CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE TASKED WITH MONITORING DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA SANCTIONS, IMPOSED IN OCTOBER, BRIEFS SECURITY COUNCIL

11 January 2007
SC/8938

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE TASKED WITH MONITORING DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA SANCTIONS, IMPOSED IN OCTOBER, BRIEFS SECURITY COUNCIL

11 January 2007
Security Council
SC/8938
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Security Council

5618th Meeting (AM)

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE TASKED WITH MONITORING DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC

OF KOREA SANCTIONS, IMPOSED IN OCTOBER, BRIEFS SECURITY COUNCIL

The Committee tasked with monitoring and adjusting the sanctions imposed on the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea following that country’s claim last October that it had conducted a nuclear-weapon test had become fully operational, the Committee’s Chairman told the Security Council this morning.

Briefing the Council for the first time since the Committee’s establishment by resolution 1718 of 14 October 2006, its Chairman, Peter Burian (Slovakia), noted that, in discharging its mandate, the Committee was guided by operative paragraph 12 of the resolution, by which all Member States were to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of items, materials, equipment, goods and technology that could contribute to its nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes.

All States, he said, regardless of whether they possessed materials covered by resolution 1718, were required to report on the steps they had taken to implement it.  As of 10 January, the Committee had received replies from 46 countries and 1 organization, the European Union, concerning the resolution’s implementation.

The Committee, he added, continued the process of determining additional items, materials, equipment, goods and technology to be specified for the purposes of the resolution and was also considering draft guidelines for its work.  While affirming Member States’ primary responsibility for implementing the provisions of the resolution, the Committee was ready to facilitate the measures spelled out by the text.  Given Member States’ keen interest in its work, the Committee had addressed the issue concerning the ban on the export of luxury goods to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  In that connection, the Committee considered that any definition of luxury goods as might be necessary to implement the resolution would be the responsibility of individual Member States.

The United States representative, expressing concern that several important issues on the Committee’s agenda remained unresolved, said several delegations, including her own, had proposed amendments to the lists of items, materials, equipment, goods and technology prohibited from export to, or import from, North Korea.  For the sake of the credibility of the Committee and the sanctions regime, those amendments should be adopted as quickly as possible.  The Committee’s guidelines should also be completed as soon as possible, not later than the end of January.  Guidelines could be useful, but their adoption was not a precondition for action by the Committee or the Council.  The United States supported informal meetings to reach a consensus on the main pending issues relating to the guidelines.  It intended to propose several entities to the Committee in the very near future and hoped that the submission would be considered expeditiously.

Similarly, France’s representative said he would like to see the guidelines completed as quickly as possible, but, above all, substantive work should begin on certain key issues.  Those included, among others, identification of individuals and entities, as well as a more specific review of the possible addition of articles on the list, as it had not been possible to discuss those thoroughly.  Also, the Committee should, as specified in the resolution, ban the provision to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of commodities that contained traces of fluoride.  That should be expressed clearly and explicitly when States adopted measures to apply the Council’s resolution on a national basis, he said.

The representative of the United Kingdom said that resolution 1718, unanimously adopted, had condemned the irresponsible behaviour of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in particular its nuclear test of 9 October.  Taken together with resolution 1695 (2006), it had underlined powerfully to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea why the issue was important and why the international community cared deeply, as well as why it had condemned those actions.  The six-party talks might remain its best opportunity to resolve the issue diplomatically, but the requirements of both resolutions were “clear and non-negotiable, and North Korea, like all United Nations Members, had a legal obligation to comply with the provisions of binding Security Council resolutions”, he stressed.

Continuing, he said that resolution 1718 called on all Member States to submit reports to the Council on the steps they had taken, to demonstrate that they were effectively implementing what had been set out in that text.  The United Kingdom had reported on 13 November, and 45 other countries had now done likewise.  The Council should call on the remaining 146 Member States to promptly submit their reports.  He thanked Ambassador Burian for guiding the Committee and ensuring that it was operational in the first three months of its existence.

The meeting began at 10:10 a.m. and adjourned at 10:27 a.m.

