§The UN Security Council Meeting Called by the UK, France and Germany Should Have Discussed Ways to Enhance the Implementation of the Singapore Agreement, not Sanctions against the DPRK.
On June 30, 2019, at the Summit meeting in Panmunjom, the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) agreed to hold working-level discussions in mid-July. However, the discussions have not taken place yet because the US has failed to come up with “a new method of calculation,” which the DPRK has been expecting.
Conflicts arose during the last two months,
both between the US and DPRK, and between North and South Korea, over the US-ROK
Joint Military Exercise. The DPRK strongly and continuously urged the US and
ROK to stop the military exercise, claiming that it was a manifestation of
hostility toward the DPRK and therefore, was counter to the US-DPRK Singapore agreement
or the inter-Korean Panmunjom Declaration. Although the US and ROK stopped using
names for the exercise such as “Dong Maeng (Alliance) 19-2,” and instead
started calling the exercises “Crisis Management Staff Training” (for the first
half on August 5-8) and “Combined Command Post Training” (for the latter half on
August 11-20) [1], they carried out the program as scheduled. In
response, the DPRK conducted seven test-launches, with multiple shots, of short-range
ballistic missiles from July 25 to the present (on July 25, 31, August 2, 6, 10,
16 and 24), concurrently with the US-ROK Joint Military Exercise.
In reaction to DPRK’s short-range missile
launch, the UK, France and Germany requested that the Security Council (SC) convene
a meeting, and a closed meeting was held on August 1. After the meeting the
three states held a press conference [2], during which they issued a
short statement condemning the DPRK’s launch of short-range ballistic missiles
[3]. The statement said that they “reiterate (their) condemnation” of “the
launches of ballistic missiles by North Korea in the past few days,” “which are
violations of UN Security Council Resolutions.” The statement strongly insisted
on continuing the enforcement of sanctions, asserting that “international
sanctions must remain in place and be fully enforced until North Korea’s
nuclear and ballistic missile programmes are dismantled.”
In response to this, the spokesperson for the
DPRK Foreign Ministry immediately released a statement through the Korean
Central News Agency (KCNA), strongly condemning the action of UK, France and Germany
[4]. The spokesperson’s statement criticized the three states for taking
issue with “the firing based on the ballistic technology, not the range of the
projectile,” without questioning “the war exercises in south Korea and shipment
of cutting-edge attack weapons into it,” which is tantamount to demanding a complete
renunciation of the right to self-defense. The statement also warned that “their
(the three states’) stupid words and deeds wouldn’t restrain the tension on the
Korean Peninsula but serve as a catalyst for the escalation.” What the DPRK
statement calls the “shipment of cutting-edge attack weapons into South Korea”
refers to the recent arrival of F-35A stealth fighters, which the ROK purchased
from the United States. The fighters were delivered to the ROK Air Force base
in Cheongju. Global Hawks, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), are also scheduled to
land at the same Air Force base.
At its meeting on August 1, the SC did not issue
any particular statement. Although details of the discussion have not been
reported, the fact that the SC could not agree to issue a resolution or
statement was not surprising. The U.S., with considerable influence in the SC,
would not support any statement that would place blame on the short-range
missile launches. The US did not have a willingness to address the DPRK’s
short-range missile launch as a violation of the UNSC resolution, instead placing
importance on the framework of the US-DPRK Singapore agreement. President Trump
tweeted that “these missile tests are not a violation of our signed Singapore
agreement,” even though “there may be a United Nations violation,” [5] and
indicated the US would not question DPRK’s launch of a ballistic missile as long
as it was a short-range missile.
The most serious problem that surfaced during
the SC meeting was how outdated and one-sided the perspectives of the three
states were in grasping the current situation. The problem is all the more
serious, for these three European states have the potential to play an
international coordinating role from a position different than that of the US, in
terms of the peace and denuclearization process on the Korean Peninsula.
As far as it can be judged from the joint statement
of August 1, the three states seem to have a correct recognition that only discussions
between the US and DPRK can move the situation forward to denuclearization of
the Korean Peninsula. However, the joint statement remains silent about the
three states’ views on core questions, including why the working-level
discussions – originally scheduled for mid-July – have not been held yet, or
what would be required under the current situation in order for the US-DPRK
talks to make progress. Moreover, the three states repeat their basic demands
in a condescending manner, such as: “[We] urge North Korea to take concrete
steps towards its complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization (CVID),”
or “Serious efforts by North Korea ... are the best way to guarantee security
and stability on the Korean Peninsula.” This is not the attitude one would
expect the SC to take at this stage.
As was pointed out in Watch Report No.10,
the UNSC adopted sanction resolutions on the DRPK ten times, starting with
Resolution 1718 on October 14, 2006 until 2017, in which it prohibited the DPRK
from undertaking “nuclear tests” and any further “launches that use ballistic
missile technology,” and demanded that the DPRK abandon nuclear weapon and any
other WMD programs as well as ballistic missile programs. However, the SC’s
efforts – efforts lasting for more than 11 years to improve the situation
through economic sanctions resolutions – have not produced any results. What
turned around the situation was the series of US-DPRK Summit meetings since
2018, culminating in the adoption of the Singapore Joint Declaration. The agreements
set forth in this Declaration pave the way for the realization of the very goals
the SC resolutions have aimed to achieve by means of the imposition of sanctions.
It is high time that the SC members, including
the above-mentioned three states, discuss the roles the Council could play to
support the smooth implementation of the US-DPRK Singapore agreement. Arguments,
as if sanctions against DPRK were an end rather than a means, based upon the SC
resolutions’ language such as, “shall not conduct any further launches that use
ballistic missile technology”, would be inappropriate and unhelpful at this point
in the sensitive process of denuclearization.
At the outset, the SC resolutions against the
DPRK placed unprecedented restrictions on missiles, prohibiting the DPRK “from
undertaking any further launches that use ballistic missile technology,” which
bound subsequent SC actions tightly, and the SC fell into a trap that it had
set for itself, that is, it is now forced to take action on even trivial
launches. If progress is to be made, the SC must face this fact calmly and
squarely. (Ichiro YUASA & Hiromichi UMEBAYASHI)
Postscript: On August 27, shortly after this report was completed, the
UN Security Council held its second meeting for the same purpose at the request
of the UK, France and Germany. The three states issued a joint statement the
content of which was almost the same as that of August 1 [6]. The analysis contained
in this report is given greater credence by the outcome of this second meeting
as evidenced by its joint statement.
[1]
“Allies to conduct summertime military exercise in earnest next week,” Yonhap News Agency, Aug 10, 2019
[2]
“At U.N., Britain, France, Germany urge N. Korea to hold 'meaningful' talks
with U.S.” Reuters, Aug 2, 2019
[3] “Statement by Germany, France and the United Kingdom after UN Security
Council Consultations on North Korea”
[4] “Spokesperson for DPRK Foreign Ministry Blames
UNSC's Closed-Door Meeting,” KCNA, Aug 2, 2019
http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm Search for the article by date.
[5] President Trump’s tweet on Aug 2, 2019
