Statement by Ambassador Vassily A. Nebenzia, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, at the Security Council meeting on the situation in the DPRK
I, too, like my colleagues, wish to begin by expressing my deep condolences to all of those who suffered from the effects of the natural disasters in the United States, China and the Philippines.
I wish also to thank Ms. DiCarlo for her briefing. Madam President, you suggested that we hold a Security Council meeting today in an open format; all the better, because we wanted to draw attention to the fact that Russia, China and other members of the Security Council have tried on many occasions, since progress was made in inter-Korean reconciliation, to initiate a positive reaction of any kind on the part of the Security Council to those events.
I would recall that six months ago we would sometimes meet twice a week in order to discuss yet another launch of a ballistic missile by Pyongyang. But today we are already talking about the prospect of signing a peace treaty and the final rapprochement between the South and the North. I would like the American delegation to explain to us and all other Members of the United Nations why it is opposed to the issuance by the Council of a presidential statement in support of these positive developments. It is blocking even such a reaction as press elements and refusing to issue any kind of a positive statement.
We have repeatedly stated that we fully support the negotiation process that began at the beginning of this year between the parties concerned. Russia also welcomes what has already been achieved: a reduction in military activity and the establishment of direct contact between the leaders of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and the United States. A liaison office for the two Koreas opened several days ago in Kaesong.
We also hope for a successful outcome to the summit set to begin tomorrow in Pyongyang between the leaders of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea. At the same time, we are seeing today that the negotiations between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United States are at the very least encountering certain difficulties. The negotiating process is a two-way street. Diplomacy in the twentyfirst century, or in any century, for that matter, is such that it is impossible to come to an agreement if one party offers nothing in return for its demands.
No one doubts the fact that a nuclear-missile programme in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is unacceptable. However, what else can be expected when Pyongyang is called upon to comply unconditionally with all conditions under empty promises? The world has already had the opportunity to contemplate the price of such promises in May, when the current United States Administration decided that agreements reached by its predecessors under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action were bad and made the unilateral decision to withdraw from it. Thus, the promises made not only to Tehran but also to the international community were all broken.
The path to denuclearization must begin with the strengthening of confidence-building measures. For example, one such measure could be the signing of a peace treaty to end the war in Korea. We see that both Pyongyang and Seoul have already come quite close to achieving that goal. Restrictive measures imposed by Security Council resolutions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea cannot be an end in themselves. They should be a tool to engage the country in constructive negotiations. It is impossible to resolve the Korean peninsula’s nuclear problem only through sanctions and pressure on Pyongyang. Sanctions cannot replace diplomacy.
With regard to the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006), the delegation of the United States has intentionally heightened tensions surrounding the issue of submission to the Council of the interim report of the Panel of Experts of the North Korean sanctions committee, and wishes to use the Council to impose its own view of the situation on the international community. As has often been the case with our American colleagues lately, today’s meeting has become one on Russia, rather than on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It is said that Russia is trying to exert pressure on the Panel of Experts. We would like to put a stop to such insinuations once and for all. In reality, the work of the Panel — which, for reasons beyond our control, has become increasingly politicized — was held hostage to the view of Washington. The Panel should be guided by the principles of objectivity and impartiality.
Regrettably, the first version of the document prepared by it did not meet those standards. In that regard, we and other members of the Committee made some observations that the Panel of Experts perceived appropriately and took into consideration while preparing the report for the Security Council. The Committee’s rules of procedure provide for consultations with Member States on the content of reports. The Council should not see ill intent in the fact that Member States are not indifferent to the section of the report that pertains to the Member States concerned. The experts asked us relevant questions.
It is perfectly logical that the answers we provided should be reflected in the report. However, in this case, exactly the opposite has occurred. Russia has been consistent in its well-reasoned responses to the questions sent by the Panel, including in its responses to the accusations made prolifically against us today by the Permanent Representative of the United States. Our views were not taken into consideration. Unsurprisingly, therefore, we have insisted on having our position reflected in the document. Let me reiterate that this was not an attempt to pressure the Panel of Experts; it was done in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006).
I hope that no member of the Council questions the fact that if accusations are made, responses to them should be made with equal transparency. That is precisely why the Russian delegation insisted that its position be taken into consideration and reflected in the report in question. After difficult negotiations, we believed that a compromise has been reached. I would like to stress that it was a difficult conversation, but at every stage of the negotiations, we managed to reach an understanding with all interested parties, including the American delegation. In her emotional statement, the Permanent Representative of the United States did not inform the Council that a compromise was reached with the agreement of its expert as well. What changed the next day, when it was withdrawn?
I hope that the Permanent Representative of the United States understands that it was her own delegation that prevented the submission of the report of the Panel of Experts to the Security Council. That delegation is now preventing the publication of an independent report of the status of the implementation of sanctions on North Korea because it blocked the dissemination of its new version. I underscore that it was signed by the entire Panel of Experts, including the American expert. Is the delegation of the United States preventing the reflection of views in this document that do not coincide with its own position?
In that regard, the following question must be asked. Is it not the delegation of the United States that is currently putting direct pressure on the Panel by demanding that it change its independent decision on the report to be submitted to the Security Council? The ball is in the United States delegation’s court. It presents the issue as an egregious precedent that allegedly violates the independent status of the various Panels of Experts. However, the situation is exactly the opposite. Introducing changes into the report of the Panel of Experts is a perfectly normal practice in the work of the subsidiary bodies of the Council.