Briefing Summary

PETER BURIAN (Slovakia), Chairman of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, briefing the Council on that body’s work for the period 14 October 2006 to 11 January 2007, noted that, following consultations among Council members, the Council had agreed to elect the Committee’s bureau for 2006, with the Permanent Representative of Slovakia as the Committee’s Chairman and the delegations of Argentina and Qatar as its two Vice-Chairmen.  The Committee had started its full operation by holding its first informal meeting on 23 October 2006.

Since its inception, the Committee had been meeting as often as necessary to carry out its duties effectively, he said, noting that it was expected to meet once a week.  During the reporting period, the Committee had held nine informal meetings at the expert level.  In discharging its mandate, the Committee was guided by operative paragraph 12 of Council resolution 1718.  In that paragraph, the Council had decided that all Member States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of items, materials, equipment, goods and technology covered by documents S/2006/814 and S/2006/815, unless, within 14 days of adoption of resolution 1718, the Committee had amended or completed their provisions, also taking into account the list contained in document S/2006/816 circulated by the Permanent Representative of France on 12 October 2006.

He noted that, on 1 November, he had informed all Member States by a note verbale that, pursuant to resolution 1718, the Committee had revised the chemical and biological programmes list and that a new document, namely S/2006/853, superseded the original document, S/2006/816.  The lists of items, materials, equipment, goods and technology contained in documents S/2006/814 and S/2006/815 remained unchanged.  In accordance with its mandate, the Committee continued the process of determining additional items, materials, equipment, goods and technology to be specified for the purposes of paragraphs 8 (a) (ii) of the resolution, as members of the Committee had submitted further amendments to the lists in documents S/2006/814, S/2006/815 and S/2006/853.

He added that paragraph 11 of resolution 1718 called upon all Member States to report to the Council, within 30 days of the resolution’s adoption, on the steps they had taken with a view to implementing effectively the provisions of paragraph 8 of the resolution.  As of 10 January 2007, the Committee had received replies from 46 countries and 1 organization, the European Union, to its note verbale of 1 November 2006.  Replies were being issued as official documents of the United Nations and were also accessible electronically at the United Nations Official Documents System and on the Committee’s website, unless a State requested that its reply be kept confidential.

Resolution 1718 tasked the Committee with seeking information regarding the actions taken to implement effectively the relevant measures imposed by it, in particular from States who were producing or possessing the items proscribed in paragraph 8 (a), he said.  However, inasmuch as that was a direct and binding requirement of the resolution, all States, irrespective of whether they possessed a potential associated with weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery and related materials covered by resolution 1718, were called upon to report to the Committee on the steps they had taken nationally to implement the resolution.

The Committee was currently considering draft guidelines for the conduct of its work, he said.  The document would be a tool to facilitate the implementation of measures imposed by the resolution.  While affirming the primary responsibility for implementing the resolution’s provisions rested with States, the Committee, when requested, stood ready to facilitate the implementation of those measures.  The Committee had started its proactive approach in that area when it had received letters from the International Air Transport Association (IATA), dated 27 October 2006, and the Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations, dated 3 November 2006, seeking guidance on a specific case of cooperation with the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea after the resolution’s adoption.  The Committee would continue that cooperation.

He added that, given the keen interest from Member States outside the Council, as well those represented on the Council, the Committee had addressed the issue of implementing operative paragraph 8 (a) (iii) of resolution 1718 concerning the ban on the export of luxury goods to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  In that connection, the Committee considered that any definition of luxury goods as might be necessary for Member State to implement that provision would be the national responsibility of individual Member States.  The Committee had also reaffirmed that the measures contained in operative paragraph 8 (a) (iii) of resolution 1718 were not intended to restrict the supply of ordinary goods to the country’s wider population or have a negative humanitarian impact on the country.

In operative paragraph 12 of the resolution, the Council had decided to mandate the Committee to designate additional individuals and entities subject to measures imposed by paragraphs 8 (d) and (e) of the resolution, namely targeted financial sanctions and a travel ban.  During the reporting period, the Committee had received no requests for designation on the basis of the criteria contained in the two subparagraphs referred to above.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record
For information media. Not an official record.