After
N. Korea
Launch, UNSC
Looking At
Response,
Japan Wants
Press
Statement
By Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, April
24 --
Another week,
another North
Korean mission
launch,
another UN
Security
Council "Any
Other
Business"
meeting.
On April 28,
when asked of
DPRK's most
recent launch,
UNSC President
(until May 1)
Liu Jieyi of
China genially
said, “We are
looking at a
response from
the Security
Council.” Then
he left.
Japan's
Ambassador
Motohide
Yoshikawa said
(softly) that
it may be a
Press
Statement, but
said he didn't
know about
timing. Then
he also left.
(The
representative
of Western
Sahara's
Polisario,
seeing the
swelled media
scrum, asked
if it was for
the resolution
on the MINURSO
mission's
mandate.)
On
April 24,
right after UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon met
with North
Korean foreign
minister Ri Su
Yong... about
climate
change. This
is the Ban
Ki-moon who,
may say, wants
to be
president of
South Korea,
and wants to
censor
coverage of
the growing
corruption
scandal in his
UN to that
end.
On April
22, Ban's
Spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric said:
"On the
margins of the
High-level
Signature
Ceremony for
Paris
Agreement, the
Secretary-General
and H.E. Mr.
Ri Su Yong,
Minister for
Foreign
Affairs of the
Democratic
People's
Republic of
Korea,
exchanged
greetings with
each
other.
The
Secretary-General
briefly spoke
about UN-DPRK
relations,
including the
importance of
concerted
action on
climate
change."
Then,
the submarine
launch, and a
UN Security
Council Press
statement that
it "would
continue to
closely
monitor the
situation and
take further
significant
measures in
line with the
Council’s
previously
expressed
determination."
Haven't we
heard that
before?
On April
16, as Inner
City Press
continued to
pursue Ban's
links to the
Ng Lap Seng UN
bribery
scandal, Ban's
also-involved
USG of DPI
Cristina
Gallach had
Inner City
Press'
investigative
files dumped
out onto First
Avenue, video
here and here (Periscope). More
info here.
What countries
is this
reminiscent
of?
Here is the
full text of
the Security
Council's
April 24 Press
Statement:
"Security
Council Press
Statement on
DPRK
Submarine-Launched
Ballistic
Missile
The members of
the Security
Council
strongly
condemned the
firing of a
submarine-launched
ballistic
missile by the
Democratic
People's
Republic of
Korea (DPRK)
on 23 April.
This incident
constituted
yet another
serious
violation by
the DPRK of
United Nations
Security
Council
resolutions
1718 (2006),
1874 (2009),
2087 (2013),
2094 (2013)
and 2270
(2016). The
members of the
Security
Council
emphasized
that the
DPRK’s
development
and testing of
new ballistic
missile
capabilities,
even if
launches are
failures, is
clearly
prohibited by
these
resolutions.
In this
context, the
members of the
Security
Council
reiterated
their serious
concern, as
expressed in
resolution
2270 (2016),
that such
ballistic
missile
activities
contribute to
the DPRK's
development of
nuclear
weapons
delivery
systems and
increase
tension in the
region and
beyond.
The members of
the Security
Council
reiterated
that the
Democratic
People’s
Republic of
Korea shall
refrain from
further
actions in
violation of
the relevant
Security
Council
resolutions
and comply
fully with its
obligations
under these
resolutions,
including to
suspend all
activities
related to its
ballistic
missile
program and in
this context
reestablish
its previous
commitments to
a moratorium
on missile
launches.
In light of
these recent
violations,
the members of
the Security
Council
emphasized the
importance of
the work of
the Security
Council’s
Committee
established
pursuant to
resolution
1718 (2006),
and urged all
Member States
to redouble
their efforts
to implement
the measures
imposed in all
relevant
Security
Council
resolutions.
The members of
the Security
Council
particularly
emphasized the
need to
strengthen
implementation
of the
measures
imposed in
resolution
2270 (2016)
and reiterated
their call on
Member States
to report to
the Security
Council on
concrete
measures taken
in order to
implement
effectively
the provisions
of that
resolution.
The members of
the Security
Council
reiterated the
importance of
maintaining
peace and
stability on
the Korean
Peninsula and
in the
North-East
Asia at large,
expressed
their
commitment to
a peaceful,
diplomatic and
political
solution to
the situation
and welcomed
efforts by
Council
members as
well as other
States to
facilitate a
peaceful and
comprehensive
solution
through
dialogue.
The members of
the Security
Council agreed
that the
Security
Council would
continue to
closely
monitor the
situation and
take further
significant
measures in
line with the
Council’s
previously
expressed
determination.
