UNSC Condemns North Korea Submarine Launch, After Ban Ki-moon Talked Climate With DPRK

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 24 --  Another month, another North Korean mission launch - this time from a submarine - and another statement. This time, 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...

  And what of the free press outrage at the UN?

  Inner City Press has put the DPRK position online on Scribd, here.

  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 Accesscritiqued 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.

   During the press conference, there was no question, as at a prior DPRK press conference, about Donald Trump...