By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, January 2 -- When the US imposed sanctions on three North Korean entities and 10 individualson January 2, it said it was not for any direct involvement in the hacking of SONY Pictures. But "Senior Administration Officials" in a background call later on January 2 said they stand behind the US' attribution of the hack to North Korea.
One of the Senior Adminstration Officials cited UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea. But it was not said if the US will ask that Resolution 1718 Committee to adopt any of these sanctions.
One of the Senior Adminstration Officials cited UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea. But it was not said if the US will ask that Resolution 1718 Committee to adopt any of these sanctions.
The Treasury Department's list includes "Jang Song Chol is a KOMID representative... working with individuals in Sudan who are procuring materials from him."
While the materials are presumably weapons, it was not said if they were destined for use in Darfur, on which there ARE sanctions and an arms embargo imposed by the UN Security Council - this would be a double sanctions violation.
The officials were asked if this is the first instance of the US imposing sanctions for a cyber hack; they replied that sanctions have been imposed under an Executive Order, 13606, on Syrian and Iranian sanctionees for using the Internet for human rights harm.
If the US is now willing to impose sanctions in defense of the right of free speech - and freedom of the press - there are many other deserving targets, some of them US allies. We'll have more on this.
On December 22 when the North Korea agenda item was proposed, the UN Security Council president from Chad gave a time for objections.
China objected and spoke (below), and then in the meeting itself, spoke again, also below.
After the meeting - seventeen speeches, no replies or request for an outcome - only South Korean ambassador Oh Joon and the UN's Ivan Simonovic came out to take questions at the UNTV stakeout.
Inner City Press asked each of them the same two questions: about the UN's "field based structure" in Seoul, to open in March 2015, and if the turning off of the Internet in North Korea, some say by the US as its response to the Sony hack, could itself be a human rights violation (even granting how few people in DPRK have access to the Internet).
This later question, both speakers seemed to dodge.Video here. Oh Joon said no one can turn off the entire Internet -- even in North Korea? -- and Simonovic said he wouldn't speculate.
Nor did he address how South Korea's law restricting speech about North Korea might impact the work or credibility of the coming OHCHR office there.
Earlier China's Permanent Representative said:
"China has stated its position against the Security Council's involvement in the human rights issues in DPRK. China has been consistent. The Security Council is not the forum to discuss human rights issues. We oppose any outcome document on the situation of human rights in DPRK.
"China is a neighbor to the Korean peninsula. China will never allow any turbulence or war in the Korean peninsula. We hope the members of the Security Council place their interest in denuclearization and maintenance of peace as a priority, exercise restraint, avoid rhetoric and mutual provocation, and refrain from activities that may lead to the escalation of tension. China will work towards the realization of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, the maintenance of peace and stability, and will address issues through peace and dialogue. China hopes the relevant parties will take real actions to create the environment for the relaunch of six party talks."
"China is a neighbor to the Korean peninsula. China will never allow any turbulence or war in the Korean peninsula. We hope the members of the Security Council place their interest in denuclearization and maintenance of peace as a priority, exercise restraint, avoid rhetoric and mutual provocation, and refrain from activities that may lead to the escalation of tension. China will work towards the realization of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, the maintenance of peace and stability, and will address issues through peace and dialogue. China hopes the relevant parties will take real actions to create the environment for the relaunch of six party talks."
Among the speeches, Rwanda recalling the UN Security Council's in- or mal-action during its 1994 genocide (see a 1994 memo here, and a letter to the UN today here.)
Here is how China objected to the item at the beginning of the meeting:
"China is against using the existence of violation of human rights as a reason to include the agenda of the DPRK in the Security Council. The UN charter stipulates that the purpose of the Security Council is to maintain international peace and security. The Security Council is not a forum for getting involved in human rights issues.
"Currently, international peace and security are faced with daunting challenges. The Security Council should focus on addressing issues that really concern peace and security: upholding the goal of denuclearization, maintaining peace, and maintaining dialogue, these are in the common interests of all parties. The Security Council should work more to facilitate dialogue and refrain from doing anything that might cause the escalation of tension."
"Currently, international peace and security are faced with daunting challenges. The Security Council should focus on addressing issues that really concern peace and security: upholding the goal of denuclearization, maintaining peace, and maintaining dialogue, these are in the common interests of all parties. The Security Council should work more to facilitate dialogue and refrain from doing anything that might cause the escalation of tension."
