| UNSecurity Council Resolution 1874 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
.jpg) Location of 25 May nuclear test | ||||
| Date | 12 June 2009 | |||
| Meeting no. | 6,141 | |||
| Code | S/2009/301 (Document) | |||
| Subject | Non-proliferation Democratic People's Republic of Korea | |||
Voting summary |
| |||
| Result | Adopted | |||
| Security Council composition | ||||
Permanent members | ||||
Non-permanent members | ||||
| ||||
| Part of a series on |
| North Korea and the United Nations |
|---|
  |
North Korea and the United Nations |
Sanctions against North Korea UN Security Council resolutions: UNSC Sanctions Committee on North Korea |
United Nations Command UN Security Council Resolutions:UN General Assembly Resolutions:
|
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874 was adopted unanimously by theUnited NationsSecurity Council on 12 June 2009.[1] Theresolution, passed underChapter VII, Article 41, of theUN Charter, imposes further economic and commercialsanctions on theDemocratic People's Republic of Korea (the DPRK, or North Korea) and encouragesUNmember states to search North Koreancargo, in the aftermath ofan underground nuclear test conducted on 25 May 2009.
The provisions of the resolution include:
Adopting the resolution unanimously, the Council condemned the nuclear test which was in "violation and flagrant disregard" of previous Council resolutions1695 and1718.[1] The resolution is now binding under international law.[2]
China: AmbassadorZhang Yesui said China voted in favor of the resolution as actions by North Korea were in "disregard for the international community’s common objective". However, he stressed that the diplomatic means should be employed rather than merely imposing sanctions, and the resolution should not "adversely impact the country’s development, or humanitarian assistance to it".[10] He also urged against the use of force when inspecting North Korean cargo.[11]
France: AmbassadorJean-Maurice Ripert remarked that the DPRK had been "engaged in a secret nuclear programme" which increased its threat. He said that the country had increased tensions in the region by firing missiles and the Security Council had responded to that by imposing tough sanctions on the regime, though he mentioned that the Council was concerned about the population.[10]
Russia:Permanent RepresentativeVitaly Churkin said the measures adopted were "substantive and targeted in nature", and "clearly tied to ending the DPRK programme to create nuclear missiles".[12] He insisted the sanctions did not target the North Korean people, which was a key issue with his delegation. He also insisted that any sanctions be lifted once North Korea cooperates.[10]
United Kingdom: Deputy Ambassador Philip Parham said the adoption of the resolution shows that "the international community is united in condemning North Korea's proliferation activities".[3]
United States: EnvoyRosemary DiCarlo said that the resolution created "markedly stronger sanctions" againstPyongyang to persuade it to abandon itsnuclear weapons program.[11] This was followed byU.S. Ambassador to the UNSusan Rice who claimed the resolution was "unprecedented" and has "teeth that will bite".[13] The resolution was a "strong and united international response" to the testing of the nuclear device.[10]
Austria: AmbassadorThomas Mayr-Harting said the resolution was a "clear, appropriate and unequivocal" response to North Korea's actions. He called for the country to rejoin theComprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).[10]
Burkina Faso: Deputy Representative Paul Robert Tiendrébéogo supported the resolution emphasising his country's aspiration for a nuclear-free world and the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. He called on North Korea to cooperate with theInternational Atomic Energy Agency,six-party talks and other institutions stressing that the country should "choose dialogue".[10]
Croatia: Ambassador Ranko Vilović mentioned that the sanctions were not targeted towards the North Korean population, but called on North Korea to accede to the CTBT and six-party talks.[10]
Costa Rica: Permanent RepresentativeJorge Urbina echoed the views of the rest of the Council, and urged the country to return to international systems of dialogue.[10]
Japan: Permanent RepresentativeYukio Takasu welcomed the resolution, describing the DPRK's actions as an "irresponsible act" which constituted a threat to his country. He hoped the resolution adopted would change the actions of North Korea.[10] TheJapanesePrime MinisterTaro Aso also urged North Korea to take the resolution "seriously".[14]
Libya: Permanent RepresentativeAbdurrahman Mohamed Shalgham said the world would not enjoy security until all nuclear weapons were eliminated. He said the international community had failed to reward Libya for ceasing its nuclear programme and hoped similar sanctions would be applied toIsrael. Shalgham also said that while his country did not normally support sanctions which harm the population, in this case this was the best way forward to bring about a solution to the situation.[10]
Mexico: AmbassadorClaude Heller said the resolution was a "clear message" that North Korea's actions were unacceptable to the international community. He remarked that recent actions by the DPRK were in violation of Security Council resolutions which undermined aspirations for a nuclear-free world and urged North Korea to "completely and permanently" cease further nuclear tests.[10]
