United Nations Shows Displeasure for North Korea’s Continued Missile Tests
United
Nations Shows Displeasure for North Korea’s Continued Missile Tests
By E. Stanley Ukeni
It would appear that the
patience of the United Nations is running thin, with North Korea’s blatant
disregard of the international organization’s prohibition of hermit nation’s
nuclear and missile tests.
On Sunday, May 22, 2017, North
Korea defiantly test-fired their Pukguksong-2 medium range ballistic missile—a
solid fuel powered missile system. This was the latest in a series of provocative
missile launches this year alone. It would seem that, in recent years,
Pyongyang has accelerated its efforts to develop and deploy intercontinental
ballistic missiles (ICBM), with the aim of advancing the ability to strike the
United States in the event of a war.
The UN Security Council, on
Monday, May 23, 2017, issued a strongly worded condemnation of North Korea’s
Sunday, provocative ballistic missile test—demanding a halt to all further
missile tests that violate U.N. sanctions.
The statement, which was
drafted by the United States, was markedly similar to one adopted last week
after the North Koreans test-launched an intermediate-range ballistic missile
that the North Korean government claimed was capable of carrying a nuclear
warhead.
However, it is uncertain that
this recent demand by the UN would compel the North Korean regime to reign in
there evolving nuclear and missile programs, which the United States’ governments
asserts are significantly increasing tension in the Korean peninsula and
beyond. If the past is any indication, it’s unlikely that Pyongyang would heed
this UN demand.
In a unanimous statement backed
by the Chinese government, the UN Security Council vowed to further strengthen
the already stringent sanctions regime against North Korea that was adopted
last year. In my opinion, I don’t think this would, in the least bit, faze the
North Korean Leader, Kim Jong Un. The North Koreans have always found a way to
beat the sanction regime, and it seems to me that the country’s leadership is
confident that they would continue to do so.
At the urging of the South
Korea, Japan and the United States, the United Nations Security Council is
holding an emergency, closed-door, meeting today, Monday, May 23, 2017, to
deliberate on further actions to be taken against the North Korean regime, for
its flagrant violation of the UN sanction against the country.
Despite the rhetoric that would
come out of this current United Nations Security Council’s closed-door meeting,
I have a feeling that the Russians and the Chinese would pursue a regional
security self-interest that would ensure that the North Korean government is
not significantly harmed by whatever new policies that the UN Security Council
would eventually adopt.
Unfortunately for our world, it
would seem that medium and long term self-interest trumps collective global
peace and security. But, we continue to hope for the best.
Authored by E. Stanley Ukeni, © 2017.
All Rights Reserved. This material and other articles or stories posted on this
blog site may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed, in whole or in part, without prior expressed written permission
from the author, E. Stanley Ukeni.
You are invited to follow E.
Stanley Ukeni on twitter at; @EzStan . You’re equally invited to follow him on
google+. Oh yeah, don’t forget to subscribe to this blog Site. Thanks.
This is a rather insightful piece I must admit! The Chinese will always be slow in distancing itself from North Korea irrespective of its actions, especially when dealing with an "unpredictable" US administration. North Korea will always be a bargaining chit for the Chinese in their dealings with the US. Nonetheless, it is also worth noting that the policy of nuclear deterrence functions on the ability to use those weapons in certain circumstances. Where the envisaged use of weapons is for defensive purposes (self-defense), its illegality is questionable. In my opinion, Pyongyang's ambitions are not necessarily illegal, but worrying.
ReplyDeleteJoey E. Dansky
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete