Security Council, Acting Unanimously, Condemns in Strongest Terms Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Nuclear Test, Toughens Sanctions

12 June 2009
SC/9679

Security Council, Acting Unanimously, Condemns in Strongest Terms Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Nuclear Test, Toughens Sanctions

12 June 2009
Security Council
SC/9679
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Security Council

6141st Meeting* (PM)

SECURITY COUNCIL, ACTING UNANIMOUSLY, CONDEMNS IN STRONGEST TERMS DEMOCRATIC

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA NUCLEAR TEST, TOUGHENS SANCTIONS

Resolution 1874 (2009) Strengthens Arms Embargo, Calls for Inspection of Cargo,

Vessels If States Have ‘Reasonable Grounds’ to Believe Contain Prohibited Items

The Security Council today condemned in the strongest terms the 25 May nuclear test by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and tightened sanctions against it by blocking funding for nuclear, missile and proliferation activities through targeted sanctions on additional goods, persons and entities, widening the ban on arms imports-exports, and calling on Member States to inspect and destroy all banned cargo to and from that country ‑‑ on the high seas, at seaports and airports ‑‑ if they have reasonable grounds to suspect a violation.

Unanimously adopting resolution 1874 (2009) under Chapter VII, the Council sharpened its weapons import-export ban on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea enacted in resolution 1718 (2006) ‑‑ which included armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, attack helicopters, warships and missiles and spare parts ‑‑ by calling on States to inspect, seize and dispose of the items and by denying fuel or supplies to service the vessels carrying them.

The Council called on all States to cooperate with those inspections, and, if the flag State did not consent to inspection on the high seas, decided that that State should direct the vessel to proceed to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities.

Any Member State that undertook an inspection, or seized and disposed of such cargo, was required to promptly submit reports containing the details to the Committee monitoring the sanctions, and to report on any lack of cooperation of a flag State.

It asked the Secretary-General to set up a seven-member expert panel, for an initial one-year period, to assist the Committee in carrying out its mandate and, among other tasks, to gather, examine and analyse information from States, United Nations bodies and other interested parties regarding implementation of resolution 1718 (2006) and today’s text, particularly incidents of non-compliance.

Small arms and light weapons were exempted from the inspections, but the Council called on States to exercise vigilance over the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the Democratic People’s Republic of those weapons and directed States to notify the “1718” monitoring Committee at least five days prior to selling, supplying or transferring small arms or light weapons to it.

In addition to implementing the asset freeze and travel ban imposed in paragraphs 8 (d) and (e) of resolution 1718 (2006), the Council today called on Member States to prevent the provision of financial services or the transfer to, through, or from their territory of any financial or other assets or resources that could contribute to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes or activities.

It called on all Member States and international financial and credit institutions not to enter into new commitments for grants, financial assistance or concessional loans to that country, except for humanitarian and developmental purposes directly addressing civilian needs; and on all Member States not to provide public financial support for trade with that country where such support could contribute to the country’s nuclear-related or ballistic missile-related or other “WMD”-related programmes or activities.

Deciding to adjust the measures imposed by paragraph 8 of 1718, including through the designation of entities, goods, and individuals, the Council directed the “1718” Committee to undertake its tasks to that effect and to report to the Council within 30 days.  If the Committee had not so acted, then the Council would complete action to adjust the measures within seven days of receiving that report.

The Council called on all Member States to report to it within 45 days, and thereafter upon the Committee’s request, on concrete measures taken to implement key provisions of the resolution.  It pledged to keep the actions of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under continuous review and to consider strengthening, modifying, suspending or lifting the measures in light of the country’s compliance with both resolution 1718 (2006) and today’s text.  It underlined that further decisions would be required, should additional measures be necessary.

