The response of the DPRK to the resolution is equally disturbing as they have chosen to continue to act in a hostile and resistant manner to appeals from the international community. The consistent recourse to threats of violence and military action against complying member states shows disregard for the intentions of the resolution which is primarily to achieve a denuclearised region and perpetual global security. It is concerning to the ROK that the nuclear policies and threatening behaviour of North Korea poses serious negative implications for peace and security in the region as well as internationally. It has been unacceptable and will not be tolerated or overlooked.
Resolution 1874 is rightfully uncompromising in its condemnation of North Korea’s disregard for international protocols regarding nuclear proliferation. Nuclear testing done by the DPRK directly threatens peace and security on the Korean peninsula and internationally and should be addressed accordingly. It is the position of the ROK that the following provisions of UN Resolution 1874 definitely be continued as they have vital significance to maintaining international commitments towards nuclear non-proliferation:
- The DPRK should not conduct any further nuclear tests
- The DPRK must retract its withdrawal from the NPT and fully commit to its obligations under this treaty by abandoning all activities related to development of nuclear weapons.
- Member states should continue to fulfil their obligations with regards to supply of arms to the DPRK and inspection of suspicious cargo to and from the DPRK.
These demands have been highlighted as being of priority to achieving the goals of the UNSC in this matter. The non-compliance and reluctance to cooperate demonstrated by the DPRK does not convince us that they have committed to addressing the concerns of the international community or to achieving a denuclearised region necessary for sustainable international peace and security. It is imperative that North Korea unconditionally returns to talks to proceed in this regard. Until this initiative is demonstrated we are reluctant to advocate for lifting or lightening of the demands of the Resolution. The resolution has been vigilant in acknowledging North Korea’s need for humanitarian assistance and has rightly ensured that the protocol demanded does not interfere in the provisions of this assistance to the people of the DPRK. The prioritisation of this issue is earnestly supported by the ROK, which equally esteems the sovereignty of North Korea and stresses the use of extreme discretion by states in carrying out the obligations to inspect cargo and review the country’s situation. In light of that it is vitally important that the proliferation of nuclear weapons by North Korea is not overlooked by any means and therefore the provisions of the resolution subjecting all suspicious cargo to and from the DPRK to inspection are paramount. The risks of accidental nuclear exposure are real and concerning as is the risk of undermining international security.
North Korea’s aggressive policies and unreceptive stance towards global concerns is a direct rejection of the authority of the international system and the call for peaceful resolutions. In light of the lack of cooperation from the DPRK with international requests it is necessary that the system of continuous review be sustained in order to ensure compliance with international demands and to encourage cooperation by modifying these measures in accordance with compliance. The reduction in foreign aid has markedly impacted the economic position of North Korea and this directly translates to the people, which is a concern to the ROK. We are committed to eradicating these difficulties as soon as possible but in order for this to occur the DPRK must make drastic strides towards compliance with the Resolutions of UNSC. In order for North Korea to continue benefitting from the much needed aid from the ROK, it must deliver on its promises to retire its nuclear programme. Promises made thus far in turn for aid have been reneged on, unacceptably so. The prospect of cooperation will be greatly beneficial for the North as ROK has demonstrated on various levels it’s willingness to assist the North in terms of food, financial and medical aid provided that compliance with its preconditions is demonstrated by Pyongyang’s government. There is tremendous scope and precedent for ongoing assistance and support for the North from ROK, although regrettably the pre- conditions especially that of denuclearization are of a serious nature and will be strictly adhered to.
Insofar as North-South relations is concerned, the commitment of North Korea to nuclear non-proliferation has been a longstanding factor in determining stability and peace for the peninsula. In the interest of North-South relationship-building, it is imperative that a stable and un-threatening environment be reciprocally established. The constant nuclear threat that North Korea holds over the heads of the international community and the region in particular is to the detriment of such stability and only serves to create a hostility in which it is impossible to foster peaceful interaction.
It is the position of the ROK that as long as the DPRK holds on to its nuclear weapons status, there can be no further progress in resolving other matters of concern. Inter-Korean relations and discussions cannot progress as long as the DPRK maintains its stance on nuclear proliferation. As much as the DPRK insists that this is an internal matter which does not concern the international community, contrarily its nuclearisation has implications for the region as a whole and directly affects relations in this regard.
In light of recent developments, should certain “incentive “or “penalties” be imposed on North Korea? If yes, what kind of incentive/penalties& what kind of time-framework should be envisioned?
The economic embargo placed on North Korea by Resolution 1874 (2009) has resulted in a belligerent response from the DPRK government. Contrary to the desired effect, instead of forcing the country to abandon its nuclear programme, the sanctions have been met with further threats of violence from the DPRK. As much as the government has made statements to the effect that it is committed to strengthening relationships in the region, the continued stance that the nuclear policies and activities of North Korea are not the concern of the international community, is not encouraging in this regard. The North Korean people are suffering as a result of the country’s economic struggle and although the provisions have been made to ensure that humanitarian aid is not compromised by the restrictive protocols, the exclusion of foreign trade has significantly impacted food supply and employment. In light of this further penalties in respect of economic sanctions would be risky for the country and might lead to further instability.
It is important that an example is set from these circumstances, which discourages further attempts to reject the authority of the Security Council as legitimate. This is necessary to maintain stability and uniformity in international security issues. On the other hand, positive progress must be accordingly rewarded and North Korea should understand the positive implications of its compliance. As an incentive, the council should consider lightening the economic implications in proportion to the level of commitment shown. Furthermore, committed, unconditional participation in multilateral talk should be insisted on. Upon which further concessions should be granted to encourage this progress.
Should the international community develop a framework so as to re-start the ‘six Party Talks’? If so how can this be accomplished in the light of recent DPRK statements that North Korea will not resume the six party Talks?
North Korea is a country that considers its nuclear program as a vital element of its national security and of the continued existence of the Kin Family Regime; this is one of the reasons that make North Korea very difficult to handle against its nuclear program. The structure of North Korea is also that of a militant one as most of the countries resources has been spent on the military. It is the world’s fourth and strongest military power as most of this country’s population is part of the army.
Having this back ground about the six party talks, it is important to know what was the laid down rule or agreement of this Talk. It was declared that North Korea should not use its nuclear program as weapon or means of destruction and to a larger extent the agreement required that North Korea should abandon its nuclear programs of which North Korea agreed to. On the Denuclearization of the Korean peninsula DPRK agreed to disable all existing nuclear facilities. The DPRK also agreed to provide a complete declaration of all its nuclear programs, It’s reaffirmed its commitment not to transfer nuclear materials, technology or know how to any other areas in the country.
The six party talks also address the Normalisation of relationship between relevant countries, with the DPRK and the US agreed on remain committed to improving their bilateral relations and moving to towards a full diplomatic relationship to improve on trust, also to improve the relationship between South Korea and North Korea. Economic and energy assistance was to be given to the DPRK so as to improve its electricity facilities and divert its attention from war to a peaceful society.
With all of this been said and agreed upon the DPRK once again violated this agreement by conducted two nuclear weapon test. On the 25 May 2009, North Korea conducted its second nuclear test after having apparently warned the U.S and Chinese government of their intension. North Korea’s central news Agency announced that Pyongyang had carried out the nuclear test, and that it was safely conducted on a new higher level in terms of its explosive power and technology of its control. This was a clear insult to the others and a complete bridge of agreement. Having done this North Korea has refused to come to the table to take its place in the six party talk. This has really pose treat for South Korea, it is against the foreign policy of this country an, an impact not on South Korea alone but to the entire world.
