The United Nations has responded to North
Korea’s fourth nuclear weapons test and long range ballistic missile launch by
adopting a resolution with targeted sanctions. According to the relatively
strict resolution, all imports and exports to and from North Korea will need to
be inspected, the export of jet fuel is prohibited, and there are restrictions
on the export of coal. The diplomatic immunity of North Korea’s diplomatic
representatives will be revised, and North Korean banks are prohibited from
establishing overseas branches. Taken as a whole, the resolution is seen as
restricting regime movement in a number of key areas.
Will the tough sanctions be effective?
Because all member nations will be required
to carry out the sanctions outlined in the UN resolution, there is an
expectation that this round might actually succeed in putting a leash on North
Korea. However, when we bear in mind the fact that similar UN resolutions have
failed to put any significant hurt on the Kim regime, this optimism seems a bit
premature. The fact that this resolution binds members to follow the sanctions
to a T is no guarantee of efficacy.
The reason that the resolution’s passing is
not directly tied to the effectiveness of the sanctions is because there are
instances of nations not implementing the exact protocols laid out by past
resolutions. The UN member’s North Korea Sanctions Committee says that it will
oversee enforcement of the resolution, but punishing nations that do not follow
the resolution is not a simple matter. For instance, even if a nation admits to
breaching the stipulations of the resolution, it will not be easy for the UN
Security Council to impose punitive sanctions on that country merely for
failing to follow the resolution. Another dimension that makes implementation
and inspection extremely difficult is that 193 countries have adopted the
resolution, meaning the logistical task of overseeing implementation will be
immense.
The importance of neighboring states for
implementation
Therefore, whether the resolution is
effective or not depends almost entirely on the will of its signatory states to follow through with their obligations. If the authorities
pursue the implementation with political determination, we can expect to see
positive results. It should be noted that the nations that neighbor the target
country are doubly important in this sense. That’s why the resolution’s
efficacy is largely dependent on the thoroughness of China’s enforcement of the
sanctions.
Thankfully, the Chinese authorities have
announced their intention to faithfully follow through on the UN sanctions. In
fact, the resolution’s content was mostly drafted by a collaborative effort
between the United States and China. Accordingly, China’s pledge to
enforce the sanctions comes as somewhat obvious. However, the truth of the
matter is that it is impossible to predict whether China will continue to carry
out the sanctions. Up until now, China has always insisted on the simultaneous
use of sanctions and dialogue. After the adoption of the resolution at the UN
Security Council meeting, China spoke out against South Korea’s move to install
the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system. If the
sanctions continue on without dialogue and South Korea installs THAAD, China
might become less than enthusiastic about enforcing the sanctions.
In these kind of circumstances, we need to
think deeply about whether enforcing strict sanctions alone is a sufficient
strategy. The U.S. and South Korea’s aim is to engage North Korea in dialogue
about denuclearization, but North Korea is talking past that point, so in the
end, China might end up softening on the sanctions as a way to get North Korea
to the bargaining table. The South Korean government has explained that the
THAAD installment is separate from the new sanctions, but in reality the two
are connected. We have to consider the possibility that THAAD might influence
China not to cooperate on the sanctions.
The strategic need to open up the doors to
dialogue
On Independence Movement Day (March 1),
President Park Geun Hye said, “The doors to dialogue are not shut,” publically
for the first time in a long time. While it does not seem like dialogue is
being actively pursued at the moment, the fact that the government gave a
signal that it isn’t evading dialogue is significant. Furthermore, the notion
that the government has had difficulty even broaching the topic illustrates
that there is a need to improve the political atmosphere.
South Korea needs to perceive the strategic
necessity of opening up the doors to dialogue with North Korea. Although
sanctions and dialogue represent the polar opposite sides of North Korea
policy, doing so will help create conditions in which it is easier for China to
enforce sanctions in the long term.
*Views expressed in Guest Columns are not necessarily those of Daily NK.
