of its considerable diplomatic firepower to lessening the sting of the U.N. response.
For instance, China proposed replacing four references in the statement to the word "attack "-- as in the Cheonan suffered an attack -- for the milder words "incident" and "act," those officials said. The watered down language would have made it easier for North Korea to suggest, for example, that the Cheonan had been split in two by accident.
So, instead of condemning the "attack which led to the sinking of the Cheonan," the Chinese wanted to condemn the "act which led to the sinking of the Cheonan." It may not sound like much of a difference. But it's an important one: the American negotiators, led by U.S. ambassador Susan E. Rice, have based their contention that the U.N. statement really does blame North Korea for torpedoing the South Korea vessel on the fact that nobody else but Seoul's mortal enemy, North Korea, had a motive for mounting an attack.
"This statement is notable, and I think is clear because in the first instance, it uses the term attack repeatedly, which you don't have to be a scholar of the English language to understand it's not a neutral term," Rice said.
China also sought to remove any language indicating that the council "expresses its deep concern" over the findings of a South Korean-led allied investigation into the attack. That provision, which stayed in the final text, provided the strongest hint, in an otherwise noncommittal statement, that North Korea probably fired on the Cheonan.
That investigation, which included specialists from the United States, Britain, Australia and Canada, concluded that a North Korean midget submarine shot a torpedo into the Cheonan, killing all 46 seamen onboard.
The investigators -- known as the Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group --presented the Security Council last month with a detailed briefing of their findings, including photographs of a torpedo tail with Korean writing and a series of test results eliminating the possibility of an explosion inside the vessel.
China simply wanted to take note of the investigators' findings of North Korean culpability while similarly taking note of North Korea's insistence that it had nothing to do with the attack.
In the end, the two Korean delegations walked away from the meeting claiming they had got what they wanted. South Korea's U.N. envoy Park In-kook, told reporters he was satisfied that the U.N. statement "made it clear it is North Korea to blame." He said, "I'm sure today's strong unanimous statement will serve to make North Korea refrain from further attack or provocation."
North Korea's U.N. envoy, Sin Son-ho, meanwhile, denied responsibility for the attack, and said his government would "do our utmost to dig out the truth behind this incident." As for the fact that the council stopped short of directly blaming his government: "It is out great diplomatic victory."
Follow me on Twitter @columlynch
Posted By Colum Lynch
Thursday, July 8, 2010 - 6:51 PM
More than three months after the sinking of the Cheonan, the U.N. Security Council reached agreement today on a statement deploring and condemning the March 26 attack that sank the South Korean naval vessel, but not directly blaming North Korea.
Today's pact ended months of intensive efforts by South Korea to persuade North Korea's chief ally, China, to back a council statement condemning its northern neighbor for launching a torpedo attack against the Cheonan, killing 46 South Korean seamen. Last month, South Korea sent a delegation of top army, naval, and intelligence officials to present the council with evidence proving the Cheonan was cut in half by a North Korean submarine.
The United States, France, and other council members said the South Korean evidence represented "overwhelming" proof that North Korea bore responsibility for the attack. But in the end, China agreed only to allow a highly ambiguous statement that hints at North Korean responsibility but shields Pyongyang from charges that it carried out an act of war.
The deal was struck during a morning meeting of the Security Council's five permanent members -- the United States, Britain, China, France, and Russia -- together with Japan and North Korea. The United States formally distributed the statement to the full 15-nation council this afternoon.
The statement -- which will likely be approved as early as tomorrow -- "condemns that attack which led to the sinking of the Cheonan" and "underscores the importance of preventing further such attacks." The council "expresses its deep concern" over the findings of a South Korean led investigation that "concluded" North Korea "was responsible for the sinking of the Cheonan." But it also "took note from the other relevant parties including from [North Korea], which has stated that it had nothing to do with the incident."
A Western diplomat involved in the negotiations said the statement provided more than a hint of North Korean responsibility, noting that it repeatedly uses the word "attack" to describe the sinking of the Cheonan, making it clear that it wasn't brought down by an internal explosion or a mechanical failure. The official also noted that the statement calls for "full adherence" to the Korean Armistice Agreement, implying that the attack constitutes a violation by North Korea of that accord.
Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said after the meeting that the proposed statement, if passed, "would send a unified message that the Security Council condemns the attack." She said the "statement needs no interpretation; it's very clear."
Posted By Colum Lynch
Monday, May 24, 2010 - 4:50 PM
For U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the North Korean torpedo attack on a South Korean naval vessel is more than just another international crisis.
It's personal.
Ban has served as a South Korean diplomat for most of his adult life, confronting numerous North Korean attacks on his country. His own family suffered extreme hardship as a result of North Korean aggression during the Korean War.
As a young boy, Ban and his family were driven from their home by invading North Korean troops. Uprooted, the Bans were left destitute, staving off starvation with American food assistance. (Ban is the tall one in the photo above.)
"I can fully understand the current situation, and the frustration and anger felt by South Korean people and all peace-loving people around the world," Ban told reporters at U.N. headquarters Monday. It is "very troubling, as the secretary general of the United Nations, and also as one of the citizens of Korea." You can understand "my feeling."
But the sinking of the South Korean ship has proven a test of Ban's ability to act independently in dealing with an international crisis that is so close to his heart. It has also tested his mettle on an issue that has pitted his former government against China, a veto-wielding Security Council member with the power to block a second term for Ban.
So far, Ban has stuck very close to the Korean government's position, prodding the Security Council, where China has shown reluctance to respond, to impose tough measures against North Korea. But he has also offered Beijing a concession, echoing its call for the big powers to resume stalled six-nation nuclear talks with Pyongyang. South Korea vehemently opposes any immediate call for renewed talks.
"The evidence laid out in the joint international investigation report is overwhelming and deeply troubling. I fully share the widespread condemnation of the incident," Ban said. "I am confident that the council, in fulfilling its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, will take measures appropriate to the gravity of the situation."
Analysts say the current crisis reflects a broader shift by Ban and the Korean government away from China, which had emerged as Seoul's chief trading partner at the time of Ban's election as secretary-general but is increasingly viewed by Koreans as a threat to their long-term interests. As Seoul moves to reduce its trade with Pyongyang in response to the attack on the Cheonan, North Korea has been increasing its dependency on Beijing -- which now supplies more than 80 percent of North Korea's fuel needs.
"He is now putting pressure on China, something he has never done before as secretary- general," said Michael J. Green, a former White House Asia specialist under George W. Bush's administration. "I'm sure the Chinese didn't anticipate this when they supported his candidacy; I think they saw him as malleable enough. He was selected at a time when the Chinese were more confident about their influence over South Korea."
Green says that China's cautious response to the attack on the Cheonan -- and President Hu Jintao's recent reception for North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in Beijing -- has contributed to Korean animosity towards its powerful western neighbor.
"I think Ban is showing that he is a Korean at the end of the day," said Green. "He has spent his entire career in the Korean foreign office dealing with precisely these kind of crises with North Korea and he will, when he finishes his term as secretary-general, most likely retire in Korea to a hero's welcome. I'm not at all surprised he is expressing the anger felt by the majority of Koreans, including the government, towards North Korea."
U.N. specialists say the dilemma confronting the secretary-general is largely unprecedented. "Historically, I can't think of any previous secretary-general who has had to face a situation in which his own national country was intimately connected with a major peace and security issue before the U.N. Security Council," said Colin Keating, a former New Zealand ambassador to the United Nations who heads the Security Council Report, a think tank supported by Columbia University.
Keating said that unlike a judge, the secretary-general is not expected to recuse himself from cases where there might be a conflict of interest. "Impartiality is something we no longer expect of the secretary-general. We expect the secretary-general to be more pro-active than that and take positions on issues with an appropriate degree of balance," Keating said. "I'm not sure how I would play it."
Ban himself seems to be struggling to strike the right note. "As [a] secretary-general who happens to come from the Republic of Korea, then I do not want to create any misperceptions. I want to be fair," he said. But as he recalled North Korea's multiple previous "provocations," he said "this is very troubling for me to see what is happening in the Korean peninsula -- that's my Motherland."