The creation of resolution 1874(2009) by the United Nation Security Council adopted by the security council at its 6141st meeting, on 12 June 2009 gave a respond to North Korea act of which this resolution strengthens Arms Embargo, Calls for Inspection of Cargo, vessels if states have reasonable grounds to believe contain prohibited Items. This meant that member states should destroy all banned to and from that country. From a South Korean perspective it is very important for this sanction to be upheld and the international world to have the total support of South Korea. The violation of the six party agreements by North Korea has created security tension within the region; it has destabilized the safety of the peninsular and positioned South Korea in a defensive situation where in its lack freedom as its citizen lived in fear.
North Korea is the only state to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to openly pursue a nuclear weapons program and, then to test a nuclear device. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is also accused of simultaneously pursuing a covert uranium enrichment program to produce HEU (highly enriched or military grade,
Uranium). North Korea’s nuclear activities pose a threat, not only to its own population and its neighbours in Northeast Asia, but also to the global community. With all of this going on, there is a definite need for the international community to develop a framework so as to re-start the six party talks.
The international community needs to achieve a possible and positive out-come on these issues so as to prevent other countries from following the same steps as north Korea, also to avoid war and conflict in the international arena and to protect the earth as a whole in the instance of a natural disaster example the disaster that occurred in (Japan).
In order to get North Korea to resume to the six party talks there need to be various steps that should be taken, this can be a two way approach; on one hand a durable outcome on nuclear dismantlement and disarmament may well depend on North Korean perspectives of larger domestic and regional issues, such as regime stability and economic development. This means that the six-party process is to build reassurance through the statements and actions of interested states to persuade North Korea of the overall benefits of abandoning its nuclear programs, in exchange for diplomatic and economic gains.
The relationship between South Korea and the United States alliance should be strengthening economically. This is where in both exhibit the use of nuclear program for developmental purposes such as energy provision. United States should support South Koreas economy and improve the lives of its citizen far higher than that of North Korea; these will influence or attract North Koreas attention to that of a development goal wherein it will seek a welfare state instead of a military one. This means that there should be tougher sanctions on North Korea such as an economic one as it will have a negative effect on their economy which will force them to cooperate.
And the other approach might be to use China and Russia to get North Korea on the table. These three countries depend on each other economically and they are trade partners. Therefore it is vital that Russia and China be involved in bilateral talks so that they could probably get a positive outcome out of these bilateral talks. This might be possible due to their cordial relationship with North Korea. These countries should both decease from a double role standard in these talks. For this to happen the US should not be seen as a treat to any of these countries, this will enable North Korea to come back to the table and focus on other programs that its country can benefit from other than its nuclear program.
The six –party Talks and the New Opportunities to strengthen Regional
www.stanleyfoundation.org /publications/report/6partysrpt 309.pdf
2009-DR.D Criekemans-negotiations in UNSC on the continuing security provocation by North Korea pg1-40
4) What preventive measures can be taken by the UNSC to de-escalate the current dangerous situation on the ground and on the high seas?
The United Nations Security Council has been actively involved in settling the North Koreas use of nuclear program which has been going on in the Korean peninsula. Giving the rise in tensions that North Korea has created in the world by violating the six party talks agreement, the UNSC needs additional measures to be taken as such an issue is of high importance to the world as a whole to create a nuclear arms free race South Korea walks in line with the resolution 1874 which talks of strengthening arms embargo, calls for inspection of cargo, vessels if state have reasonable grounds to believe contain prohibited item. This is indeed a good measure, but however as said earlier there are additional steps that need to be taken to deescalate the current dangerous situation on the ground, and on the high seas.
The United Nations Security Council should implement the following approaches;
On the ground level we as South Korea believe that the UNSC should force China to put pressure on North Korea to get involved in six party talks and to reduce its economic role in North Korea.
We as South Korea advise that the UNSC to implement methods that will prevent kim 11’s from selling or giving his nuclear weapon or any other weapon of mass destruction to either another rogue state or to a terrorist organization.
The force of democracy should be taken into account; North Korea follows a dictatorial rule as this is the main reason for North Korea not to give up its nuclear program therefore the regime is being sustained because of its nuclear beliefs and policies. We as South Korea advocate that the UNSC should speak with one voice to undermine Kims regime this can be done by threatening to use force.
