1
   

U.S. Planning Sanctions Against North Korea

 
 
frolic
 
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 08:45 am
By JAMES DAO


WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 ?- The Bush administration is developing plans for sanctions against North Korea, that would include halting its weapons shipments and cutting off money sent there by Koreans living in Japan, in the event that North Korea continues its march toward developing nuclear weapons, senior administration officials say.

The officials said late last week the administration had no plans to push for the sanctions soon, since the United States' Pacific allies still oppose the idea and the United Nations Security Council is likely to remain focused on Iraq for weeks.

But the Pentagon and State Department are developing detailed plans for sanctions, and perhaps other actions, so that the United States has a forceful response ready in case North Korea takes aggressive new steps toward developing nuclear weapons, senior officials said.

Many administration officials believe that it is just a matter of time before North Korea resumes testing long-range missiles, for example, or starts reprocessing nuclear fuel for weapons production. Many officials also worry that if the United States attacks Iraq, North Korea will use the opportunity to push forward with weapons production.

"If they start to dismantle their weapons programs, then we can talk about incentives," a senior administration official said. "But if they torque up the pressure, you're looking at the other direction. That's when sanctions become much more likely."

The officials said the possibility of sanctions would be part of a broader diplomatic campaign intended to get North Korea to step back from its nuclear programs. The first step will be to urge the Security Council, perhaps in the next two weeks, to condemn North Korea's recent steps toward nuclear weaponry, which have included withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and restarting a mothballed reactor at Yongbyon that can produce weapons-grade plutonium.

The United States will also continue pressing Russia and China, major trading partners and providers of foreign aid to North Korea, to take a more active role in pressuring North Korea to dismantle its programs, the officials said.

Both countries have said they will not support sanctions yet, contending that less confrontational approaches should be given more time. North Korea has said it would consider sanctions an act of war.

Precisely because Russia and China, as well as South Korea and Japan, have been unwilling to support cutting off trade with North Korea, the United States is looking at more tailored sanctions that will focus on banned activities like smuggling drugs or proliferating weapons of mass destruction, officials said.

For instance, Pentagon planners are looking closely at using American military forces to stop, turn back or seize ships and aircraft from North Korea that are suspected of carrying missiles or nuclear weapons materials, officials said. The sale of missile technology to Iran, Iraq and other countries has been a major source of foreign currency for the impoverished North Korea, American officials contend.

In December, Spanish warships working with American military and intelligence officials stopped a North Korean freighter that was found to be carrying 15 Scud missiles bound for Yemen.

But the Bush administration, at the urging of Yemen's government, determined that it had no legal right to seize the cargo and ordered the freighter released.

To prevent a similar situation, administration officials say that they will need Security Council authorization to seize or turn back weapons shipments from North Korea.

At a Senate hearing last week, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld hinted at that strategy, advocating revamping international rules to allow steps to halt North Korea's weapons exports and calling North Korea "the world's greatest proliferator of missile technology" and a threat for selling fissile material to terrorists or rogue nations.

"I see North Korea as a threat as a proliferator more than I see them as a nuclear threat on the peninsula," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "Unless the world wakes up and says this is a dangerous thing and creates a set of regimes that will in fact get cooperation to stop those weapons, we're going to be facing a very serious situation in the next five years."

The sanctions package would also probably include measures intended to cut off remittances to North Korea from Korean-owned gambling parlors in Japan and allow the interdiction of drug trafficking from North Korea. North Korean groups, some linked to the government, run a thriving trade in illegal methamphetamines in northern Asia, Western officials say.

American officials contend that profits from those ventures support North Korea's military and enrich its Communist Party leaders. Constricting them, they contend, will not worsen the already dire plight of North Korea's general population, which has suffered through years of famine.

But the administration is also contemplating measures that could affect North Korean civilians. It is, for instance, likely to reduce American food shipments to North Korea this year from last year's total of 230,000 tons. The administration, which had been among the largest providers of food and fuel to North Korea, last year cut off shipments of heavy fuel oil to North Korea after learning that it had a covert nuclear weapons program.