We wish to stress that no one is undermining the independence of the experts, but let us not forget that they do not work in a vacuum. We need to avoid situations where the legitimate requests of Governments are not taken into account. Let me reiterate a few points. First, with regard to the oil tanker Patriot, the Panel of Experts itself stated that it was not in violation of the sanctions regime. That statement is in the original draft of the report. Secondly, it is untrue that we allegedly removed the section about violations made by a Russian company. That is a lie It remains in the report, unchanged, only it appears in the confidential appendix with some additional details. Thirdly, we requested additional information and evidence from the United States on the issues of quotas and funding for the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in Russia. We are still awaiting that information. We have been waiting for two months for information on the issue of quotas and four months on that of the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Who is cheating the international community? Who is spreading lies? With regard to the implementation of the sanctions resolutions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, we cannot fail to draw attention to recent developments on the peninsula.
Some time ago, the so-called United Nations Command — let us not be deceived by the name; it is a military structure, led by the United States in the demilitarized area between the two Koreas, using the name of the Organization as a shield — blocked practical steps to implement the inter-Korean initiative to restore rail traffic. However, a connection between the railways of the north and the south is one of the central inter-Korean agreements fixed in the Panmunjom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula.
As far as we know, the so-called Command did not allow specialists from either side to inspect the conditions of the tracks. Naturally, comments were made in the press, highlighting the fact that the United Nations was allegedly blocking the implementation of joint inter-Korean projects. We thank you, Madam President, for your in-depth economic analysis of the issues facing the Russian Far East. In that regard, I would remind you that cooperation on rail transport, including the trilateral KhasanRason project, is not covered by the sanctions regimes, including resolution 2397 (2017). Instead of creating roadblocks, the Council should promote inter-Korean dialogue.
However, Washington, D.C., is prepared to sacrifice all hopes for inter-Korean dialogue for its own opportunistic interests. What is the United Nations Command — an analog to the Berlin Wall in the twentyfirst century? What is being done by the United States can be considered a violation of all Security Council responsibilities under all resolutions of the Security Council seeking a settlement to the North Korean issue through peaceful diplomatic and political solution. On the other hand, such steps are fully in line with the so-called policy of maximum pressure on Pyongyang. Here, the United States is increasingly aggressive in trying to subjugate the Security Council.
We are sometimes left with the impression that Washington, D.C., is beginning to confuse the United Nations Security Council with the United States National Security Council, and unfortunately, today’s meeting is no exception. We also draw attention to the status of the so-called United Nations Command in Korea. The Commander of those forces is also the Commander of the United States armed forces in Korea, as well as the Republic of Korea-United States Combined Forces Command. From the point of view of international law, when the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea became full Members of the United Nations in 1991, the preservation of such an institution as the United Nations Command in Korea, which places the United Nations on the belligerent side of the civil war, is legal nonsense. In present conditions, as the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea officially declare their intention to prevent a new inter-Korean conflict and are calling for a declaration to end of the war on the Korean peninsula and the signature of a peace treaty, we must analyse the relevance of the role and troops of the United Nations force, which, as we all know, was established by resolutions 84 (1950) and 85 (1950), which were adopted against a particular historical background.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics boycotted those meetings of the Council, while the Kuomintang authorities occupied the seat of the People’s Republic of China. In fact, the Unified Command bears no relation to the United Nations. We should therefore consider its withdrawal, in accordance with the decisions of the thirtieth session of the General Assembly, which, for example, provided for the possible dissolution of the Command by 1976 and its replacement by Korean border troops in the event of further normalization of the situation on the peninsula. The institutions and mechanisms of the United Nations and the Security Council should be used to support settlement processes, no to hamper them. The common goal of all States involved is to ensure the peaceful settlement of the rising issues in the region, including the nuclear issue, through dialogue and mutually acceptable arrangements. The development of inter-Korean cooperation is in line with that goal, contributes to easing tensions on the peninsula and confirms the commitment undertaken by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at the beginning of the year to the normalization of relations with neighbouring countries and the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
We emphasize that such cooperation should not violate the provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions. Discussions on future cooperation projects and properly organized research efforts do not violate them. The Security Council and its decisions should not hinder but promote the rapprochement between the North and South. We invite the members of the Council to consider creating special conditions in the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) for temporary exemptions from the sanctions regime for the implementation of inter-Korean cooperation projects. As far as I know, both sides of the Military Demarcation Line share that idea. The sanctions committee on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a clear example of what the destructive behaviour of some of its members leads to.
It seems that the Committee is seen by the United States as a kind of club meant to punish the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for its intransigence in the negotiations. It is very convenient, under the cover of the collective name of the Security Council, to try to exert pressure on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in its bilateral contacts. Washington, D.C., methodically refuses to allow Member States and international organizations to have humanitarian, diplomatic and sports links in Pyongyang, although they have nothing to do with nuclear missile programmes. The requests sent by our American colleagues are in no way justified, since they are intended to be accepted as the absolute truth by other Member States. They make it impossible for the Committee to adopt any consensus decision, even of a technical nature.
In conclusion, we call on all parties to exercise restraint and we stress once again that the quest for a mutually acceptable political-diplomatic course is the only possible way to peacefully resolve the problems on the Korean peninsula and create strong mechanisms for security in North-East Asia, which is in the interest of all countries of the region. However, imposing sanctions and pressure on Pyongyang without taking into account its legitimate interests will make it impossible to achieve that. Once again, I draw attention to the fact that it was in that vein that Russia and China developed the road map for the settlement of the situation on the Korean peninsula that, even with its setbacks, is now being de facto implemented. The Russian side stands ready to foster close interaction with all interested countries to ensure peace and stability in the region and achieve a comprehensive settlement of the problem on the Korean peninsula on the basis of equal and non-discriminatory negotiations with the participation of all interested States.