We as South Korea recommend that there should be a reduction concerning the amount of military personnel within the North Korean army force, to an amount that would match the country’s population and secures its territories. However the territorial rights of North Korea should be stated clearly and that North Koreas security should be guaranteed by the UNSC.
An additional measure can be done to the proliferation security on the high seas. It is good that the UNSC has put various measures to target countries carrying nuclear weapons or any other weapon of mass destruction on the seas. However the UNSC needs to put more measures on the high sea, by this we as South Korea would prefer the UNSC to declare that participating countries should have the right to destroy ships carrying nuclear weapon destroy even on the high seas. This can be done by creating an intelligence service which should be able to detect whether the ship is truly carrying nuclear weapon. Having done this, a notice and authority should be given to the nearest country to destroy such ship.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
momentum toward a nuclear weapons convention or framework third edition 25 October 2010.
What preventive measures can be taken so as to limit potential proliferation by North Korea and also to all powers in the region that an arms race is not a viable option for the peace and security of the regions and the world?
As a close neighbour of North Korea, South Korea understands that a state needs to protect its country from possible threats, to their security as is their right as a sovereign state within their territorial boundaries. Therefore South Korea has compiled proliferation policies to limit nuclear activity by the Northern Korea. South Koreas policy also entails to demonstrate how an arms race is not a viable option for the peace and security of the region and the world.
These are the policy steps that need to be implemented to halt nuclear weapons;
A) The size of nuclear weapons should be reduced; the history between the North and South Korea is a volatile matter that puts South Korea at risk. Since the attack of our warship cheona we feel more vulnerable than ever.
B) Nuclear security should be improved by creating nuclear boarders throughout regions. This should be possible by reducing the nuclear smuggling in cooperation with the International Atomic Agency must work alongside the UNSC resolution to improve nuclear security.
C) Counteractions and reformation of policy, global hegemony must take measures to maintain and resolve diplomatic relations with international political allies.
D) Nuclear weapons in North Korea and in the rest of the region must go through a regular process of their nuclear weapons being tested. The Test Ban Treaty Act must come into effect so that nuclear activity is monitored.
E) Nuclear energy and elements such as uranium should be converted for civilian purposes. North Korea must instead convert their nuclear materials to produce electricity for its civilians.
F) There should be a strict flow of fissile materials used to create nuclear weapons in the region. Nuclear smuggling is an occurrence that must be evaluated and eliminated.
States which are in possession of nuclear weapons, claim that it is for their national interest and security. Although this is the case nuclear weapons actually does the opposite effect. Nuclear weapons actually increase the likelihood of being attacked by the other states. Nuclear proliferation actually divides the world, increases fear and invokes suspicion and mistrust on a nuclear state. South Korea believes that in order to avoid conflict in our region and the world we must be rid of nuclear weapons. The recent tsunami devastation of our neighbour Japan and the explosions on their nuclear site indicates the danger of nuclear weapons and sites to civilians and the environment. This also demonstrates that being in possession of nuclear arms is a threat especially if there is a natural disaster such as the catastrophe of Japan and the tsunami.
The tsunami had triggered bomb blasts which in turn posed a risk to civilians after radiation was released. The presence of nuclear materials and the risk of radiation are much more of a threat than the tsunami. Civilians affected by radiation might contract long-term illnesses which are incurable. South Korea respects North Koreas decision to protect its territory despite this South Korea is not at war with North Korea. Therefore the presence of nuclear weapons and the use of nuclear arms by attacking South Korean warships is highly unnecessary and it creates conflict. We urge the North Korea to reconsider its actions and to support the UNSC resolution to rid the globe of nuclear weapons, and also the preventive measures policy which was drafted by the South Korea to limit nuclear proliferation.
S, dong-man .2006. “relationship between North and South Korea after the June 15 joint declaration and the development plan for the Korean peninsula” http://www.changbi.com/english/related/related26.asp (accessed 2011/03/16)