Follow me on Twitter @columlynch
Courtesy of the United Nations
Posted By Colum Lynch
Friday, May 21, 2010 - 10:45 AM
North Korea's alleged torpedo strike in March against the South Korean naval ship Cheonan is likely to come before the U.N. Security Council next week, placing Pyongyang back in its familiar role as the U.N. villain.
South Korea is expected to press next week for a resolution that would condemn North Korea's action and reaffirm international support for economic sanctions imposed on North Korea last year for its nuclear and ballistic missile tests, according to Michael J. Green, an Asia expert in the second Bush White House. But South Korean officials have expressed concern that North Korea's influential ally, China, will block any tough measures in the 15-nation council, according to Green, who recently met with Korean officials in Seoul.
"The Koreans are really pissed at the Chinese," said Green, noting lingering frustration that Beijing hosted North Korean leader Kim Jong Il after the March 26 attack. "They are expecting the worst."
Green said that South Korean officials have told him and other outside experts that "they are determined to restore deterrence. That means they need to impose tough-enough measures that dissuade Kim Jong Il from doing it again but not so tough that they trigger further escalation. It's going to be hard to find that sweet spot."
North Korea responded angrily to South Korea's claim that it had attacked its naval vessel as "sheer fabrication" and said it would answer any South Korean action "with various forms of tough measures including all-out war."
The Security Council has a range of options, from the adoption of a mild statement by the president of the Security Council raising concern about the dispute over the sinking of the Cheonan, to a legally binding resolution that will sanction North Korea for engaging in an act of war. U.N. diplomats rate it highly unlikely that any proposed resolution would authorize a military response.
China, which has veto power in the council, has expressed skepticism about evidence suggesting a North Korean midget submarine attacked the South Korean vessel. China's foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, told his counterparts in South Korea and Japan that China had to see "scientific evidence" of North Korean culpability. Instead of seeking to punish Pyongyang, Beijing has looked to the current crisis to restart a long-standing effort to restart six-nation talks with North Korea over its nuclear program.
South Korea does not a favor an immediate return to such talks, according to Green. "They made it clear ‘the last thing we want to do is go rushing back to six-party talks after they sink one of our subs.'"
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will travel to Beijing this weekend to press the government to support a Security Council resolution condemning North Korea's action and reaffirming existing sanctions imposed on Pyongyang for its nuclear program. Green said the result of those meetings could have a lasting impact on Sino-American relations.
But officials said there are a number of steps that South Korea, the United States and other allies can take even without Chinese approval. Those include stepping up U.S.-South Korean military exercises in the region, cutting assistance to Pyongyang, and increasing pressure on governments to enforce existing sanctions against the North Korean regime. The United States could also place North Korea back on the State Department list of sponsors of state terrorism.
"A direct military strike is probably over the line," said Green.
In Washington, Senate leaders blamed North Korean for attacking a key ally. "The findings of the investigation presented by the Republic of Korea demonstrate conclusively that North Korea was responsible for the torpedo attack of a South Korean Navy ship that killed 46 sailors," said Sen. Jim Webb, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs. "It is imperative that the United States work with the Republic of Korea, a key U.S. ally, and with others in the international community in order to develop an appropriate response to this inexcusable act and to address any other provocative gestures from North Korea that threaten the stability and security of the region."
Song Kyung-Seok-Pool/Getty Images
Posted By Colum Lynch
Monday, March 15, 2010 - 6:12 PM
Iran
A group of four U.S. senators, including Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), urged the Obama administration not to exempt Chinese companies from U.S. legislation aimed at sanctioning firms that trade with Tehran, saying it would weaken the U.S. effort to pressure Iran to halt its enrichment of nuclear fuel, according to a letter (pdf) obtained by Turtle Bay.
The release of the letter, dated March 12, comes 10 days after a report in the Washington Post that the Obama administration is seeking to carve out an exemption for China and other permanent members of the Security Council in order to win their support for a fourth round of sanctions against Tehran. (Turtle Bay's sister blog, The Cable, first reported on the Obama administration push for exemptions.)
