UN
Security Council Resolution 1874 | ||
---|---|---|
Date | 12 June 2009 | |
Meeting no. | 6,141 | |
Code | S/2009/301 ( Document) | |
Subject | Non-proliferation Democratic People's Republic of Korea | |
Voting summary |
| |
Result | Adopted | |
Security Council composition | ||
Permanent members | ||
Non-permanent members | ||
|
Part of a series on |
North Korea and the United Nations |
---|
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874 was adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 12 June 2009. [1] The resolution, passed under Chapter VII, Article 41, of the UN Charter, imposes further economic and commercial sanctions on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (the DPRK, or North Korea) and encourages UN member states to search North Korean cargo, in the aftermath of an underground nuclear test conducted on 25 May 2009.
The provisions of the resolution include:
Adopting the resolution unanimously, the Council condemned the nuclear test which was in "violation and flagrant disregard" of previous Council resolutions 1695 and 1718. [1] The resolution is now binding under international law. [2]
An official newspaper said that the country would consider any new sanctions imposed as a "declaration of war". [12] In response, a statement from the Foreign Ministry, carried by the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), said that the country would "weaponize all plutonium" and had reprocessed more than "one-third of our spent nuclear fuel rods". [13] [14] It also announced it would start uranium enrichment. [13] The statement considered any attempt at a blockade as an "act of war that will be met with a decisive military response", and would "counter 'sanctions' with retaliation and 'confrontation' with all-out confrontation", accusing the resolution of being a product of a U.S.-led offensive against the country. [15] [16] The North Korean Foreign Ministry statement on KCNA continues:
The U.S. and Japan, not content with this "resolution", are hatching dirty plots to add their own "sanctions" to the existing ones against the DPRK by framing up the fictional issues of "counterfeit money" and "drug trafficking". The U.S. incited the United Nations Security Council to get more deeply embroiled in its attempt to stifle the DPRK, which resulted in the creation of an unprecedentedly acute tension on the Korean Peninsula.
...
Had any other country found itself in the situation of the DPRK, it would have clearly realized that the DPRK has never chosen but was compelled to go nuclear in the face of the U.S. hostile policy and its nuclear threats. It has become an absolutely impossible option for the DPRK to even think about giving up its nuclear weapons. It makes no difference to the DPRK whether its nuclear status is recognized or not. [17]
A commentary in the Rodong Sinmun newspaper alleged the United States had 1,000 nuclear weapons in South Korea ready to strike North Korea, with the Tongbil Sinmun warning that nuclear war could break out on the Korean peninsula. [18] A U.S. military spokesman described the allegations as "baseless", adding that the weapons were removed under a 1991 treaty.[ citation needed]
On June 15, the North Korean government organized a "mammoth" 100,000-strong protest in Pyongyang's Kim Il-sung Square against Resolution 1874. Secretary of the Central Committee Workers' Party of Korea Kim Ki Nam blamed the United States for pushing through the sanctions, adding that they would not weaken the DPRK. [19] [20]
The South Korean-based Hyundai Economic Research Institute estimated that if the sanctions are enforced by all UN member states, North Korea could lose between US$1.5–3.7 billion, [21] whereas other estimates suggest US$4 billion. [22] However, a Congressional Research Service report for the United States Congress notes that this is only possible if the sanctions are applied forcefully. [23] The United States is targeting access by North Korea to foreign banks used by its trading companies. [24] On 16 July 2009, a UN sanctions committee designated for sanctions three North Korean trading companies, an Iran-based company and North Korea's General Bureau of Atomic Energy. [25]
Luxury consumer goods, such as alcohol, computers, motorcycles, yachts, and luxury foods, for the North Korean elite, were primarily sourced from Europe and China, the latter of which reported a high demand by top North Korean officials. [26] The exports of luxury goods by China in particular is around US$100–160 million, which has caused concern for the United States as to how China is implementing the sanctions. [23]
A number of North Korean ships have been seized or searched under the terms of Resolution 1874.
The resolution is vague on how to implement sanctions on North Korean air cargo, in contrast to the provisions for sea cargo. [23] However, it is alleged that North Korea uses air traffic more than sea traffic to transport or exchange weapons technology. [42] The Congressional Research Service report identifies the Pyongyang– Tehran air route as a matter of concern, as most of the US$1.5 billion North Korea earns in weapons sales comes from Iran. [43] [44] In addition to this, the report claims the air route is also used for the exchange and collaboration of WMD technology, as well as a route for visits by scientists, technicians and nuclear and ballistics officials. [23] Most of the route passes over China, and a U.S. delegation held talks with Chinese officials over how to implement the resolution regarding the aircraft which regularly refuel at Chinese airports, [45] but did not report on the response. [24]
UN
Security Council Resolution 1874 | ||
---|---|---|
Date | 12 June 2009 | |
Meeting no. | 6,141 | |
Code | S/2009/301 ( Document) | |
Subject | Non-proliferation Democratic People's Republic of Korea | |
Voting summary |
| |
Result | Adopted | |
Security Council composition | ||
Permanent members | ||
Non-permanent members | ||
|
Part of a series on |
North Korea and the United Nations |
---|
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874 was adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 12 June 2009. [1] The resolution, passed under Chapter VII, Article 41, of the UN Charter, imposes further economic and commercial sanctions on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (the DPRK, or North Korea) and encourages UN member states to search North Korean cargo, in the aftermath of an underground nuclear test conducted on 25 May 2009.
