US and Rogue Allies Want Tougher Sanctions on North Korea
by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman)
Sanctions don’t work. They’re counterproductive. They don’t change how nations operate. They’re illegal unless imposed by Security Council members.
They’re imposed as punishment, mostly for unacceptable reasons against sovereign independent states, harming ordinary people in targeted nations, not ruling authorities.
On January 16, foreign ministers from 20 nations met in Vancouver on North Korea – hosted by Washington and Canada.
Participating nations were involved in America’s naked aggression on North Korea in the 1950s – Russia and China not invited because they favor diplomacy, not confrontation.
US and Canadian news releases followed Tuesday’s meeting. Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland announced “a $3.25 million commitment aimed at strengthening the global sanctions regime and countering North Korea’s sanctions evasion and proliferation networks,” explaining:
“The initiative will be implemented in partnership with the United States.”
Both countries want tougher sanctions on the DPRK, circumventing the Security Council’s exclusive authority to impose them.
Others unilaterally, bilaterally or in cahoots with multiple nations are unacceptable and illegal.
During Tuesday’s session, Freeland lied saying “(t)he grave and growing threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs is a global challenge.”
Fact: North Korea threatens no one. It wants peace and stability on the peninsula, not confrontation or war.
It wants its sovereign independence respected, harsh sanctions removed, and a peace treaty, formally ending the 1950s war. An uneasy armistice is unacceptable, perpetuating tensions, instead of easing them.
It wants the threat of US aggression eliminated, why it continues developing its nuclear and ballistic missile deterrents – solely for defense, not offense.
Together with his Canadian, South Korean, Japanese and UK counterparts on Tuesday, Rex Tillerson called for “maximum pressure” on the DPRK, including tougher sanctions and interdicting North Korean vessels, high seas piracy if implemented, saying Washington “cannot and will not accept (North Korea) as a nuclear state.”
He rejected the Sino/Russian “freeze-for-freeze” approach, urging Washington halt its provocative military exercises with South Korea and Japan in return for Pyongyang freezing its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
It’s a common sense approach the Trump administration finds unacceptable, favoring bullying, brinkmanship and belligerence instead, risking nuclear war on the peninsula, catastrophic if launched, assuring millions of casualties and mass destruction.
Tillerson lied claiming Kim Jong-un “threaten(s) international peace and security through unlawful ballistic missile and nuclear tests.”
US imperial lawlessness threatens regional and world peace and stability. The problem on the peninsula lies in Washington, not Pyongyang.
Instead of favoring responsible diplomacy, US-led Vancouver participants “agree(d) to consider and take steps to impose unilateral sanctions and further…actions that go beyond those required by UN Security Council resolutions.”
Instead of agreeing on ways to ease tensions, they want them increased.
Tuesday’s Vancouver meeting was a diplomatic disaster, perhaps prelude to US-launched aggression.
On Wednesday, a Russian Foreign Ministry statement said the following:
“The Russian-Chinese road map for the Korean settlement, announced in the Joint Statement of the Russian and Chinese Foreign Ministries of July 4, 2017, aims at a mutually acceptable solution of the entire set of problems exclusively by peaceful political and diplomatic means through a mutual reduction in military activity in the region, direct American-North Korean and inter-Korean negotiations and the discussion of security issues in Northeast Asia in a broad format.”
“No alternative is offered to this document. Nothing constructive was proposed by the participants in” Vancouver.
“Regrettably, we have to state that such events which are conducted hastily and which have a negative effect on functioning of proven multilateral formats, do not contribute to the normalization of the situation around the Korean Peninsula.”
“(O)n the contrary, (Vancouver) aggravated it. The ‘decision’ of the participants to consider introducing unilateral sanctions and other diplomatic measures (is) completely unacceptable and counterproductive.”
China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang slammed the Vancouver meeting, saying “it divide(s) the international community and damage the chances of an appropriate settlement on the peninsula,” adding:
“Only through dialogue, equally addressing the reasonable concerns of all parties, can a way to an effective and peaceful resolution be found.”
Vancouver participants increased chances for war on the peninsula, instead of responsibly stepping back from the brink.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”