Then Australia read into the record the letter which requested the meeting. A vote was called. China and Russia opposed the agenda item; Chad and Nigeria abstained. It was decided to proceed.
The first speaker was the UN's Taye-Brook Zerihoun (instead of Jeffrey Feltman), who began with the SONY Pictures hack.
UN Assistant Secretary General Ivan Simonovic was to briefing the Security Council on DPRK. His office sent his speech to select journalists, embargoed until 3 pm. Inner City Press, despite previous requests to Simonovic's (and before that, Ladsous') spokesperson, was not sent the speech, and was not bound by any embargo agreement...
Here's DPRK on the UNGA vote:
The Foreign Ministry of the DPRK released the following statement on Saturday:
The efforts of the DPRK government to build the world's best power and a land of bliss for people where they are well-off as the masters under the socialist system have faced a grave challenge of the hostile forces.
The anti-DPRK "human rights resolution" which had been rammed through the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly by the U.S. was finally adopted in a forcible manner at a plenary session of the 69th UN General Assembly on Friday.
The "resolution" contains even the poisonous call for considering the matter of referring the "human rights issue" of the DPRK to the International Criminal Court, not content with malignantly hurting the DPRK's policy for ensuring genuine human rights. It is the most vivid manifestation of the U.S. harsh hostile policy toward the DPRK aimed at isolating and stifling it at any cost.
Washington, in utter disregard of the procedures and regulations of the UN, staged a farce of making the "human rights issue" of the DPRK an official agenda item by instigating its followers at the UN Security Council even before the adoption of the "resolution" at the UN General Assembly. This fact clearly proves its dangerous politically-motivated attempt to invent an excuse for mounting an invasion of the DPRK under the pretext of "human rights".
Under the present serious situation where the human rights issue of an individual country was politicized at the UN to make a dangerous precedent for abusing it for toppling the social system of the country and the human rights issue stands at the crossroads of genuine cooperation or war, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK solemnly clarifies its stand as follows:
First. The DPRK vehemently and categorically rejects the anti-DPRK "human rights resolution" rammed through the plenary session of the UN General Assembly by the hostile forces on the basis of plots, lies and fabrications and high-handed and arbitrary practices.
The "resolution", which was fabricated on the basis of the misinformation, a collection of "testimonies" made by human scum bereft of even an iota of conscience and appearance as human beings, failing to witness the actual human rights performance in the DPRK, can never remain valid no matter where and by whom it was "adopted."
Second. As the U.S. hostile policy toward the DPRK to mount an invasion of it under the excuse of human rights has become clear, the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula has lost its meaning.
The U.S. has reduced to dead papers all the agreements it made with the DPRK including the Sept. 19 joint statement adopted at the six-party talks in which the DPRK and the U.S. committed themselves to the mutual respect for sovereignty and peaceful co-existence from the moment it launched an all-out human rights showdown with the DPRK.
Third. The DPRK will take all the necessary measures, not bound to anything, to defend its sovereignty and security from the evermore undisguised moves of the U.S. to stifle it.
The DPRK will put increased spurs to its efforts to bolster up in every way its capability for self-defence including nuclear force.
The service personnel and people of the DPRK will smash the hostile forces' reckless "human rights" racket through unprecedentedly toughest counteractions and firmly defend the socialist system, their life and soul.
On the Security Council from the EU are permanent members France and the UK, and Luxembourg which leaves in 13 days (Spain will replace it in 2015 and 2016). Ten days after ten UN Security Council members wrote to request a meeting on the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the request was discussed behind closed doors on December 15.
The day arrived at for the session appears to be December 22 (Inner City Press asked the Chadian President of the Security Council for December), with a moment of drama at the beginning.
That day, the President of the Council will say, "the provision agenda is the situation in the DPRK," and any Council member has the right to object. There are, however, no veto rights on this procedural matter.
China's Permanent Representative to the UN Liu Jieyi said China is opposed to putting DPRK on the Council's agenda, calling the situation there complex and sensitive. Will he object on December 22? Wait and see, he said.
On December 5, ten UN Security Council council members on December 5 asked for a Council meeting on the subject.
Inner City Press obtained the letter that day and put it online, here.