New York, 24
April 2016"
Back on March
18 the US
State
Department at
its briefing
said it was
seeking a UN
Security
Council
meeting, but
wasn't sure if
it would seek
a resolution
or more
sanctions.
Later
on March 18
after a closed
door Security
Council
session, the
Council issued
this Press
Statement:
"The members
of the
Security
Council held
urgent
consultations
to address the
serious
situation
arising from
the recent
ballistic
missile
launches
conducted by
the Democratic
People’s
Republic of
Korea.
The Members of
the Security
Council
strongly
condemned and
expressed
grave concern
at the
ballistic
missile
launches
conducted by
the DPRK on
March 18 and
on March
10.
The Members
of the
Security
Council
stressed that
all these
launches were
unacceptable,
constituted a
clear
violation of
UN Security
Council
resolutions
1718 (2006),
1874 (2009),
2087 (2013),
2094 (2013),
2270 (2016),
and posed a
threat to
regional and
international
security.
The Members of
the Security
Council
reiterated
that the DPRK
shall refrain
from further
actions in
violation of
the relevant
Security
Council
resolutions
and comply
fully with its
obligations
under these
resolutions.
Recalling the
Security
Council's
unanimous
adoption of
resolution
2270 (2016) on
March 2, the
Members of the
Security
Council
expressed
grave concern
over the
DPRK's
reaction to
that
resolution and
its
demands.
The Members of
the Security
Council
therefore are
determined to
ensure that
resolution
2270 (2016) is
implemented
fully.
In light of
these recent
violations,
the Members of
the Security
Council
emphasized the
importance of
the work of
Security
Council's
Committee
established
pursuant to
resolution
1718 (2006)
and urged all
Member States
to redouble
their efforts
to implement
the measures
imposed in all
relevant
Security
Council
resolutions.
The Members of
the Security
Council agreed
that the
Security
Council would
continue to
closely
monitor the
situation and
act as
appropriate. "
Back on
February 25 in
front of the
UN Security
Council, US
Ambassador
Samantha Power
said, "There
must be and
there will be
accountability
for North
Korea's
actions." (But
not for the UN's
actions,
apparently,
see here
and here
and below).
After
changes were
made to the
draft --
dropping
KOMID's listed
representative
in Russia,
loosening the
restrictions
on aviation
fuel in
Paragraph 31
-- it was
unanimously
approved on
March 2.
After the
vote, Inner
City Press
asked Spanish
Ambassador
Roman Oyarzun
Marchesi to
explain the
amendment on
aviation fuel.
Marchesi, who
first tried to
take no
questions,
replied to the
side of the
UNTV stakeout
that the new
Paragraph 31
is "stronger."
Video
here.
But just
to check that,
here is the
new Paragraph
31, which adds
an exception:
"decides also
that this
provision
shall not
apply with
respect to the
sale or supply
of aviation
fuel to
civilian
passenger
aircraft
outside the
DPRK
exclusively
for
consumption
during its
flight to the
DPRK and its
return
flight."
So what
to make of the
statement that
the adopted
Paragraph 31
is "stronger"
that the
original
Paragraph 31?
We'll have
more on this.
Ban rushed out
a statement
after the
unanimous vote
on North
Korea. He is,
wags say,
running for
President of
South Korea.
Meanwhile his
failures in
Sri Lanka are
being highlighted
again by
his USG of DPI
Cristina
Gallach,
Spain's
highest UN
official,
throwing Inner
City Press
into the
street, and
trying to
seize its desk
and Resident
Correspondent's
accreditation,
without any
due process. There's been a protest, click here
to view.
It is
sometimes
asked, what is
the
responsibility
of a donor
state which
places one of
its nationals
into a
politically-appointed
job in the
UN. To
ensure they
answer
questions?
Non. But at
least, to make
sure they
don't censor,
and to do
something if
they do? We
say Si.
On
February 29
(leap year),
the following
arrived on
background:
"The United
States has
asked that the
draft
sanctions
resolution on
the DPRK be
put in blue.
We have
requested that
the Angolan
presidency
schedule the
adoption for
tomorrow after
Security
Council
consultations
on the March
program of
work, which
will start at
3:00 p.m."
But then on
March 1, this:
"Subsequent to
the United
States’
request to
place the
draft
sanctions
resolution on
DPRK into blue
and to
schedule a
Council vote
for this
afternoon,
Russia invoked
a procedural
24-hour review
of the
resolution, so
the vote will
be on
Wednesday."
On the
afternoon of
March 1, when
the vote was
to have taken
place,
Russia's
ambassador
Vitaly Churkin
told the
press, "Issues
to take care
of, we
discussed them
with the US
delegation, I
think they
accommodated
some of our
concerns. Have
they
accommodated
all of our
concerns? not
entirely. But
you know, we
are working
for consensus
of
course.
