.....

Once again we see evidence of how utterly worthless the UN has become.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20061014-0809-koreas-nuclear.html

The real true danger of North Korea having nuclear capability is the possibility of their selling a literal boatload of fissionable material to a rogue state or terrorist group and transporting it by sea.

Once gone, its gone. The only possible way of preventing the possibility of North Korea selling a bomb that ends up parked in the inner harbour in Sydney, or LA or New York or elsewhere is an ironclad sea blockade around north Korea.

Once again, the Chinese and Russians, the very nations that created this Frankenstein on their own doorsteps have decided that realpolitik is more important than preventing nuclear spread and possible terrorism.

I am not surprised by this, I am disgusted, but not surprised.

Until a terrorist group attacks either China or Russia with nuclear material purchased from North Korea, the world will remain a much more dangerous place.

It sounds like they anticipate that NK might fight rather than allow cargo to be searched. That seems to be consistant with the behavior of the NK regiem and it would likely trigger a larger conflict. I can understand their caution and reluctance but I'm not sure just where the UN could be expected to go outside those restrictions. I would bet on another toothless bear trap that NK will slip through with impunity. This looks like a no win situation for the August World Body. An exercise in futility, not unlike initial attempts to keep nukes out of the NK hands in the first place.

Once again we see evidence of how utterly worthless the UN has become.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20061014-0809-koreas-nuclear.html

The real true danger of North Korea having nuclear capability is the possibility of their selling a literal boatload of fissionable material to a rogue state or terrorist group and transporting it by sea.

Once gone, its gone. The only possible way of preventing the possibility of North Korea selling a bomb that ends up parked in the inner harbour in Sydney, or LA or New York or elsewhere is an ironclad sea blockade around north Korea.

Once again, the Chinese and Russians, the very nations that created this Frankenstein on their own doorsteps have decided that realpolitik is more important than preventing nuclear spread and possible terrorism.

I am not surprised by this, I am disgusted, but not surprised.

Until a terrorist group attacks either China or Russia with nuclear material purchased from North Korea, the world will remain a much more dangerous place.


I don't think a blockade would prevent the export of fissionable material. All it would take is a cargo truck and guy who knows a guy over the border in China who can broker the deal. China is a huge nation, someone can be bought off. Weapons material is not that radioactive as far as radiation fields. It is designed and developed to be easily transported and is not self defending like expended reactor fuel. (not to be confused with depleted uranium which is completely different from expended fuel) An expended core could be used to make a dirty bomb, but it is a suicide job to build and deliver it. An expended core has an extremely high radiation field around it that will provide a lethal dose in a very short time unless shielded in a cask. That is the reason that the US and Russia make offers of fuel but require that the used fuel is returned.

A useful blockade would stop all trade and force the NK leader make tough decisions about his actions. It would make an excellent time for a coup.

UPDATE: Sorry for teh length.

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/) <!-- ADXINFO classification="button" campaign="foxsearch2006-emailtools14a-nyt5"--> <table style="margin-bottom: 3px; margin-top: 3px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="80%"> <tbody><tr valign="bottom"> <td> http://graphics10.nytimes.com/ads/spacer.gifhttp://graphics10.nytimes.com/ads/fox/printerfriendly.gifhttp://graphics10.nytimes.com/ads/fox/sponsorship/lkos2_88X31.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&camp=foxsearch2006-emailtools14a-nyt5&ad=lkos_adx_88x31.gif&goto=http://www2.foxsearchlight.com/thelastkingofscotland/)


</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
<hr align="left" size="1"> October 14, 2006
<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" "> U.N. Security Council Adopts North Korea Resolution </nyt_headline>

<nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" "> </nyt_byline> By WARREN HOGE (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/warren_hoge/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
<nyt_text> </nyt_text> UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 14 --* The U.N. Security Council agreed today on a resolution that would impose sanctions on North Korea for its reported nuclear test. Until this morning questions from China and Russia had cast the timing of the document into doubt. “I think we have some concern about what this resolution might lead to, especially peace and stability in the region,” Wang Guangya, the Chinese ambassador, said before entering a Saturday morning meeting of Japan and the five permanent Council members, Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. He said that China was insisting on terms that were “firm” but also “appropriate,” a reference to Beijing’s worry that punishing steps could produce a backlash from North Korea. He said that Beijing was particularly concerned about the resolution’s authorizing the international inspections of cargo going into and out of North Korea. “Once it comes into operation, it could easily lead, by one side or the other, to a provocation of conflict, which could have serious implications for the region, for the countries,” he said. Both China and Russia border on North Korea and fear that many of the interdictions would be conducted close to their territory and coasts. The Russian complaints center on lists and descriptions of the kinds of cargo that would be suspect, objections that John R. Bolton, the American ambassador, characterized Friday evening as “technical” rather than “substantive.” The terms of the resolution have already been softened three times this week to meet demands from China and Russia, and early Friday Mr. Bolton announced agreement on a decision to hold a vote Saturday morning. Instead, the five permanent members and Japan met to see if they could settle the remaining disputes and move to an afternoon vote. Vitaly I. Churkin, the Russian ambassador, arrived at the meeting with new instructions from Moscow, but he made no comment on what they were. While the wording of the resolution was still being worked out, American intelligence officials said on Friday evening that they had found radioactive material in air samples taken over the region, providing more evidence that North Korea did indeed detonate a nuclear bomb.
The new draft resolution dropped or softened several provisions to placate China and Russia. It eliminated explicit mention of military enforcement of the sanctions; placed more limits on the kinds of cargo that could be inspected going in and out of North Korea; and dropped a blanket embargo on conventional weapons.
Mr. Bolton indicated that one area of dispute remained the methods and legalities of how to inspect cargo. The new draft resolution limits the weapons ban to large-size arms, military systems and unconventional weapons.
The measure, drafted by the United States, still requires all countries to prevent the sale or transfer of material related to North Korea’s nuclear, ballistic missile and unconventional weapons programs, and maintains a ban on travel by persons associated with those programs.
It also bars North Korea from exporting such weapons, a provision aimed at the international concern over the possibility of unconventional arms from North Korea ending up with terrorist groups or rogue states.
“An overwhelming majority of the Council members want to vote as soon as possible,” Mr. Bolton said Friday. “They still think it is important to send a swift and strong signal, and I’m confident we’re going to be able to do that.”
Wang Guangya, the Chinese ambassador, said, “It all depends on the final text, because we are not at the final text yet.”
The United States and Japan, the driving forces behind the resolution, had earlier thought they had surmounted the Chinese and Russian objections to the resolution when they submitted a revision Thursday night that softened some of the earlier provisions.
Mr. Bolton said the United States was “very satisfied” with the document as it stood Friday morning and was prepared to vote for it immediately.
But Mr. Wang, while asserting his country was happy with the progress that had been made, said his country was still studying the text before officially pronouncing on it. “With progress we are always satisfied, but if we work harder, we might make more progress,” he said.
Mr. Churkin, the Russian ambassador, said, “I think we are on the right track, but we are not there yet.”
In Washington, officials, apparently confident of the imminent passage of the measure, announced that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/condoleezza_rice/index.html?inline=nyt-per) would travel to Asia next week to discuss how to implement the resolution, as well as to discuss other efforts to deter North Korean proliferation of a nuclear bomb or bomb-making materials. Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman, said Ms. Rice would travel to Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing.
The trip, he said, is “an opportunity for her in the region to reaffirm and talk about the strength of our existing alliances there, and also to have a bit more of a wider conversation with others in the region about the current situation, about the security situation, and also to talk broadly about nonproliferation efforts.”
Senior State Department officials portrayed the United Nations momentum toward a resolution as evidence of a united, multilateral front agreeing to punish North Korea.
“So the first issue we need to do is to make clear that the sense of outrage and condemnation by the international community to have a resolution in the Security Council, which will not only be a resolution condemning North Korea, but actually a resolution with some teeth to it,” said Christopher Hill, the assistant secretary of state for east Asian and Pacific affairs.
“North Korea needs to understand that this is indeed a very, very costly decision that will leave North Korea far worse off and far more isolated than ever before,” said Mr. Hill, speaking at a conference in Washington. “We need to give that message very clearly and make sure that North Korea cannot find any differences in our views. So I think so far, so good.”
The resolution condemns the test on Oct. 9 as a “flagrant disregard” of Security Council warnings, orders it not to conduct nuclear or missile tests, and urges the North to return to six-nation talks with South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States.
It freezes funds overseas of people or businesses connected to the unconventional weapons programs and bans the sale of luxury goods to North Korea.
“I think the North Korean population has been losing height and weight over the years,” Mr. Bolton said. “Maybe this will be a little diet for Kim Jong-il (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/_kim_jong_il/index.html?inline=nyt-per),” he said, referring to the North Korean dictator.
Under the resolution, member states are to report to the Security Council within 30 days on steps they have taken to comply with the its demands.
The resolution still invokes Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which makes mandatory economic and diplomatic sanctions. China and Russia customarily resist the Chapter VII provision on the grounds that it sets a pretext for the use of military force, as many countries believe it did in Iraq.
But in a formulation used in July to obtain a unanimous vote on the resolution condemning the North Korean missile launches, the text added a reference to Article 41 of the chapter, which permits only “means not involving the use of military force.”
In another change designed to gain Chinese and Russian support, the resolution now says the inspection process will be “cooperative” with local authorities. Both countries were sensitive to such interdiction being done near their coasts and borders, but Mr. Bolton said that though the inspections covered air, sea and land shipments, he expected most actions would be performed in port.
As for the agreement struck to limit the arms embargo to specific weapons like missiles, tanks, attack helicopters, artillery systems, warships and combat aircraft, Mr. Bolton said, “That would place under embargo the most dangerous, most sophisticated, most lethal weapons, so that’s a substantial step forward, and, as I say, we’re happy to accept that as a compromise.”

