North Korea to void truce as U.N. tightens vise

Pyongyang threatens nuke attack on U.S. after sanctions

AFP-JIJI

North Korea responded to new U.N. sanctions Friday with fresh threats of nuclear war, the abolition of peace pacts with South Korea and the severing of a hot- line with Seoul.

Pyongyang is known for its bellicose rhetoric, but the tone has reached a frenzied pitch in recent days, fueling concerns that it might trigger a border incident, with both the North and South Korea planning major military exercises next week.

On Thursday, the country threatened a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the United States and South Korea.

North Korea “abrogates all agreements on nonaggression reached between the North and the South,” the state-run Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea (CPRK) said in a statement Friday.

A nonaggression pact signed in 1991 endorsed the peaceful settlement of disputes and the prevention of accidental military clashes. The CPRK said the pact will be voided as of Monday, the same day that Pyongyang has vowed to rip up the 1953 armistice agreement that ended hostilities in the Korean War.

“It also notifies the South that it will immediately cut off the North-South hotline,” the committee said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

The hotline was installed in 1971 and Pyongyang has severed it on five occasions in the past — most recently in 2010.

North Korea’s latest announcement came just hours after the U.N. Security Council beefed up existing sanctions against the communist state in response to its globally condemned nuclear test Feb. 12.

The resolution adopted by the 15-member council added new names to the U.N. sanctions blacklist and tightened restrictions on the North’s financial dealings, notably its suspected “bulk cash” transfers.

The new sanctions will “bite hard,” said Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. “They increase North Korea’s isolation and raise the cost to North Korea’s leaders of defying the international community.”

China wants “full implementation” of the resolution, said Li Baodong, Beijing’s U.N. envoy, while stressing that efforts must be made to bring Pyongyang back to negotiations and defuse tensions.

In a statement issued immediately after the vote, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said, “We strongly call on North Korea never to engage in acts of provocation.”

He said the resolution was partially a result of efforts by Japan to get China on board, telling the same session that Tokyo worked for its passage by “exchanging views and opinions with China in Beijing and New York.”

Other officials also pointed out the importance of winning the backing of China — a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power and North Korea’s long-time benefactor — for the new Security Council resolution.

However, one Japanese government source cautioned that Thursday’s sanctions resolution “will have a limited impact,” a view shared by many others in Tokyo.

  • David E. Spence

    I can’t help but see some very real similarities between the antics of Kin Jong Un and Saddam Hussein’s. The difference here is that North Korea actually has the nuclear capabilities that Hussein only hinted at. No unstable country should be allowed to possess that capability. The U.N., the World, needs to stand against this and stop playing footsie with close to meaningless “sanctions.”

  • 151E

    This is such an unnecessary conflict, and ratcheting up the pressure is unlikely to make Pyongyang yield. It’s delusion to think that yet more sanctions will force a paranoid regime to relinquish their nuclear deterrent. Shouldn’t the overriding goal here be to diffuse tensions? At the very least, why not sign a formal peace treaty and establish normal political relations? The situation would seem to call for a little less muscle, and a little more finesse.

    • Kenichi Kino

      There is no conflict yet. The whole purpose of the sanctions is to get DPRK leaders to stop building missiles and nuclear weapons. China would like to see DPRK able to sustain itself without having to provide constant energy and food to the drain on China”s economy. China is trying to get the leaders of the DPRK to effect real economic reform that will be able to sustain country of NK without economic assistance form them. China wants a buffer from the US ally ROK that does not drain their own economic growth.

      • 151E

        (1) There is conflict, it’s just isn’t armed conflict (at least not most of the time).

        (2) I understand the purpose of the sanctions, but my point is that 50 years of sanctions haven’t achieved their purpose and are unlikely to do so.

        (3) Pushing a paranoid and unstable regime too far, with no way to save face, and they may lash out. Sure, North Korea could never win a war against the US, but then again they don’t have to. In their bunker mentality, they might view a single nuclear strike against the US (or one of its allies) as a victory in and of itself (think ‘ichioku gyokusai’).

        (4) Alternatively, we could sign a peace treaty with North Korea, then give them loans to hire US, Japanese, and South Korean firms to improve their infrastructure (using “foreign aid” as both a means of pacification and stimulus package for domestic construction firms), set-up a few electronics manufacturing plants, provide free wi-fi across the whole country, and essentially lull them into satiated complacency – thereby neutralizing the threat.

      • Kenichi Kino

        DPRK leaders have refused a peace treaty, since 1953 when they and China agreed to the armistice instead. NK government leaders need an enemy as an excuse to keep its population from blaming the government about the deplorable situation their country is in. DPRK leaders have always made unreasonable demands such as ROK to be subjected to their form of government to move on a peace treaty. Knowing that it will not happen. The regime of NK needs to keep its population misinformed, and focused on the enemy(US & ROK$) in order to exist.

    • http://getironic.blogspot.com/ getironic

      Why do you use the word “deterrent”? That is the function of nukes for peaceful countries, but not for dictatorships.

  • TexasBill

    Why don’t just sign a formal peace treaty and establish normal political relations? How about because that doesn’t work with a government whose leaders haven’t been playing with a full deck in more than fifty years? There are more loose marbles rolling around Pyongyang than at the World Marbles Championship in Tinsley Green. It’s like the Grand Duchy of Fenwick on bad acid.

    • 151E

      Funny, and I gave you a rec just on the reference to Mouse that Roared alone, but you offer no constructive suggestions. Fifty years of sanctions haven’t worked, so I wouldn’t hold my breath hoping for different results this time. So that leaves only a few limited options: (1) More of the same farcical posturing on all sides. (2) Military intervention. But now that North Korea has nuclear weapons and could well possibly obliterate Seoul and its 10 million inhabitants, that’s quite a gamble to take. Perhaps it’s an acceptable risk though if you live somewhere like Washington DC or Texas. (3) Attempt to diffuse tensions somewhat. Perhaps the US should borrow from Imperial China’s old stratagems. If unable to shock-and-awe Pyongyang into submission, bribe and cajole them into compliance. Remove the threat of imposed regime change, and they will relax somewhat. Then, once they have open internet and social media and whatnot, change will come from within.

    • 151E

      Funny, and I gave you a rec just on the reference to Mouse that Roared alone, but you offer no constructive suggestions. Fifty years of sanctions haven’t worked, so I wouldn’t hold my breath hoping for different results this time. So that leaves only a few limited options: (1) More of the same farcical posturing on all sides. (2) Military intervention. But now that North Korea has nuclear weapons and could well possibly obliterate Seoul and its 10 million inhabitants, that’s quite a gamble to take. Perhaps it’s an acceptable risk though if you live somewhere like Washington DC or Texas. (3) Attempt to diffuse tensions somewhat. Perhaps the US should borrow from Imperial China’s old stratagems. If unable to shock-and-awe Pyongyang into submission, bribe and cajole them into compliance. Remove the threat of imposed regime change, and they will relax somewhat. Then, once they have open internet and social media and whatnot, change will come from within.

  • Kenichi Kino

    Nuclear Weapons in the control of an unstable regime is not good for peace. If the only thing your country can produce of relevance is nuclear weapons, while the majority of the population is on abject poverty then you deserve to be sanctioned.

    • 151E

      Deserve to be sanctioned? Yes. Will those sanctions produce the desired result, i.e. a denuclearized North Korea that plays along well with others? No. Does boxing in an already paranoid and defensive regime into a corner risk escalation? Quite possibly (see the Pacific war).