Turkey: Speaking in his national capacity, the current Council PresidentBaki İlkin said recent actions by North Korea undermined stability, mutual trust and confidence in the region, which the Turkish government strongly condemned. He urged the country to rejoin the six-party talks, seeing them as the best way forward to ensure denuclearization on the Korean peninsula.[10]
Uganda: Permanent RepresentativeRuhakana Rugunda echoed the sentiment of the Council, as it was "important to achievenon-proliferation on the Korean peninsula".[10]
Vietnam: RepresentativeLe Luong Minh supported the consensus of the Council, emphasising his country's commitment to non-proliferation but remarked that the sanctions should not adversely affect the population of North Korea.[10]
South Korea: South Korea was invited to participate during the session. Representative Park In-kook said the nuclear test violated Council resolutions and "defied warnings from the international community" which threatened peace and stability in the region, thus all member states should ensure they implement the sanctions fully. He said the South Korean government strongly urged the North to rejoin the six-party talks and to abandon its nuclear weapons and missile programmes.[10]An official newspaper said that the country would consider any new sanctions imposed as a "declaration of war".[15] In response, a statement from the Foreign Ministry, carried by the officialKorean Central News Agency (KCNA), said that the country would "weaponize allplutonium" and had reprocessed more than "one-third of our spent nuclear fuel rods".[16][17] It also announced it would starturanium enrichment.[16] The statement considered any attempt at a blockade as an "act of war that will be met with a decisive military response", and would "counter 'sanctions' with retaliation and 'confrontation' with all-out confrontation", accusing the resolution of being a product of a U.S.-led offensive against the country.[18][19] The North Korean Foreign Ministry statement on KCNA continues:
The U.S. and Japan, not content with this "resolution", are hatching dirty plots to add their own "sanctions" to the existing ones against the DPRK by framing up the fictional issues of "counterfeit money" and "drug trafficking". The U.S. incited the United Nations Security Council to get more deeply embroiled in its attempt to stifle the DPRK, which resulted in the creation of an unprecedentedly acute tension on the Korean Peninsula.
...
Had any other country found itself in the situation of the DPRK, it would have clearly realized that the DPRK has never chosen but was compelled to go nuclear in the face of the U.S. hostile policy and its nuclear threats. It has become an absolutely impossible option for the DPRK to even think about giving up its nuclear weapons. It makes no difference to the DPRK whether its nuclear status is recognized or not.[20]
A commentary in theRodong Sinmun newspaper alleged the United States had 1,000 nuclear weapons in South Korea ready to strike North Korea, with theTongbil Sinmun warning that nuclear war could break out on the Korean peninsula.[21] A U.S. military spokesman described the allegations as "baseless", adding that the weapons were removed under a 1991 treaty.[citation needed]
On June 15, the North Korean government organized a "mammoth" 100,000-strong protest in Pyongyang'sKim Il-sung Square against Resolution 1874. Secretary of the Central CommitteeWorkers' Party of KoreaKim Ki Nam blamed the United States for pushing through the sanctions, adding that they would not weaken the DPRK.[22][23]
The South Korean-based Hyundai Economic Research Institute estimated that if the sanctions are enforced by all UN member states, North Korea could lose between US$1.5–3.7 billion,[24] whereas other estimates suggest US$4 billion.[25] However, aCongressional Research Service report for theUnited States Congress notes that this is only possible if the sanctions are applied forcefully.[26] The United States is targeting access by North Korea to foreign banks used by its trading companies.[27] On 16 July 2009, a UN sanctions committee designated for sanctions three North Korean trading companies, an Iran-based company and North Korea's General Bureau of Atomic Energy.[28]
Luxury consumer goods, such as alcohol, computers, motorcycles, yachts, and luxury foods, for the North Korean elite, were primarily sourced fromEurope and China, the latter of which reported a high demand by top North Korean officials.[29] The exports of luxury goods by China in particular is around US$100–160 million, which has caused concern for the United States as to how China is implementing the sanctions.[26]
A number of North Korean ships have been seized or searched under the terms of Resolution 1874.
The resolution is vague on how to implement sanctions on North Korean air cargo, in contrast to the provisions for sea cargo.[26] However, it is alleged that North Korea uses air traffic more than sea traffic to transport or exchange weapons technology.[45] The Congressional Research Service report identifies thePyongyang–Tehran air route as a matter of concern, as most of the US$1.5 billion North Korea earns in weapons sales comes from Iran.[46][47] In addition to this, the report claims the air route is also used for the exchange and collaboration ofWMD technology, as well as a route for visits by scientists, technicians and nuclear and ballistics officials.[26] Most of the route passes over China, and a U.S. delegation held talks with Chinese officials over how to implement the resolution regarding the aircraft which regularly refuel at Chinese airports,[48] but did not report on the response.[27]
