Home GRASP GRASP/China North Korea sanctions: US drops oil embargo and naval blockade proposals

North Korea sanctions: US drops oil embargo and naval blockade proposals

343
0
SHARE

In effort to avoid veto from China, US nixes proposal to freeze Kim Jong-un’s assets in revised draft proposal circulated to UN
The US has significantly diluted a package of new proposed sanctions against North Korea, dropping an oil embargo and enforceable naval blockade in the hope of avoiding a Chinese veto at the UN security council.
A revised draft seen by the Guardian and circulated by the US mission to the UN on Monday will impose a ban on imports of North Korean textiles and put a cap on Pyongyang’s imports of crude oil and refined petroleum products.
But other elements were dropped from a much stronger version proposed by the US last week, including the first asset freeze directed at Kim Jong-un, a complete ban on oil sales to his regime, and a mandate for warships from any member state to inspect ships suspected of carrying contraband to or from North Korea, and to enforce inspect using “all necessary measures”.
The Pyongyang regime threatened retribution against Washington for any new sanctions measure threatening to inflict “the greatest pain and suffering” the US has ever encountered.
A diplomatic source at the security council said that the revisions in the draft had been made with the aim of securing acquiescence from China and Russia, who expressed serious reservations about the original version. The US called for the security council in the wake of North Korea’s sixth, and most powerful, nuclear test on 3 September.
“This is a text designed for adoption, ” the source said. “If they were running it to force a veto, they wouldn’ t have made the revisions.”
Even if the US draft is not vetoed, an abstention by China in particular would significantly weaken its impact, as the North Korea is likely to take it as a signal that Beijing would not enforce its measures with much rigour.
The UK ambassador to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, insisted the revised text was still “robust” and argued the revisions were not a climbdown by the US.

Continue reading...