Following adoption of today’s resolution, the representative of the Republic of Korea said the Council’s action was an expression of the international community’s firm will to collectively respond to the Democratic Republic of Korea’s provocative action.  Its nuclear test violated relevant Council resolutions and seriously threatened peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and beyond.  Its overt declaration of intent to pursue development of its nuclear weapons programme was a grave challenge to the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

He urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to comply with today’s resolution and to carefully heed the united voice of the international community that such actions would never be condoned.  The country must refrain from any act that would further aggravate the situation on the Korean peninsula.  He strongly urged the country to rejoin the six-party talks and to abandon all of its nuclear weapons and missile programmes, once and for all.

Japan’s representative demanded that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea heed the message of the resolution and strongly urged that country to return immediately to the talks, without precondition.  He highlighted the importance of the Council’s expansion of sanctions and its demand that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea not conduct any further nuclear tests or ballistic missile launches, that it cease all other prohibited nuclear activities and that it respond to the humanitarian concerns of the international community.  Hopefully, those measures would induce the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to change its course of action.  It was essential for all Member States to take the necessary action to implement those provisions, which were not intended to harm the innocent people of the country.

The United States delegation, which had co-sponsored the resolution ‑‑ along with France, Japan, Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom ‑‑ welcomed its unanimous adoption as a strong and united international response to North Korea’s test of a nuclear device.  The message of the text was clear ‑‑ that that country’s behaviour was unacceptable to the international community, which was determined to respond.  The country should return, without conditions, to peaceful dialogue and honour its previous commitments to denuclearize the Korean peninsula.  But, for now, its choices had led it to face markedly stronger sanctions.  The measures contained in the text were innovative, robust and unprecedented, and represented new tools to impair North Korea’s ability to proliferate.

China supported the balanced reaction of the Security Council, its representative said, stressing that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had violated Security Council resolutions, impaired the effectiveness of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and affected international peace and stability.  The text showed the determination of the Council to resolve the “DPRK nuclear issue” peacefully, through dialogue and negotiations.  And in that context, China had voted in favour of it.

At the same time, he stressed that the sovereignty, territorial integrity and legitimate security concerns and development interests of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should be respected.  After its return to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that country would enjoy the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy as a State party.  The Council’s actions, meanwhile, should not adversely impact the country’s development, or humanitarian assistance to it.  As indicated in the text, if the country complied with the relevant provisions, the Council would review the appropriateness of suspending or lifting the measures.  The issue of inspections was complex and sensitive, and countries must act prudently and under the precondition of reasonable grounds and sufficient evidence, and refrain from any words or deeds that might exacerbate conflict.  Under no circumstances should there be the use of force or threat of the use of force.

Statements were also made by the representatives of the United Kingdom, Mexico, Viet Nam, Libya, Uganda, Russian Federation, France, Burkina Faso, Austria, Croatia, Costa Rica and Turkey.

The meeting was called to order at 12:10 p.m. and adjourned at 1:05 p.m.

Background

The Security Council met today to take action on a draft resolution (document S/2009/301), sponsored by France, Japan, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom and the United States, which reads as follows:

The Security Council,

Recalling its previous relevant resolutions, including resolution 825 (1993), resolution 1540 (2004), resolution 1695 (2006), and, in particular, resolution 1718 (2006), as well as the statements of its President of 6 October 2006 (S/PRST/2006/41) and 13 April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/7),

Reaffirming that proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international peace and security,

Expressing the gravest concern at the nuclear test conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (“the DPRK”) on 25 May 2009 (local time) in violation of resolution 1718 (2006), and at the challenge such a test constitutes to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (“the NPT”) and to international efforts aimed at strengthening the global regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons towards the 2010 NPT Review Conference, and the danger it poses to peace and stability in the region and beyond,

Stressing its collective support for the NPT and commitment to strengthen the Treaty in all its aspects, and global efforts towards nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, and recalling that the DPRK cannot have the status of a nuclear-weapon State in accordance with the NPT in any case,

Deploring the DPRK’s announcement of withdrawal from the NPT and its pursuit of nuclear weapons,

