After U.S., Japanese Forces Refrain From Downing North Korean Missile As Pyongyang Ordered, It Erupts Anyway
North Lashes Out At U.N. Statement, Walks Out On Six-Party Talks; Complaints Of ‘Sovereignty’ Issue
After U.S. and Japanese forces refrained from using missile defense systems to annihilate a rocket North Korea illegally launched, Pyongyang still lashed out, using as a pretext a United Nations Security Council statement criticizing the launch.
It was therefore unclear just what the United States gained by not using its missile defense forces to kill the missile, which arced over Japan and landed in the Pacific Ocean. Additionally, the United States and other nations have supplied fuel and food to the North, and recently Washington also removed North Korea from the list of states sponsoring terrorism.
Further, the United States didn’t even use its highest-power radar to track the rogue missile launch April 5, although the radar data would have provided very useful details to U.S. forces concerning emergent missile capabilities of the North. (Please see separate story in this issue.)
As well, the North announced it never would rejoin the six-party talks in which China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States have attempted to coax the isolated communist regime into surrendering its nuclear weapons and threatening missiles.
Rather, North Korea announced it would rebuild the nuclear reactor at Yongbyon that it partially demolished or incapacitated the last time it needed to push other nations into aiding the North. That would mean the North intends to build still more nuclear weapons. It has yet to turn over even one of its atomic bombs to the United Nations unit, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA. Instead, Pyongyang kicked IAEA inspectors and U.S. government personnel out of the Yongbyon reactor and out of the country, clearing the way for the facility to be reconstructed and restarted in a drive to produce more plutonium for weapons.
Some analysts speculated that the latest temper tantrum out of Pyongyang was a calculated attempt to attract attention — and still more food, fuel and other rewards — from President Obama and leaders of other key nations.
The eruption from Pyongyang was carried in the official KCNA news media.
That story labeled the U.N. Security Council statement (not a full Security Council resolution) “brigandish.” In over-the-top verbiage, the piece asserted that the U.N. statement was an “unjust action” that was “wantonly infringing upon the sovereignty of” North Korea.
The six-party talks also were “infringing upon the sovereignty of the DPRK and seriously hurting the dignity of the Korean people,” the story alleged, adding that the North “never” will participate in those talks again, and it won’t abide by any agreements reached in those negotiations. Talks are only designed to force the North to disarm, the story continued.
The article repeated the earlier false claim that the missile really was launching a satellite, which didn’t occur.
Apparently, the third stage of the missile failed to ignite, so that the top of the missile and the final stage fell into the Pacific Ocean. (Please see Space & Missile Defense Report, Monday, April 6, 2009.)
The story also announced that the North will move ahead with its nuclear weapons program, stating that the North “will bolster its nuclear deterrent for self-defence in every way.”
To that end, the story said that Pyongyang “will take the measure for restoring to their original state the nuclear facilities which had been disabled under the agreement of the six-party talks and putting their operation on a normal track and fully reprocess the spent fuel rods churned out from the pilot atomic power plant as part of it.”
That nuclear program deals with producing plutonium, which the North admits it has done. However, the KCNA story didn’t mention producing highly enriched uranium (HEU), weapons-grade fissile material that also can be used to build nuclear weapons.
While the North has denied it ever produced HEU, traces of it were discovered on documents that Pyongyang turned over to western inspectors.
The rogue regime never has explained the presence of that substance.
As for the U.S. response to the multifaceted actions of the North, there were words such as those from officials and spokespeople, and language in the U.N. statement, but no moves to initiate actions.
At the White House, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a press briefing that the North Korean outburst was “a serious step in the wrong direction.
“North Korea will not find acceptance by the international community unless it verifiably abandons its pursuit of nuclear weapons.” He urged the North to continue “dialogue” in the six-party talks, but didn’t explain how Pyongyang will suffer any punishment for the missile firing and for its subsequent flouting of global norms.
“We call on North Korea to cease its provocative threats, to respect the will of the international community, and to honor its international commitments and obligations,” Gibbs said.
While the United States has seen nothing but obstinate behavior out of the communist regime, Gibbs indicated that at least China and Russia didn’t veto the U.N. Security Council statement condemning the North Korean missile launch.
“The administration is quite pleased with the result out of the United Nations in the condemnation for the launch, in requesting that the North Koreans abandon the pursuit of its program and fulfill its obligations based on the agreement that it made, that it refrain from further provocations and that the — what the U.N. said is that there’s a time period to look at additional — the possibility of additional — additional sanctions,” Gibbs said. “So we’re pleased with what we got.”
But what do mere words on a piece of paper mean to an outlaw regime such as North Korea? Gibbs was asked.
Gibbs responded by saying again that at least the statement wasn’t vetoed.
“There was some question about whether or not you could even get five members of a Security Council, or five of the permanent members of the Security Council, to agree on a condemnation,” Gibbs recalled. But “15 countries unanimously stood up and spoke out about the launch.”
But still, Gibbs was asked where is the leverage if every agreement that leaders of the North make, they eventually decide to break?
“Part of the leverage is going back to, again, some doubt that many of you may have had in the moments or hours after the launch as to whether countries could act in concert, together, to condemn the launch.
“I think there certainly was some doubt expressed for that, and I think the manner in which the Security Council came to this condemnation is extremely important,” Gibbs concluded.
Gibbs was pressed on the issue of whether words in a U.N. statement really punish North Korea for its actions.
“Yes, the President asked that the launch be condemned, that it violated U.N. Resolution 1718, and the statement clearly says that.” The statement mentions that potential additional sanctions against North Korea should be reviewed, Gibbs noted, and that there will be other consequences if the North continues to violate international agreements, “Absolutely.”
Asked just what those consequences would be, Gibbs said, “I think the international community is working through that. I think the notion that some of the people on the Security Council took part in the condemnation is an important step. I think it is important, as I said, that the North Koreans understand that they have to live up to their obligations and that it’s time to return to what at one point were very productive six-party talks.” He didn’t specify just what consequences the North may now face.
On a separate topic, Gibbs denied published news reports that the United States is dropping its opposition to Iran enriching uranium.