(As delivered)

  

Remarks by Ambassador Motohide Yoshikawa, Ambassador Samantha Power and

Ambassador Oh Joon, Following Security Council Consultations on North Korea

7 February 2016

 

 

Ambassador Yoshikawa: Good morning. Thank you very much for gathering today on this very important issue of non-proliferation of DPRK. You have heard from the President of the Security Council, the Ambassador of Venezuela, that the press statement has been issued whose contents I will not go into detail.

 

I want to say that my impression of today’s meeting was that there was unity of the Security Council in the outrage of the missile launch, which took place after four weeks of the nuclear test. This outrage is based on the fact that this is, whether your call it a satellite launch, this is a clear preparation for the long range missile itself, and it is a clear violation of the past Security Council resolutions. There was, again, unity on the members of the Security Council that, in response to the DPRK, business as usual will no longer apply. There have been many resolutions which have not been implemented by the DPRK, and we have to work on this basis, working on the new Security Council resolution which contains further significant measures as we have already agreed.

 

Just using a couple of minutes, I want to say on the view of the Japanese Government on the seriousness of the missile itself. This is clearly a direct threat to the security of Japan, along with the Republic of Korea and also countries like The Philippines whose so-called “drop zone” is in the vicinity. We also know that this is the area where there is a very dense maritime and air transportation which had also been disrupted. So we have to take this issue very seriously. It is not only a violation of Security Council resolutions, but it is the real threat to the security of Japan, the Republic of Korea and other countries including the United States.

 

I think this is one additional point that we have to emphasize concerning the missile test: nuclear test is certainly more serious, and we wish that the Security Council would start adopting the robust Security Council resolutions as we have reconfirmed our will and determination today. Thank you very much. I now invite Ambassador Samantha Power of the United States.

 

Ambassador Power: Thank you, everybody, and thanks for coming out on a Sunday. I just want to reinforce a couple of the points made by my Japanese colleague – which I’m sure will be echoed by the Ambassador from the Republic of Korea.

 

North Korea’s launch yesterday using proscribed ballistic missile technology undermines regional stability and violates the DPRK’s obligations under four separate Security Council resolutions, demonstrating yet again that the DPRK will continue to escalate tensions in the absence of a strong and forceful response from the international community.

 

The accelerated development of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile program poses a serious threat to international peace and security – to the peace and security not just of North Korea’s neighbors, but the peace and security of the entire world.

 

Pyongyang claims it launched what it called a “peaceful earth observation satellite,” but nobody is fooled: so-called space launch vehicles are the same technology as ballistic missiles, which are expressly prohibited by multiple Security Council resolutions.

 

Now some of you may be hearing the terms “provocative acts” and “provocations.” These are almost euphemisms, I think, that have come to be used in the context of North Korea’s advancing of its nuclear weapons program. But what North Korea is doing with each of these acts – these illegal acts – with each of these launches, is the launches themselves are advancing North Korea’s capacity to advance its nuclear weapons program. They are not merely “provocations.”

 

With each one of these actions, the DPRK moves one step closer to its declared goal of developing nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles, and we cannot and will not allow this to happen.

 

We have been engaging in discussions with Security Council members on the appropriate response to the nuclear test that North Korea carried out now more than a month ago. These discussions are ongoing and it is clear that the Security Council must take decisive action, and to do so with urgency.

 

President Obama spoke with President Xi on Friday and in that call they agreed on the importance of a strong and united international response to North Korea’s illegal actions – including through an impactful UN Security Council resolution.

 

Each of these provocations, each of these illegal actions, requires a robust response. Because of the DPRK’s decisions and actions, we will ensure that the Security Council imposes serious consequences. DPRK’s latest transgressions require our response to be even firmer.

 

I want to make one thing abundantly clear: the goal of imposing sanctions has never been to target the North Korean people, who have suffered unspeakable horrors inflicted by their own oppressive government – horrors that the United States has repeatedly urged this Council to address, and which the Republic of Korea and Japan – each serving their terms on the Security Council – have helped us bring to light in the Security Council, making the horrible situation for the people of North Korea a permanent item on the Security Council agenda.

 

In other contexts though, we have seen how robust sanctions can be a tool to alter a government’s dangerous nuclear ambitions – how those sanctions can affect a cost-benefit calculus that a government acting in defiance of international norms may be making. So, none of us here are for sanctions for sanctions sake. We’re for sanctions to make a difference and to affect the calculus of a regime that has brazenly and recklessly acted in defiance of international norms and in a continual threat to regional and international peace and security.

 

We’re looking forward to expeditiously consulting with our colleagues in the coming days, and we will be looking to all Council members to unite around a swift and aggressive response to the DPRK’s repeated violations that constitute this very direct threat to global peace and security. I thank you.

 

Ambassador Oh: Hello. With this launch and the nuclear bomb test last month, I think the DPRK is making a clear statement to the whole world that it is not only the only country developing nuclear weapons in the 21st century, but is determined to continue to defy the community of nations and to threaten the peace and security of the whole world.

 

As pointed out by the president of the Security Council and by my two colleagues here, this is totally outrageous and unacceptable. As a Korean, it is sad – almost pathetic – to watch them stage celebrations on the streets of Pyongyang, as I know that the cost of this launch alone, estimated to be close to $1 billion, would have fed the entire North Korean population the whole year.