<!-- SiteCatalyst code version: G.5. Copyright 1997-2003 Omniture, Inc. More info available at http://www.omniture.com --> <script language="JavaScript"><!-- var s_account="nytimesglobal" var s_pageName="/2006/10/14/world/asia/14cnd-nations.html" var s_server="" var s_channel="world" var s_pageType="" var s_prop1="article" var s_prop2="asia pacific" var s_prop3="" var s_prop4="" var s_prop5="1154649965321" var s_prop6="" var s_prop7="" var s_prop8="" var s_prop9="" var s_prop10="" var s_prop12="" var s_prop13="" var s_prop14="" var s_prop15="" var s_prop16="" var s_prop17="" var s_prop18="" var s_campaign="" var s_state="" var s_zip="" var s_events="" var s_products="" var s_purchaseID="" var s_eVar1="" var s_eVar2="" var s_eVar3="" var s_eVar4="" var s_eVar5="" var s_eVar6="" var s_eVar7="" var s_eVar8="" var s_eVar9="" var s_eVar10="" //--></script> <script language="JavaScript" src="http://graphics10.nytimes.com/js/s_code_combined.js"></script> <script language="JavaScript"><!-- s_code=s_dc(s_account);if(s_code)s_d.write(s_code) //--></script><img name="s_i_nytimesglobal" alt="" border="0" height="1" width="1"><!-- End SiteCatalyst code version: G.5. --><!-- Start UPT call --> http://up.nytimes.com/?d=0//12&t=2&s=0&ui=&r=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2enytimes%2ecom%2f2006%2f10%2f1 4%2fworld%2fasia%2f14cnd%2dnations%2ehtml%3fhp%26e x%3d1160884800%26en%3daf0c3ef1dfe7431e%26ei%3d5094 %26partner%3dhomepage&u=www%2enytimes%2ecom%2f2006%2f10%2f14%2fworld%2fa sia%2f14cnd%2dnations%2ehtml%3fei%3d5094%26en%3daf 0c3ef1dfe7431e%26hp%3d%26ex%3d1160884800%26partner %3dhomepage%26pagewanted%3dprint<!-- End UPT call --> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/clientside/36c643cfQ2FQ24Q3A1fFNCKQ3CND9sf9Q3A9FQ2B5UDKMf

Once again, the Chinese and Russians, the very nations that created this Frankenstein on their own doorsteps have decided that realpolitik is more important than preventing nuclear spread and possible terrorism.
How is China and Russia's response to North Korea's selling nukes to terrorists different from the US approach to Pakistan's selling nuclear bomb technology to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and elsewhere? Do you remember us doing anything to isolate Pakistanb? Clinton had an embargo, but no blockade and same sort of realpolitik you describe meant that Bush thought making nice with Pakistan and lifting economic embargoes was more important than containing their bombs.

I do agre that NK is more dangerous than Pakistan, but Pakistan is dangerous too and now we're hoist on the precedent we set.

So yes, the UN is worthess because all the member states, especially Russia, China, and the US can't be bothered to take nuclear proliferation seriously.