Underlining once again the importance that the DPRK respond to other security and humanitarian concerns of the international community,

Underlining also that measures imposed by this resolution are not intended to have adverse humanitarian consequences for the civilian population of the DPRK,

Expressing its gravest concern that the nuclear test and missile activities carried out by the DPRK have further generated increased tension in the region and beyond, and determining that there continues to exist a clear threat to international peace and security,

Reaffirming the importance that all Member States uphold the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and taking measures under its Article 41,

“1.   Condemns in the strongest terms the nuclear test conducted by the DPRK on 25 May 2009 (local time) in violation and flagrant disregard of its relevant resolutions, in particular resolutions 1695 (2006) and 1718 (2006), and the statement of its President of 13 April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/7);

“2.   Demands that the DPRK not conduct any further nuclear test or any launch using ballistic missile technology;

“3.   Decides that the DPRK shall suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme and in this context re-establish its pre-existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launches;

“4.   Demands that the DPRK immediately comply fully with its obligations under relevant Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1718 (2006);

“5.   Demands that the DPRK immediately retract its announcement of withdrawal from the NPT;

“6.   Demands further that the DPRK return at an early date to the NPT and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, bearing in mind the rights and obligations of States Parties to the NPT, and underlines the need for all States Parties to the NPT to continue to comply with their Treaty obligations;

“7.   Calls upon all Member States to implement their obligations pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006), including with respect to designations made by the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) (“the Committee”) pursuant to the statement of its President of 13 April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/7);

“8.   Decides that the DPRK shall abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner and immediately cease all related activities, shall act strictly in accordance with the obligations applicable to parties under the NPT and the terms and conditions of the IAEA Safeguards Agreement (IAEA INFCIRC/403) and shall provide the IAEA transparency measures extending beyond these requirements, including such access to individuals, documentation, equipment and facilities as may be required and deemed necessary by the IAEA;

“9.   Decides that the measures in paragraph 8(b) of resolution 1718 (2006) shall also apply to all arms and related materiel, as well as to financial transactions, technical training, advice, services or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms or materiel;

“10.  Decides that the measures in paragraph 8(a) of resolution 1718 (2006) shall also apply to all arms and related materiel, as well as to financial transactions, technical training, advice, services or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms, except for small arms and light weapons and their related materiel, and calls upon States to exercise vigilance over the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK of small arms or light weapons, and further decides that States shall notify the Committee at least five days prior to selling, supplying or transferring small arms or light weapons to the DPRK;

“11.  Calls upon all States to inspect, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation, and consistent with international law, all cargo to and from the DPRK, in their territory, including seaports and airports, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraph 8 (a), 8 (b), or 8 (c) of resolution 1718 or by paragraph 9 or 10 of this resolution, for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of those provisions;

“12.  Calls upon all Member States to inspect vessels, with the consent of the flag State, on the high seas, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo of such vessels contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraph 8 (a), 8 (b), or 8 (c) of resolution 1718 (2006) or by paragraph 9 or 10 of this resolution, for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of those provisions;

“13.  Calls upon all States to cooperate with inspections pursuant to paragraphs 11 and 12, and, if the flag State does not consent to inspection on the high seas, decides that the flag State shall direct the vessel to proceed to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities pursuant to paragraph 11;

“14.  Decides to authorize all Member States to, and that all Member States shall, seize and dispose of items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraph 8 (a), 8 (b), or 8 (c) of resolution 1718 or by paragraph 9 or 10 of this resolution that are identified in inspections pursuant to paragraph 11, 12, or 13 in a manner that is not inconsistent with their obligations under applicable Security Council resolutions, including resolution 1540 (2004), as well as any obligations of parties to the NPT, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction of 29 April 1997, and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction of 10 April 1972, and decides further that all States shall cooperate in such efforts;

“15.  Requires any Member State, when it undertakes an inspection pursuant to paragraph 11, 12, or 13, or seizes and disposes of cargo pursuant to paragraph 14, to submit promptly reports containing relevant details to the Committee on the inspection, seizure and disposal;

“16.  Requires any Member State, when it does not receive the cooperation of a flag State pursuant to paragraph 12 or 13 to submit promptly to the Committee a report containing relevant details;

“17.  Decides that Member States shall prohibit the provision by their nationals or from their territory of bunkering services, such as provision of fuel or supplies, or other servicing of vessels, to DPRK vessels if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe they are carrying items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraph 8 (a), 8 (b), or 8 (c) of resolution 1718 (2006) or by paragraph 9 or 10 of this resolution, unless provision of such services is necessary for humanitarian purposes or until such time as the cargo has been inspected, and seized and disposed of if necessary, and underlines that this paragraph is not intended to affect legal economic activities;

“18.  Calls upon Member States, in addition to implementing their obligations pursuant to paragraphs 8 (d) and (e) of resolution 1718 (2006), to prevent the provision of financial services or the transfer to, through, or from their territory, or to or by their nationals or entities organized under their laws (including branches abroad), or persons or financial institutions in their territory, of any financial or other assets or resources that could contribute to the DPRK’s nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related, or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes or activities, including by freezing any financial or other assets or resources on their territories or that hereafter come within their territories, or that are subject to their jurisdiction or that hereafter become subject to their jurisdiction, that are associated with such programmes or activities and applying enhanced monitoring to prevent all such transactions in accordance with their national authorities and legislation;

“19.  Calls upon all Member States and international financial and credit institutions not to enter into new commitments for grants, financial assistance, or concessional loans to the DPRK, except for humanitarian and developmental purposes directly addressing the needs of the civilian population, or the promotion of denuclearization, and also calls upon States to exercise enhanced vigilance with a view to reducing current commitments;

“20.  Calls upon all Member States not to provide public financial support for trade with the DPRK (including the granting of export credits, guarantees or insurance to their nationals or entities involved in such trade) where such financial support could contribute to the DPRK’s nuclear-related or ballistic missile-related or other WMD-related programmes or activities;

“21.  Emphasizes that all Member States should comply with the provisions of paragraphs 8(a)(iii) and 8(d) of resolution 1718 (2006) without prejudice to the activities of the diplomatic missions in the DPRK pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations;

“22.  Calls upon all Member States to report to the Security Council within forty-five days of the adoption of this resolution and thereafter upon request by the Committee on concrete measures they have taken in order to implement effectively the provisions of paragraph 8 of resolution 1718 (2006), as well as paragraphs 9 and 10 of this resolution, as well as financial measures set out in paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of this resolution;

“23.  Decides that the measures set out at paragraphs 8 (a), 8 (b) and 8 (c) of resolution 1718 (2006) shall also apply to the items listed in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 1a and INFCIRC/254/Rev.7/Part 2a;

“24.  Decides to adjust the measures imposed by paragraph 8 of resolution 1718 (2006) and this resolution, including through the designation of entities, goods, and individuals, and directs the Committee to undertake its tasks to this effect and to report to the Security Council within 30 days of adoption of this resolution, and further decides that, if the Committee has not acted, then the Security Council will complete action to adjust the measures within seven days of receiving that report;

“25.  Decides that the Committee shall intensify its efforts to promote the full implementation of resolution 1718 (2006), the statement of its President of 13 April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/7) and this resolution, through a work programme covering compliance, investigations, outreach, dialogue, assistance and cooperation, to be submitted to the Council by 15 July 2009, and that it shall also receive and consider reports from Member States pursuant to paragraphs 10, 15, 16 and 22 of this resolution;

“26.  Requests the Secretary-General to create for an initial period of one year, in consultation with the Committee, a group of up to seven experts (“Panel of Experts”), acting under the direction of the Committee to carry out the following tasks:  (a) assist the Committee in carrying out its mandate as specified in resolution 1718 (2006) and the functions specified in paragraph 25 of this resolution; (b) gather, examine and analyse information from States, relevant United Nations bodies and other interested parties regarding the implementation of the measures imposed in resolution 1718 (2006) and in this resolution, in particular incidents of non-compliance; (c) make recommendations on actions the Council, or the Committee or Member States, may consider to improve implementation of the measures imposed in resolution 1718 (2006) and in this resolution; and (d) provide an interim report on its work to the Council no later than 90 days after adoption of this resolution, and a final report to the Council no later than 30 days prior to termination of its mandate with its findings and recommendations;

“27.  Urges all States, relevant United Nations bodies and other interested parties, to cooperate fully with the Committee and the Panel of Experts, in particular by supplying any information at their disposal on the implementation of the measures imposed by resolution 1718 (2006) and this resolution;

“28.  Calls upon all Member States to exercise vigilance and prevent specialized teaching or training of DPRK nationals within their territories or by their nationals, of disciplines which could contribute to the DPRK’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities and the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems;

“29.  Calls upon the DPRK to join the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty at the earliest date;

“30.  Supports peaceful dialogue, calls upon the DPRK to return immediately to the Six-Party Talks without precondition, and urges all the participants to intensify their efforts on the full and expeditious implementation of the Joint Statement issued on 19 September 2005 and the joint documents of 13 February 2007 and 3 October 2007, by China, the DPRK, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States, with a view to achieving the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and to maintain peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in North-East Asia;

“31.  Expresses its commitment to a peaceful, diplomatic and political solution to the situation and welcomes efforts by Council members as well as other Member States to facilitate a peaceful and comprehensive solution through dialogue and to refrain from any actions that might aggravate tensions;

“32.  Affirms that it shall keep the DPRK’s actions under continuous review and that it shall be prepared to review the appropriateness of the measures contained in paragraph 8 of resolution 1718 (2006) and relevant paragraphs of this resolution, including the strengthening, modification, suspension or lifting of the measures, as may be needed at that time in light of the DPRK’s compliance with relevant provisions of resolution 1718 (2006) and this resolution;

“33.  Underlines that further decisions will be required, should additional measures be necessary;

“34.  Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.”

Action on Draft

The draft resolution (document SC/2009/301) was adopted unanimously by the Security Council, as resolution 1874 (2009).

Explanations of Position

ROSEMARY DICARLO (United States) said she welcomed the unanimous adoption of the resolution, which was a strong and united international response to North Korea’s test of a nuclear device.  The message of the text was clear ‑‑ that that country’s behaviour was unacceptable to the international community, which was determined to respond.  The country should return, without conditions, to peaceful dialogue and honour its previous commitments to denuclearize the Korean peninsula.  But, for now, its choices had led it to face markedly stronger sanctions.  The resolution condemned in the strongest terms the nuclear test and strengthened the sanctions, by imposing a total embargo on arms exports and significantly expanding the ban on arms imports by creating a wholly new framework of inspections.  It called on States and international financial institutions to prevent the flow of funds to support nuclear, missile and proliferation activities by committing to targeted sanctions against additional goods, persons and entities, and by strengthening the mechanisms to monitor that toughened new sanctions regime.  Those measures were innovative, robust and unprecedented, and represented new tools to impair North Korea’s ability to proliferate.  She was grateful for the text’s adoption.

ZHANG YESUI (China) said the Chinese Foreign Ministry had issued a firm statement of opposition against the nuclear test conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in disregard for the international community’s common objective.  It had strongly urged that country to honour the quest to denuclearize the Korean peninsula and return to the six-party talks.  China was committed, as always, to safeguarding the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, promoting the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and peace and stability throughout North-East Asia.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had violated Security Council resolutions, impaired the effectiveness of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and affected international peace and stability.  China supported the balanced reaction of the Security Council.  The resolution was in accordance with article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter.  The resolution showed the stance and determination of the Council to resolve the “DPRK nuclear issue” peacefully, through dialogue and negotiations.

In that context, China had voted in favour of the resolution, he said.  It should be stressed, however, that the sovereignty, territorial integrity and legitimate security concerns and development interests of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should be respected.  After its return to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that country would enjoy the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy as a State party.  The Council’s actions, meanwhile, should not adversely impact the country’s development, or humanitarian assistance to it.  As indicated in the text, if the country complied with the relevant provisions, the Council would review the appropriateness of suspending or lifting the measures.  The issue of inspections was complex and sensitive, and countries must act prudently and under the precondition of reasonable grounds and sufficient evidence, and refrain from any words or deeds that might exacerbate conflict.  Under no circumstances should there be use of force or threat of use of force.  China had always stood for a peaceful solution to the situation and had made tremendous efforts in that regard, including by initiating the six-party talks.

Despite the second nuclear test, China still believed that Security Council actions “are not all about sanctions”, but that political and diplomatic means were still the way to bring about peace on the Korean peninsula.  Under the current circumstances, the parties should keep calm and exercise restraint.

YUKIO TAKASU (Japan) welcomed the adoption of the resolution as a strong condemnation of what he called the “DPRK’s irresponsible act” that constituted a grave threat to the national security of his country and to international peace and security, and which undermined the NPT regime.   He highlighted the importance of the Council’s expansion of sanctions and its demand that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea not conduct any further nuclear tests or ballistic missile launches, that it cease all other prohibited nuclear activities and that it respond to the humanitarian concerns of the international community, including the abduction issue.  In particular, he urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to take concrete measures towards the resolution of that issue.

He expressed strong hope that the measures taken today would induce the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to change its course of action and he stressed that it was essential for all Member States to take the necessary action to implement them.  He underlined that the measures were not intended to harm the innocent people of the country.  His country would seek to facilitate a peaceful and comprehensive solution through dialogue, he added, supporting the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula through the six-party talks.  He demanded that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea heed the message of the resolution and strongly urged that country to return immediately to the talks, without precondition.

PHILIP PARHAM (United Kingdom) said the unanimous adoption of the resolution showed that the international community was united in condemning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear activity and would not tolerate the country’s flouting of its international obligations.  He called on all member States to implement all measures, fully and without delay.  He assured the Committee of the full and active cooperation of the United Kingdom, both in the immediate 30-day time frame and in continuing to work with partners in the United Nations and European Union to ensure prompt and effective implementation of all robust measures of the resolution.

He urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to refrain from any further provocative actions, which undermined regional security and further isolated the country.  He urged the country to return to serious negotiations on denuclearization.  Only then would the international community be willing to engage with it as an equal partner.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and its people, he said, had everything to gain from such re-engagement.

CLAUDE HELLER (Mexico) said adoption of the resolution was a clear message that the actions of that country were not acceptable to the international community.  Such a message was stronger with the fuller participation of all Council members.  To be clear, addressing issues of non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament and the peaceful use of nuclear energy could not be the monopoly of a group of States, as those concerned the whole international community.  Realizing the sense of urgency and gravity of the situation, however, his delegation had supported the resolution today.  Recent actions by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were a clear violation of Council resolutions.  From the start, the Mexican Government strongly condemned the nuclear test, as well as the launches of short-range missiles by that country.  It also shared the international community’s concern that those actions undermined aspirations for a nuclear-weapon-free world, which included achieving the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

He said he hoped the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would heed the call for a pacific dialogue and return immediately to the six-party talks.  The nuclear tests must cease “completely and permanently”.  The resolution’s call on that country to join the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was positive, and the nuclear test by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had demonstrated the urgent need for the Treaty’s entry into force.  Mexico would have wanted the resolution to have included a clear and unequivocal commitment by all Member States towards that goal.  It was imperative to remember that the actions of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea did not happen in a vacuum; they took place in a context of a constant threat to the international community derived from the existence of nuclear weapons and the risk of their proliferation.  The possible proliferation of those weapons would remain, until those weapons were completely eliminated.

LE LUONG MINH (Viet Nam) said that, as a party to all major multilateral treaties on nuclear disarmament, his country was faithful to the objective of nuclear non-proliferation.  That was not only an effective measure towards the final goal of the total elimination of those weapons, but also an indispensable tool to guarantee a favourable environment for the promotion of the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.  As a party to the Treaty on the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, Viet Nam was also a strong advocate of the establishment of such zones in every part of the world and, in that vein, had been strongly supporting the efforts towards denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.  That served the long-term interest of peace, security and stability, not only of North-East Asia, but also of the wider region.

He said that Viet Nam joined the Council’s consensus on measures to resolve the Korean nuclear issue through peaceful negotiation.  At the same time, it had insisted in deliberations that, while intending to prevent proliferation and ballistic missile technology development, the measures adopted by the Council must avoid adversely affecting the normal life of the population, as well as the humanitarian, development and other legitimate economic activities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

ABDURRAHMAN MOHAMED SHALGHAM (Libya) said that the world would not enjoy security until all weapons of mass destruction were eliminated.  His country had renounced its own programmes and was working for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.  Unfortunately, the international community had failed to take advantage of Libya’s actions and reward it with development assistance in a way that would have helped further the case for non-proliferation.  He stressed also that non-proliferation measures taken by the international community must be global and non-selective, and must extend to Israeli nuclear activities, which have, so far, engendered no action by the Council.

His country, he said, had usually opposed sanctions, as they usually harm people and do not bring about the desired results.  In this case, as well, negotiations represented the greatest hope for a resolution, but he had joined the consensus to encourage the return to dialogue and because the measures in the resolution were targeted so as not to harm the Korean people.  He expressed hope that dialogue would soon resume and the sanctions could be eliminated.

RUHAKANA RUGUNDA (Uganda) said that his country had joined the consensus on the resolution, because it was important to achieve non-proliferation in the Korean peninsula.  But, it also believed it was important to eliminate all nuclear weapons in order to create a more secure world.

VITALY CHURKIN (Russian Federation) said that the resolution was an appropriate response to the actions of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and demonstrated the commitment to a negotiated solution.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s actions had undermined international laws on non-proliferation; that demanded strong action that could bring the country back to the negotiating table.  The provisions of the resolution were well targeted and the sanctions did not harm the welfare of the Korean people, something that his delegation had insisted upon.

It was important that, in the resolution, there was an appeal to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to immediately return to negotiations, without preconditions, he said.  It was important for the sanctions to be able to be lifted, if the country embarked on the path of abiding by Council decisions.  He stressed that the country’s nuclear programme did not bolster security, which could only come about through diplomatic means.

JEAN-MAURICE RIPERT (France) said that, for years, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was engaged in a secret nuclear programme and a ballistic missile programme, which was increasing its nuclear threat by using very sensitive technologies.  In so doing, that country had several times violated the NPT, from which it had said it was withdrawing.  It had not met its commitments.  In recent months, the country had significantly increased tensions in its region by testing missiles.  The Council’s reaction today was commensurate with that provocation, and with the risk that others would be encouraged to do the same.  The Council had condemned, in the strongest possible terms, those activities.  And had imposed very strong sanctions to limit North Korea from advancing its banned programmes, by blocking the funding for those programmes, by extending the embargo to products which helped them, and by adopting sanctions against persons and entities involved, and by requiring States to inspect and destroy banned cargo.  The sanctions had excluded humanitarian assistance and development programmes, as the Council remained concerned about the population.