The group of four lawmakers, which includes Sens. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and Richard Burr, (R-N. Carolina) said that China has repeatedly violated existing U.S. sanctions, and that an exemption would undercut efforts to dissuade other foreign companies to cut their financial links to Tehran.
"Even now, China is working to undermine sanctions on Iran at the U.N. Security Council. "Yet, according to recent reports, your administration is pushing to carve out an exemption for China and other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council from Iran sanctions legislation. As crucial as it is to work with our international partners to eliminate Iran's nuclear program, explicit exceptions for certain countries would weaken the effect of our sanctions."
Iran
The United States and its European partners continue to encounter headwinds in their quest to impose targeted sanctions against Iran's military elite, as France acknowledged that a vote on a new sanctions resolution may have to wait until June.
The West had hoped to wrap up the Iran negotiations before the Nuclear Non-Proliferation review conference starting on May 4. That date now appears optimistic. "We are ... talking and talking, trying to get an agreement by negotiation and at the same time working on sanctions. I believe that yes, before June it will be possible, but I'm not so sure," France's Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said Sunday, according to Reuters.
Kouchner and several other European ministers appear to be moving closer to consider imposing additional European sanctions against Iran in the event that China, which has veto power in the U.N. Security Council, blocks the adoption of a U.N. sanctions resolution. Several key European governments, including Germany, have insisted that European sanctions should only be imposed on Iran after the U.N. Security Council acts.
But Finland's Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb said over the weekend that there was an "emerging" consensus by European governments to slap unilateral sanctions on Tehran, according to Reuters. "Failing [U.N. sanctions], I think there is an emerging consensus inside the European Union that we will take some unilateral measures from the EU side," Stubb said. "What those exact measures are have not been discussed in detail."
Sri Lanka
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will indefinitely delay plans to establish an advisory council to explore how to hold perpetrators accountable for massive human rights abuses during Sri Lanka's final offensive against the rebel Tamil Tigers. On March 10, Ban's spokesman, Martin Nesirky told reporters that the U.N. chief had informed Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa that he "intended to go ahead with the establishment of a panel of experts" to address accountability for war crimes on both sides of the Sri Lankan conflict.
Nesirky said today that, while Ban is still discussing the idea of an accountability panel with his advisors, "it is unlikely such a panel will be established very soon." The retreat follows a letter from the 118 nation Non-Aligned Movement expressing "deep concern" over Ban's decision to set up the panel. "The Non-Aligned Movement strongly condemns selective targeting of individual countries, which it deems contrary to the founding principles of the Movement and the United Nations Charter," Inter Press Service reports Amb. Maged Abdelaziz of Egypt as writing in a letter to Ban.
North Korea
North Korea has been shaken by sharpening international sanctions, its own internal political missteps, and challenges that could "trigger instability," according to analysis published today by the International Crisis Group (ICG). Despite threatening talk and behavior in the past year by Pyongyang, including a series of provocative nuclear and ballistic missile tests, the group deems North Korea even less likely than in the past to consider military action against the south. "The balance of power has shifted against Pyongyang, and [North Korean] leadership is not likely to start a war it knows it would lose," the report reads. But its need for foreign currency will push it to raise money through dangerous trade in banned weapons, ICG predicts.
The analysis also speculates on the internal power struggles inside North Korea, noting that Chang Song-taek the brother in law of the country's ailing leader Kim Jong Il, has been appointed to the National Defense Commission to manage the transition of power to a new generation. It predicts that Chang will serve as a regent until Kim Jong Il's youngest son, Kim Jong-un, now in his late twenties, is old enough to take power.
Arms bazaar
A severe economic recession has done little to slow rising international arms trade, the Guardian reports. The global arms sales have increased by an average of 22 percent over the past five years, with the most dramatic rise in South America and Southeast Asia, according to a report issued today by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The United States remains the world's top arms exporter, accounting for 30 percent of the total, followed by Russia with 23 percent, Germany with 11 percent, and France with 8 percent.
Longtime Washington Post correspondent Colum Lynch reports on all things United Nations for Turtle Bay.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