The administration contends it will not use food aid for political purposes. But officials said last week that food aid to North Korea would almost certainly decline this year for three reasons: the World Food Program, which runs an aid distribution network in North Korea, is requesting less food this year; the United States has concerns that American food is feeding soldiers instead of civilians; and the great demand for American aid in other countries.

But Democratic officials and some aid groups assert that the assistance is being reduced to ratchet up pressure on the North Korean government.

Some Korean experts and hawkish lawmakers in Congress are also urging the administration to press China to reduce aid to North Korea until it begins dismantling its weapons programs. China provides well over half of North Korea's food and fuel imports and is widely thought by American officials to have the most leverage over North Korea.

James R. Lilley, a former ambassador to South Korea and China, said the Chinese remained deeply ambivalent about squeezing North Korea, fearful that it will collapse and send millions of impoverished refugees into northeastern China.

But he also noted that the Chinese were concerned about North Korea's nuclear programs and had been willing at least twice in the past decade to reduce food and fuel shipments to North Korea in apparent efforts to pressure North Korea to freeze its weapons programs.

"The Chinese are coming on board," Mr. Lilley said. "But you've got to get high-level summitry to kick start it."

Such high-level diplomacy could begin in April, when Vice President Dick Cheney is scheduled to visit Beijing to discuss North Korea, administration officials said.

Despite the administration's efforts to devise more forceful approaches to North Korea, many Democrats contend that the administration still lacks a clear and coherent policy. They contend that sanctions will only work in conjunction with a more aggressive effort by the United States to open direct talks with North Korea. The administration has resisted one-on-one talks, saying it wants to meet North Korea in a multilateral setting.

"Direct talks are an indispensable ingredient of a solution here," said Ashton B. Carter, a former Pentagon official who is now a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. "The issue is only when and what to say. Once we figure that out, we can begin the experiment of seeing whether or not North Korea can be talked out of going nuclear."

U.S. Planning Sanctions Against North Korea
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,024 • Replies: 3
No top replies

 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2003 08:56 am
Sanctions have two important drawbacks:

They often harm countries that trade with the target country, and they can hurt children, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups in the target country.

These unintended(??) effects arouse opposition to sanctions and calls for softening sanctions when civilians suffer.

In 1949, the United States joined most of the civilized world in signing the four treaties of the Geneva Convention. Together, these documents spell out acceptable wartime behavior, encouraging combatants to treat military and civilian foes in as humanitarian a way as possible. For half a century, violating the Geneva Convention has been the most definite yardstick of tyranny, oppression, and war crime.

The United States, one of the loudest and most strident advocates of international human rights, often fails to abide by it.

One of the most frequently broken clauses appears in a 1977 amendment: specifically, Part IV, Chapter 3, and Article 54. The article, titled "Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population," states that "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited."

"Starvation of civilians" may not sound like something the United States often engages in, but it's not hard to uncover our euphemism for the taboo practice: we call it "sanctions."

According to the Department of the Treasury, trade sanctions are currently in place against Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, and Yugoslavia (excluding Kosovo, of course).

The rationale behind these embargoes postulates that without the business of the United States and its allies, two things will happen. The economies of the embargoed nations will fail, and their leaders will be forced to reconcile their policies with our demands.

In practice, however, the former often occurs while the latter does not. Despite 27 years without US commerce, the communist Cuban government still stands. Ten years of US sanctions and the losing of the Gulf War haven't felled Saddam Hussein; failures like this are the rule, not the exception, in these misguided bits of foreign policy. When sanctions against Nigeria were lifted in March, it was because the ruling dictator had died, not because the oppressive government was forced to knuckle under to economic pressure.

The logic behind these sanctions is questionable at best. By limiting a country's economic opportunities and its ability to import food, medicine, or even raw materials or technologies essential to production, it's unquestionable that the general populace of a nation will suffer.

But when a report critical of the sanctions on Iraq was presented to the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, US Ambassador George Moose defended the sanctions by helpfully pointing out that the Iraqi regime is not composed of nice people, emphasizing that they attacked Kuwait and Iran without provocation. The sanctions, he explains, are intended to neutralize the threat these people pose.