The provisions of the resolution include:
Adopting the resolution unanimously, the Council condemned the nuclear test which was in "violation and flagrant disregard" of previous Council resolutions 1695 and 1718. [1] The resolution is now binding under international law. [2]
An official newspaper said that the country would consider any new sanctions imposed as a "declaration of war". [12] In response, a statement from the Foreign Ministry, carried by the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), said that the country would "weaponize all plutonium" and had reprocessed more than "one-third of our spent nuclear fuel rods". [13] [14] It also announced it would start uranium enrichment. [13] The statement considered any attempt at a blockade as an "act of war that will be met with a decisive military response", and would "counter 'sanctions' with retaliation and 'confrontation' with all-out confrontation", accusing the resolution of being a product of a U.S.-led offensive against the country. [15] [16] The North Korean Foreign Ministry statement on KCNA continues:
The U.S. and Japan, not content with this "resolution", are hatching dirty plots to add their own "sanctions" to the existing ones against the DPRK by framing up the fictional issues of "counterfeit money" and "drug trafficking". The U.S. incited the United Nations Security Council to get more deeply embroiled in its attempt to stifle the DPRK, which resulted in the creation of an unprecedentedly acute tension on the Korean Peninsula.
...
Had any other country found itself in the situation of the DPRK, it would have clearly realized that the DPRK has never chosen but was compelled to go nuclear in the face of the U.S. hostile policy and its nuclear threats. It has become an absolutely impossible option for the DPRK to even think about giving up its nuclear weapons. It makes no difference to the DPRK whether its nuclear status is recognized or not. [17]
A commentary in the Rodong Sinmun newspaper alleged the United States had 1,000 nuclear weapons in South Korea ready to strike North Korea, with the Tongbil Sinmun warning that nuclear war could break out on the Korean peninsula. [18] A U.S. military spokesman described the allegations as "baseless", adding that the weapons were removed under a 1991 treaty.[ citation needed]
On June 15, the North Korean government organized a "mammoth" 100,000-strong protest in Pyongyang's Kim Il-sung Square against Resolution 1874. Secretary of the Central Committee Workers' Party of Korea Kim Ki Nam blamed the United States for pushing through the sanctions, adding that they would not weaken the DPRK. [19] [20]
The South Korean-based Hyundai Economic Research Institute estimated that if the sanctions are enforced by all UN member states, North Korea could lose between US$1.5–3.7 billion, [21] whereas other estimates suggest US$4 billion. [22] However, a Congressional Research Service report for the United States Congress notes that this is only possible if the sanctions are applied forcefully. [23] The United States is targeting access by North Korea to foreign banks used by its trading companies. [24] On 16 July 2009, a UN sanctions committee designated for sanctions three North Korean trading companies, an Iran-based company and North Korea's General Bureau of Atomic Energy. [25]
Luxury consumer goods, such as alcohol, computers, motorcycles, yachts, and luxury foods, for the North Korean elite, were primarily sourced from Europe and China, the latter of which reported a high demand by top North Korean officials. [26] The exports of luxury goods by China in particular is around US$100–160 million, which has caused concern for the United States as to how China is implementing the sanctions. [23]
A number of North Korean ships have been seized or searched under the terms of Resolution 1874.
The resolution is vague on how to implement sanctions on North Korean air cargo, in contrast to the provisions for sea cargo. [23] However, it is alleged that North Korea uses air traffic more than sea traffic to transport or exchange weapons technology. [42] The Congressional Research Service report identifies the Pyongyang– Tehran air route as a matter of concern, as most of the US$1.5 billion North Korea earns in weapons sales comes from Iran. [43] [44] In addition to this, the report claims the air route is also used for the exchange and collaboration of WMD technology, as well as a route for visits by scientists, technicians and nuclear and ballistics officials. [23] Most of the route passes over China, and a U.S. delegation held talks with Chinese officials over how to implement the resolution regarding the aircraft which regularly refuel at Chinese airports, [45] but did not report on the response. [24]