U.N. Security Council Sanctions North Korea
By California Yankee Posted in Breaking News — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on Saturday to impose financial and arms sanctions on North Korea in response to the rogue nation's nuclear test on Monday.
The resolution:
- Demands North Korea eliminate all its nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles.
- Requires all countries to prevent the sale or transfer of materials related to Pyongyang's unconventional weapons programs, as well as large-sized military items such as tanks, missiles and helicopters.
- Demands nations freeze funds overseas of people or businesses connected with North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
- Allows nations to inspect cargo moving in and out of North Korea in pursuit of non-conventional weapons.
- Is not backed up by the threat of military force.
- Calls on Pyongyang to return "without precondition" to stalled six-nation talks on its nuclear program.
Successfully shepherding the resolution sanctioning North Korea through the Security Council was no small accomplishment, and for good efforts Ambassador Bolton deserves a hearty thank you.
Unfortunately, the Security Council's resolution will not induce North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program nor its missile program. The North Korean government has demonstrated time and again that it will lie, cheat and ignore the will of the world to further its goal of developing nuclear weapons it can deliver with ballistic missiles.
Read on.
The only thing that can force North Korea to give up its defiance of the world is Chinese pressure. North Korea is dependent upon China for food and fuel. Only by China withholding those items supplied by China and necessary for the survival of the North Korean state will North Korea be forced to give up its missile and nuclear weapons programs.
Strong action is called for. The U.S. should pressure China to take the only steps that would matter to North Korea. China should be told the U.S. will not allow trade between the U.S. and China to increase and incrementally roll trade back until China puts sufficient pressure on North Korea to force the defiant state to comply with U.N. resolutions.
We should step up the efforts of the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative. The program developed by John Bolton, which encourages countries to interdict weapons from North Korea, Iran and other states of concern. Every ship going to and leaving North Korea should be stopped and searched to ensure contraband is not being transported to or from North Korea.
We should also take page from the Cuban missile crisis play book. It should be U.S. policy that any nuclear missile launched from North Korea against the U.S. or any of our allies will result in a full retaliatory response upon North Korea.
« Toward an Understanding of the Obamian Language — Comments (4) | The Nobel Peace Prize — Comments (15) »
U.N. Security Council Sanctions North Korea 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I lost the plot on his confirmation, what's the deal with getting his appointment through the Senate? He's about the best we've had at the UN sense Jean Kilpatrick.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
By the way, did you hear the one about the guy who goes into the bar with a duck under his arm ...
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
...over China that we can use to induce them to disarm NoKo?
Apart from encouraging Japan to re-arm? (Which they can do without any significant technical or other assistance from us, given that they own several tons of plutonium.)
GC: your idea of nuclear-arming Taiwan is breathtaking to be sure. I want a front-row seat if President Bush ever decides to try it.
we are their largest market ---
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
Are we willing to boycott Chinese goods over this?
March in lockstep with Japan, take gamecock's suggestion about Taiwan seriously, and publibly suggest that Seoul consider the absence of American servicemen at the 38th. The PRC will get the message, assuming that their economic slowdown isn't eating their attention wholesale.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
The US won't ruffle China's feathers. They own us, thanks to a 9 trillion dollar national debt. All they have to do is make some sideways comments about a "shaky US economy" and our economy will go into a tailspin.
The national debt is one of the biggest national security issues there is, much bigger than North Korea.
We need to let NK know we were serious when we said they will NOT possess nuclear weapons. They called our bluff, now it's our turn to respond. Anything less than a missle strike will embolden Iran and be a national embarrassment.
the funds and technology to build the weapons? How about letting them have Murtha's Guam? Oahu? Baja California? ANWAR? To show we really mean business!
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Or at least, the people of Seoul are. Says the Washington Times this morning:
A JoongAng newspaper poll, several days after the reported nuclear test Monday, found 78 percent of respondents thought South Korea should revise its policy, and 65 percent said South Korea should develop nuclear weapons to protect itself.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
cheap sneakers or an incinerated San Diego I can pay more for sneakers ...
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
Well, remember that if you owe the bank $1 million they own you, if you owe them $10 billion you own them :-)
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
...is about $500 billion. It's not $10 billion (I know you were speaking proverbially) and it's not $9 trillion as someone said upthread. A repudiation, rescheduling, or inflation of this debt would hurt us more than China, I'm reckoning. It would certainly cause an immediate, global financial crisis, but when it blows over, our economy would likely be wrecked (permanently) but China, Japan and Europe would be the new anchors of the global financial system. I don't think we can let this tree shake.
And to someone else's point, we're currently running government debt of perhaps (rough guess) 70% of annual GDP. That in itself is not cause for concern (Japan has run similar or higher percentages than that for years). With long-term rates so low, it's far smarter to borrow money rather than eat your seed corn by taxing high producers. What concerns me is that the long-term returns on our borrowing are too low to justify the leverage.
What do we do with the money we borrow from China? We send it to elderly people and their healthcare providers. It's not what I would use leverage for.
well maybe Albania. If China were to park it's surplus currency elsewhere, and where else, eventually and perhaps as an ongoing and immediate starting process, we would find other investors.
This probably would necessitate a spike in yields, unwelcome but not impossible to deal with, and could well minimize the outflow of Chinese money at the same time. If Japan & Europe in your example are potentially bigger players in international financial markets then they are also bigger investors.