He stressed the need to ensure that all provisions of resolution 1874 (2009) were strictly implemented and by all.  He welcomed the expanded mandate of the monitoring Committee and the establishment of an expert panel ‑‑ which would be precious help to the Turkish presidency of the Council and enable acceleration of follow-up and assistance to Member States that needed it.  The resolution called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to join the test-ban Treaty, and France favoured its rapid entry into force.  It would co-host the ministerial conference to facilitate the Treaty’s operation.  When reviewing the NPT, it was imperative to consider reactions against non-compliance.  He called for a resumption of the six-party talks, stressing the need for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to make a strategic choice to reject, once and for all, its nuclear programme.

PAUL ROBERT TIENDRÉBÉOGO (Burkina Faso) said he had supported the resolution ‑‑ support that emanated from his country’s aspiration for a nuclear-weapon-free world.  All States had the right to develop nuclear energy for civilian purposes, but they must refrain from activities that could threaten international peace and security and weaken the relevant institutional frameworks.  His delegation had condemned the nuclear test carried out by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which had contravened Security Council resolutions and ran the risk of worsening tensions on the Korean peninsula and beyond.  He hoped that, since today’s resolution took into account all aspects of that issue, it would contribute to finding a solution to the North Korean nuclear issue.  He hoped the targeted nature of the sanctions would make it possible to avoid any negative humanitarian impact.  That had been one of the reasons he had supported the text.  He called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and to return to the six-party talks, which, despite all their difficulties, remained the most appropriate framework for ending the crisis.  “Choose dialogue,” he urged the country, as it was the only path that could prevent an escalation of tensions in the region.

THOMAS MAYR-HARTING (Austria) said that the resolution was a clear, appropriate and unequivocal response to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s actions.  He welcomed the call for the country to accede to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and stressed that that Treaty’s coming into force was critical, in the light of this issue.

RANKO VILOVIĆ (Croatia) called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to return to the six-party talks and accede to the CTBT.  He stressed that the measures were not aimed at the population of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and called on that country to return to negotiations.

JORGE URBINA (Costa Rica) said he had supported the resolution, echoing the views of previous speakers.  As well as a strong and appropriate response to the recent actions of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, he saw the text as a boost to non-proliferation and an opportunity for the country to return to the mechanisms of international dialogue.  He urged it do so as soon as possible.

Council President BAKI İLKIN (Turkey), speaking in his national capacity, said he was deeply concerned about the nuclear test.  For one thing, it was a clear violation of Security Council resolutions.  Earlier, Turkey had expressed concern over the missile launch of 5 April.  Such steps undermined stability, mutual trust and confidence in the region.  Turkish authorities had condemned the nuclear test and supported the Council’s strong response.  The resolution contained the necessary elements of such a response.  He fully expected that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the international community members would comply with its provisions.  At the same time, Turkey also recognized the importance of encouraging the country to return to the six-party talks, as the best vehicle for achieving the peninsula’s denuclearization.  Those talks should aim to make concrete and irreversible progress towards lasting peace, stability and security in the region.

PARK IN-KOOK ( Republic of Korea) said the nuclear test violated relevant resolutions and statements of the Council and defied repeated warnings of the international community.  That action seriously threatened peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and beyond.  Furthermore, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s overt declaration of its intention to pursue the development of its nuclear weapons programme was a grave challenge to the international regime for nuclear non-proliferation.  In conducting the second test, the country had clearly demonstrated a complete disregard for its commitments under the 19 September 2005 Joint Statement and other subsequent agreements reached at the six-party talks.  The violations should be met with a strong response.  In that regard, he welcomed adoption of today’s resolution, which was an expression of the international community’s firm will to collectively respond to the provocative action.

He urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to comply with the resolution and to carefully heed the united voice of the international community that such acts would never be condoned.  The country must refrain from any action that would further aggravate the situation on the Korean peninsula.  The Republic of Korea Government strongly urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to return to the six-party talks and to abandon all of its nuclear weapons and missile programmes, once and for all.  Hopefully, all Member States would make united efforts to duly implement the measures outlined in the present resolution.  His Government would continue to work closely with the international community to achieve those goals.

* *** *

__________

*     The 6140th Meeting was closed.

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