Ambassador Moose, however, also makes a point at odds with his ardent defense of the sanctions. The Iraqi regime, he notes, "butchered thousands of its own citizens."

Obviously, this is not a government working in the best interests of its citizens. It isn't reasonable, then, to assume that they will give up power in order to feed the people they care so little about. Butchered with machine guns or slowly starved to death by economic sanctions: to Saddam Hussein, to anti-democratic leaders in other nations, what difference does it make how their people die?

Moose goes on to say the sanctions "never limited or prohibited Iraq from importing humanitarian goods, such as food and medicine." While it's very kind of the US to allow Iraq to import these things, without wider trade ability, there's no way for them to fund the expenditures. Instead, Moose touts the highly publicized Oil-for-Food program. But over the four years it's been active, the UN council overseeing the program has only approved $980.4 million worth of medical expenditures. In contrast, Iraq's medical budget for the year before the Gulf War totaled over $500 million.

The truth is that these sanctions have been responsible for thousands of deaths in every country on the Treasury Department's list. According to a 1999 United Nation's Children's Fund (UNICEF) report, over 500,000 Iraqi children have already died because of the sanctions, and thousands more are dying each month. Although Cuban leaders remain tight-lipped with numbers, they blame US sanctions for a dearth of medicine in their country.

You don't hear much about the other countries on the list. Some of them, like Syria and Libya and Sudan, have been on the list for decades and will probably languish there longer still. Others, like North Korea and Yugoslavia, have hope that sanctions will be loosened or removed. But in every country, US economic sanctions have exacerbated the existing problems and have yet to claim a single victory over tyranny and oppression.

These sanctions are at odds with the humanitarian morals the US is so quick to espouse in its condemnation of communist regimes such as those found in China and North Korea (only one of which is under sanctions, by the way). If we truly care about the citizens of these countries, we need to realize that the immediate lifting of these sanctions is the first step in helping them recover their peace and prosperity.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2003 09:06 am
On Tuesday, Pyongyang ratcheted up tensions in its four-month nuclear dispute with the U.S. by warning it would quit the armistice, which ended the Korean War.

The South Korea president repeated a call for prompt U.S.-North Korea talks, saying they were "the only way to solve this problem."

The standoff over North Korea's nuclear weapons program began in October when the U.S. said Pyongyang admitted to secretly pursuing plans to enrich uranium, violating a 1994 agreement.

In the latest episode on Tuesday, North Korea's army accused the United States of violating the 1953 agreement and vowed to "immediately take all steps to cope with it" .

"If the U.S. side continues violating and misusing the armistice agreement as it pleases, there will be no need for the DPRK (North Korea) to remain bound to the AA (Armistice Agreement) uncomfortably," an army spokesman was quoted as saying in the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

"The armistice agreement that was signed to provide a peaceful solution to the Korean issue has been systematically ditched by the U.S. and used for the purpose of its hostile policy toward the DPRK," the statement said.

The North accuses the United States of bolstering its forces by putting "aircraft carriers and strategic bombers in and around the Korean Peninsula in violation" of the armistice.

Such moves were part of Washington's plan for "preemptive attacks" on North Korea -- a situation "getting more serious as the days go."

The statement also cited a December incident in which the United States boarded a North Korean vessel bound for Yemen with missiles among its cargo.

Referring to that incident, the army spokesman said, "This is little short of an open declaration of war in the long run."

"The grave situation created by the undisguised war acts committed by the U.S. in breach of the AA compels the KPA, its warring party, to immediately take all steps to cope with it."

Pyongyang has said before that it would not adhere to the 1953 pact, which was signed by China and North Korea on the communist side and by the U.S.-led United Nations Command on the side of the international community.

South Korea did not sign the pact and is technically still at war with the North.

In Seoul, South Korea's Defense Ministry said no unusual moves by the North Koreans were sighted and that the comments appeared to be more of Pyongyang's sabre-rattling as it agitates for direct talks with Washington over the North's nuclear program, Reuters reports.


CNN
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2003 09:11 am
Hard to believe, but I can't recall an instance in which sanctions worked.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » U.S. Planning Sanctions Against North Korea
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/19/2026 at 03:12:22