The United States said Monday it would seek U.N. Security Council unity in responding to North Korea’s latest missile launches, despite previous opposition from China and Russia.
“I call on the council to condemn these ballistic missile launches,” U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield told council members. “I call on the council to urge the DPRK to comply with its international obligations under all relevant Security Council resolutions. And I call on the council to encourage the DPRK to engage in meaningful dialogue.”
DPRK is the abbreviation for North Korea’s formal name — Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
Thomas-Greenfield said despite previous attempts by China and Russia to “shut down all efforts at a meaningful response,” Washington would propose a presidential statement to the council. That is a step below a resolution but must be unanimously agreed upon.
In May, Beijing and Moscow used their veto to block a U.S.-drafted resolution that would have imposed new sanctions on Pyongyang.
Following Monday’s council meeting, eight of the council’s 15 members, plus South Korea, joined the U.S. envoy in issuing a statement condemning DPRK’s latest launches.
On Monday morning local time, North Korea fired two short-range ballistic missiles in what it quickly made clear was retaliation for U.S.-South Korea joint aerial drills less than a day before.
The launch comes less than two days after Pyongyang launched a Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missile in what it described as a “surprise” exercise to test its “mobile and mighty counterattack” capability. The ICBM could be seen in Japan’s exclusive economic zone, just 200 kilometers from Hokkaido.
“As has been reported in some media, ordinary Japanese citizens could visibly see the ballistic missile falling from the sky,” Japanese Ambassador Kimihiro Ishikane told council members. “I assume we can all imagine how terrifying it must have been to see a missile flying to you.”
Ishikane said North Korea’s actions were “dangerous and outrageous,” endangered vessels in their exclusive economic zone and exposed aircraft in the surrounding area to great risk.
Pointing to the 70 ballistic missiles Pyongyang fired off in 2022, and the four so far this year, South Korea’s envoy told the council that the DPRK is highly likely to engage in more provocations in the near future.
“There is no other member state that blatantly mocks and menaces the functioning of the U.N. Security Council and the principles of the U.N. Charter like the DPRK,” Ambassador Hwang Joonkook said. He urged the council to close loopholes in its resolutions and enforce implementation.
“Our united action is essential to lead the DPRK to diplomacy and dialogue,” he added.
South Korea’s Foreign Ministry announced a fresh round of sanctions Monday on nine entities with suspected ties to North Korea’s missile and nuclear program, making good on a promise to strengthen the global sanctions regime, made alongside the U.S. and Japan’s top diplomats on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference over the weekend.
‘Dead end’
China and Russia have repeatedly said more sanctions will not bring Pyongyang to the negotiating table and will only lead to a “dead end.”
“Security Council resolutions on the DPRK are an integrated whole, which not only provide for sanctions against [the] DPRK, but also clearly call for resuming the Six Party Talks, avoiding escalation of tensions, and promoting solutions through political means and dialogue,” Chinese Deputy Ambassador Dai Bing said.
The recent flurry of statements from North Korea indicate Pyongyang is positioned to respond to all forthcoming joint drills and other actions it views as hostile policy with the same intensity, said Park Won Gon, a professor at Ewha Womans University in Seoul.
“[The first sister] Kim Yo Jong very clearly mentioned that with the authority from Kim Jong Un, North Korea will respond to every case of South Korea-U.S. joint military exercise … and with far more powerful means,” he said.
Indeed, in her latest statement on Monday, Kim warned that more “corresponding counteraction” would come in the presence of direct or indirect threats.
“We affirm once again that there is no change in our will to make the worst maniacs escalating the tensions pay the price for their actions,” she said.
Comments are closed.