An alternate and doomsday scenario would be debt retirement,ouch! Slow and painful but perhaps we could get some help from our homegrown geezers, with or without their cooperation.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
...but the original question was, what leverage do we have to induce China to shut down North Korea's nuclear program?
China holds our debt not because we actively market it to them, but because we give them dollars in exchange for manufactured goods. It's really something of a mystery why they choose to lend the dollars back to the US government, but the best theory I've heard is that they're trying to avoid a repeat of the 1997 financial crisis by holding a very large cushion of stable assets.
To me the question is not whether we would choose to pull an Argentina and debase China's dollar-denominated assets. (It would be like the old joke: we hold a gun to our own head and say to China: "Stop, or I'll shoot!") We derive incalculable benefits from being the world's financial anchor.
The real question is, how can we arrive at a position of geopolitical strength vis-a-vis the Chinese. This is a political question more than an economic one. Postwar foreign policy has been characterized by ideological struggle in which our very freedom is at stake. Our enemy in that struggle is now a very different one (radicalized Islam), but in addition we also now have the challenge of global competition. Our competitors are not ideological enemies. They have a crucial stake in our success, but they also want very badly to be in a position to affect our behavior. And world history is packed tight with cases where smaller nations have dominated larger ones. By concentrating on the terror threat, our current Administration may be ignoring a great and emerging foreign policy question, one unique in our history.
I really don't get your point about Albania. I wouldn't give 5 dollars for that country, much less $500 billion.
of China's investments in the US, which you touched upon in the post I responded to and which I think is less of a big deal than many make it out to be.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
...we don't really care about owing China half a trillion dollars if we should ever reach the point of initiating a military confrontation with them (over Noko, Iran, or Taiwan or whatever).
However, I do think we will be the big losers if we ever try to do that. There's no question we would win a big, nasty, costly war with China if we started it today or at some point in (wildy guessing) the next decade or two. I don't particularly care to speculate about the shape of that hypothetical postwar world, though.
Taking it a little farther out, though, I expect China to be in a position to deter us from military action through rough parity in technology and conventional forces. (I greatly fear nuclear blackmail from the perhaps two-dozen new nuclear states that will emerge as a result of our failure to contain NoKo and Iran, but I don't fear it from China- they have too large a stake in a stable world.)
This means the long-term strategy for opposing China (I'm intentionally avoiding the word "containment") needs to be based on our strengths. And what are our strengths vis-a-vis China? They come primarily from the one natural advantage they will never be able to match: freedom. Because we are free, we will always have far better financial systems than China will, and we will also therefore be able to retain our edge in technical innovation. (Assuming the Democrats don't take power and start re-regulating business and capital in this country, and also assuming we can somehow convince the Republicans to take the gloves off and start thinking like global competitors.)
I think we can retain our position as top-influencer in a stable world that looks a lot like today's world. If I'm right, then the one thing we will want to avoid in the near term is shaking the world's confidence in the stability of our financial systems. Hence my concern about our foreign debt.
Of course, if we end up with a military confrontation, then it's a new world, and all bets are off. You might be able to able to buy all of China with a fistful of dollars. Or you might not even be able to buy Albania.
Isn't it amazing, 15 years after the glorious and long fought victory over the evil empire, that we sit here, post the peace dividend and vacation from history and post-911 with a bit more than a majority of Americans, at least, (hopefully) cognizant of the fact that radical Islamists are waging a war against us worldwide that would lose if we don't fight back and defeat them, possibly forced to face the inevitability of China?
I think it may be fortuitous if we seize this moment to bring things to a head. First let me say that I consider it non-compromisable that we once and for all state unequivocally that Taiwan is a free and independent nation. No other circumstance is acceptable if we are to remain the same USA I love. (of course, I will love it no matter what, but still..)
The day was always going to come. The choices are before us. Sacrifices will be necessary if we insist upon an honorable position. Cold war is probable. This will mean the end of the UN. It will mean a much more complicated Cold War with an Islamic wild card and more hot battles than in the old Cold War.
One possible factor could persuade China to back away, ie the Islamist threat. But I speak in ignorance here.
One thing that I think I am not ignorant on is that if we force the issue now, we do so from a position of a strength that would probably not be as formidable if we put it off too long. China would suffer more from a Cold War now that us. They need us more. They are the creditor. They have an aging population. Our economic growth the past 3 years equals their GDP overall.
I have always told those that thought China held sway in any inevitable sense due to bond holdings, that they were in error, as things stand now and for the longer short run.
We should use our leverage now on China to eliminate the crazed threat from the population starve forcing his nation to eat tree bark, NOW.
And while we are at it, we should make clear that Taiwan's people will remain free or that those that seek to deny them freedom will be a parking lot.
We are at a major crossroads. This isn't about GOP vs Dems, as I know you know my brother. This is about the future of Liberty.
I pray our leader sees this moment as clearly as he saw 9/12.
Ok, I've done the breathless bit. Let's have the sage's wisdom and choices we must choose from as well as what status quo yakyak will lead to.
Your humble pupil awaits. And I hope you know that I mean this. My respect for your opinions is great.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Not sure I have what it takes to bite into it. Lemme think about it and write more when I get back from church.
did they write a really really stern letter?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Whichever path this rogue state takes I want to
congratulate Amb John Bolton for showing true leadership.
Here is a man who has made his opinion known about the UN but
then is fast to roll up his sleeves and do the job he was
asked to do, A VERY rare characteristic in our present World.
Hats off to John! Now make sure those Trident Subs are handy.