 

North Korea’s recent provocations have clearly demonstrated two points: first, the efforts to achieve denuclearization through dialogue so far have only resulted in allowing North Korea to buy time to advance these nuclear capabilities. Second, given that North Korea continues to develop nuclear weapons under previous UN sanctions, it has become clear by now that the current level of sanctions cannot put a break on North Korea’s nuclear weapons development. Therefore, the lesson is clear: the only way to stop North Korea from going further down the nuclear path is to make it crystal clear to the regime that it has no option but to change. It is therefore an urgent task before the Security Council to adopt a significant and robust Security Council resolution that exceeds all North Korea’s expectations and sends a firm message that the international community will never tolerate its nuclear weapons development.

 

Thank you.

 

Question: Well, I have a question to Ambassador Power. Do you think now China – do you think now you can expect China will be able to agree with tougher sanctions after this missile test?

 

Ambassador Power: Thank you for the question. I think what’s important is that the Security Council unite. China is a critical player. Our respect for China’s role and the necessity of China playing a constructive role here, I think is reflected in all of the high-level engagements that the United States has carried out these last weeks since the nuclear test: Secretary Kerry traveling to Beijing, our Deputy Secretary engaging in Beijing, President Obama’s call with President Xi. Look, China in advance of this so-called satellite launch sent an envoy, one of its own envoys – it’s an envoy for the nuclear weapons issue – to Pyongyang making an appeal that they not carry out another so called provocation. No sooner had China’s envoy departed than the launch was carried out on the eve of such an important holiday for China.

 

So we are hopeful that China, like all Council Members, will see the grave threat to regional international peace and security – see the importance of adopting tough unprecedented measures – breaking new ground here as was just said I think by my Korean colleague – exceeding the expectations of Kim Jong-un. There cannot be business as usual after two successive acts and with all the diplomacy that the international community has attempted to muster, including trying to get the Six Party Talks relaunched on a credible basis. There can be no business as usual. And it’s important that we not only get strong content, but that we do so extremely expeditiously in light of North Korea’s latest hostile and illegal action.

 

Question: Do we have any target date for the sanctions?

 

Ambassador Power: As quickly as possible. It is urgent and overdue.

 

Question: Ambassadors, all, are you worried about growing public support for a nuclear program in Japan and South Korea, and Ambassador Power, can you speak to the missile defense system that is being proposed for the U.S. and South Korea?

 

Ambassador Yoshikawa: We take one question each. I will not comment on the military side of the question. We are looking at how to contain the nuclear development activity and also the missile development activities which have been the threat to international peace and security. Not only in our region, including the United States, but also beyond East Asia, this is a threat to the international regime of non-proliferation, and we would, as the U.S. Ambassador spoke, go to the business of adopting the robust Security Council resolution as quickly as possible. Thank you.

 

Question: Yes. I'm Esther Park from KBS. I want to ask all Ambassadors about that. Is there any part in the middle of new proposal about new resolution to make a difference from current resolutions, in the middle of your new proposals, should make agreement with China or Russia already? You have kind of agreement about the content of a proposal about the resolution that has made or has agreed already with China or Russia. I think that there's no change of attitude of China or Russia even after this meeting. So, if there is no part to reach a kind of agreement with China or Russia related to resolutions to make a clear difference with current resolutions, what is your plan or strategy to lead their agreement – China or Russia’s agreement?

 

Ambassador Oh: I think Samantha can give you a better explanation, but as far as I know the draft resolution now being discussed has much more strength and sanctions measures than the existing sanctions regime. As I said, it is by now pretty clear that the existing sanctions have not stopped North Korea from developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems further.

 

The current sanctions regime is mostly concentrated on WMD-specific measures – weapons related measures. So the purpose was to stop North Korea from developing WMDs. But this system – this sanctions regime – has failed in stopping North Korea from developing WMDs, which was its original purpose, so I’m pretty sure that the new sanctions regime should have much more strengthened sanctions measures so that they will be effective in stopping North Korea.

 

And as for Pamela’s question about the missile defense. As you know the Republic of Korea and the United States announced yesterday an alliance decision to improve the existing missile defense system. But as the (inaudible), this is missile defense system which is defensive in nature, and I think it shouldn’t worry anyone else because this is focused on North Korea’s provocations and predicated on North Korea’s provocations.

 

Ambassador Power: I would just add, and then I think we’re going to wrap up here, that the announcement about the THAAD system, and the decision to begin consultations about the viability of that system is made in the context of the recurrent and continual threat to peace and security – to the Republic of Korea, to our Japanese friends, to the whole region and well beyond – to the United States, as well.

 

So as my Korean colleague shared, this is a move to start these consultations on an urgent basis about the viability of a system intended around defense because the actions are so reckless and so brazen.

 

And then just very briefly to your question, we will come forward to you and share with you the content of our resolution when we have secured agreement on that resolution. And I assure you that it has taken time, but one of the reasons it has taken time – we knew it would take some time at the beginning because a tough and comprehensive sanctions package after we have already put such significant sanctions in place because of prior illegal actions by the government of North Korea was always going to take time.

 

I think that for everyone in that room, and I think both of my colleagues have spoken to this, there was a sense of the clock ticking and the need to move more expeditiously than the Council has been able to do up to this point. So we will come forward with something tough. We will come forward with something comprehensive. We are determined to break new ground, and we count on other Council members – who say they see the same threat that we see – to come forward and to unify around that common goal.

 

Thank you.