You never get
everything you
want. It's
very
complicated
text. It's a
resolution
that is
necessary,
which the
Security
Council need
to adopt
because of of
certain
challenges
coming from
DRPK. So we'll
see what
happens
tomorrow."
Churkin didn't
answer on the
coal or fuel
provisions; it
was unclear
but as to one
individual he
said, “He is
not even in
Russia. We are
surprised he
appeared there
in the first
place.”
Inner City
Press notes,
in the annex
of the
weekend's
draft, one
Jang Song
Chol, listed
as KOMID's
representative
in Russia...
What
about UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon? Last
time he met
with his
senior
advisers --
all male --
then issued a
statement.
Then on
February 5 he
told a UNA-UK
audience in
London how
important
gender
empowerment
has been to
him.
If Ban
is in fact
running for
President in
South Korea,
how will this
help him? And
any shadow
over the US
Super Bowl?
Any (early)
question in
the GOP
debate? We'll
be following
this.
Back on
January 6
after North
Korea
announced it
had tested a
hydrogen bomb,
at the UN a
Security
Council
meeting was
called for 11
am. Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon read a
statement at
the UNSC
stakeout at
10:30 am,
taking no
question as
usual.
After 1
pm, Security
Council
President for
January Elbio
Rosselli of
Uruguay
emerged and
read out a
Press
Statement
below. Japan's
Ambassador
Motohide
Yoshikawa
spoke, and
Inner City
Press asked
him of Ban's
moves to visit
DPRK. He
replied that
if such a trip
emphasized UN
resolutions
including on
human rights,
it could be
useful. Video
here. But
what WAS Ban's
trip going to
be about?
Earlier, UNTV
fed out B-roll
of Ban meeting
with his
advisers --
Kim Won-soo
and Jeff
Feltman
formerly of
the US State
Department, Vine here -- and Ban canceled a
previously
scheduled
(also “no
questions”)
appearance
that Inner
City Press and
the Free
UN Coalition
for Access
critiqued
here.
Back on
November 17,
2015 when Ri
Hung Sik,
Ambassador
at-large of
the Democratic
People's
Republic of
Korean, held a
press
conference at
the North
Korean
mission, he
said that he
had heard
nothing,
nothing at
all, about UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon
visiting North
Korea, which
Yonhap
ascribed to a
senior UN
source.
Even when
asked a
leading
question about
a hypothetical
Ban trip, Ri
Hung Sik said
Ban's UN would
have to
improve its
relations with
DPRK. Inner
City Press is
putting
the audio
online here,
and embedded
below.
Inner
City Press ran
back to the UN
and asked
Ban's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric, transcript here:
Inner City
Press: here
was just a
press
conference at
the Democratic
People's
Republic of
Korea (DPRK)
mission, and
there their
minister, Ri
Hung Sik,
asked about
the
Secretary-General's
possible
reported trip,
said he's
heard nothing
about it at
all and that
there are many
rumours on the
internet.
He also said
that this
South Korean
national
security law
that makes it
illegal for
South Korean
citizens to
speak
positively of
the DPRK…
that's how he
described it…
should be
looked at by
the UN.
So I wanted to
know, what is
the
Secretary-General's
view of that
law? And
if that's an
accurate
description,
is he bound by
it?
Spokesman:
I'm not aware
of the
law. As
far as Ban
Ki-moon, he is
the
Secretary-General
of the United
Nations and is
doing his duty
as such.
But why did
Team Ban play
it so coy on
Yonhap's
report? Now
late on
November 17,
the UN has
issued this
more specific
denial:
"In response
to questions
asked about a
report from
Xinhua and the
Korean Central
News Agency
stating that
the
Secretary-General
would be
travelling to
the Democratic
People’s
Republic of
Korea next
week, the
Spokesman had
the following
to say: The
Secretary-General
will not be
travelling to
the DPRK next
week. He will
be in New York
most of the
week and then
travel to
Malta for the
Commonwealth
Summit. From
there, he will
go to directly
to Paris to
attend CoP21.
The
Secretary-General
has repeatedly
said that he
is willing to
play any
constructive
role,
including
traveling to
the DPRK, in
an effort to
work for
peace,
stability and
dialogue on
the Korean
Peninsula."
Before
Inner City
Press left the
DPRK mission
on November
17, it asked
Ri Hung Sik
for his view
of UN Special
Rapporteur
Marzuki
Darusman and
when or if UN
High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights Prince
Zeid will
visit North
Korea.
Of
Darusman, Ri
Hung Sik said
he met him
only once, and
that it seems
Darusman does
not speak his
own words, or
think his own
thoughts. Of
Zeid, he said
the discussion
is of
technical
cooperation,
but no date
was given. Video here.
, 
