Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at a UNSC Briefing on the situation on the Korean Peninsula
Main statement:
Mr. President,
We have closely listened to Under-Secretary-General Ms. Rosemary DiCarlo, who highlighted heightened military activity in the region. However, we expect the Secretariat to provide a more rigorous analysis of the potential repercussions of this activity in terms of security and stability in the region.
We have also listened to the remarks by James Byrne, representative of the Open Source Center. We urge the Council members not to be misled: for all the attempts to present this briefer as the voice of independent civil society, he represents an entity deeply embedded in the British military-political establishment. Expecting useful and impartial assessments from such a biased expert would be at the very least imprudent, if not laughable.
Mr. President,
Today, at the initiative of a group of countries led by the United States, the Council has once again been drawn into a discussion that pushes the long-anticipated stabilization on the Korean Peninsula only further away, rather than bringing it closer. The occasion chosen for convening this meeting is the second anniversary of the termination of the mandate of the 1718 Sanctions Committee's Panel of Experts. We understand how sensitive this was for Washington and its allies, since that Panel served as a key tool of their information warfare against Pyongyang. Suffice it to recall that instead of providing recommendations for updates to the sanctions regime and verification of data received, the experts have stooped to disseminating biased information fed by Western media and staging propagandistic stunts.
The issue raised today has nothing to do with maintaining international peace and security. We have never seen the organizers of the meeting conduct a “funeral” for similar panels of experts dealing with other countries’ files, nor have they ever proposed discussing the work of such groups.
History has clearly shown that the UN Security Council’s sanctions regime vis-à-vis North Korea is counterproductive. At present, the situation in the region has changed dramatically. As a result, the sanctions of the Security Council are also no longer relevant.
Another matter that holds no water is the situation whereby some Security Council sanctions are subject to revision on an annual basis – or even more frequently – while others are “set in stone,” and any attempts to update them are being nipped in the bud. We need to acknowledge that the Council made a grave error by making the sanctions regime against the DPRK open-ended, thereby paralyzing its capabilities to act in accordance with the UN Charter. It is within our power to ensure that this error does not prove fatal for regional and global security. Two years ago, when considering the mandate of the Panel of Experts, Russia invited Council members to engage in a substantive and unbiased discussion on revising international sanctions against Pyongyang in order to have them updated and mitigated. Our proposal is still “on the table.”
What remains a compelling reason to take urgent action regarding sanctions is the humanitarian fallout and repercussions from the sanctions regime for the North Korean population. Russia supports granting one-time humanitarian exemptions through the Security Council’s 1718 Committee; however, this is by no means sufficient. The first step here could be the easing of the Security Council’s sanctions on humanitarian grounds, which would help create a conducive atmosphere for seeking diplomatic solutions that take into account the legitimate interests of all countries in the region, including the DPRK. We must frankly acknowledge present-day realities, where the negotiation process is the only viable alternative. The time is ripe to fundamentally reconsider approaches to resolving the problem and to begin moving towards the resumption of dialogue.
What warrants separate mention is the so-called Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team (MSMT), which was established in circumvention of the UN Charter and is being presented as a replacement for the 1718 Committee’s Panel of Experts. This mechanism lacks a legitimate international mandate, and all the “products” of this body are entirely illegitimate and are nothing more than fabrication and disinformation.
Turning to those who are wondering about the development of Russia-DPRK bilateral relations, we wish to recall that Pyongyang is our close neighbor and partner, with whom we have been developing relations in all areas in accordance with the UN Charter. Our cooperation in both the military and other spheres is not directed against third countries, nor does it pose any threat to the States of the region or the international community. Russia will certainly continue to develop this cooperation, and it does not run counter to our international obligations. The participation of North Korean military personnel in the operation to repel the aggression of Ukrainian fighters and foreign mercenaries in the Kursk Oblast was in line with Article 4 of the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the Russian Federation and the DPRK.
Mr. President,
Today’s meeting is a clear example of the blatant misuse of the Council’s resources, intended to divert its attention from the real root causes of the escalation on the Korean Peninsula. The most pressing of these is undoubtedly the build-up of NATO’s military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, which is systematically undermining the prospects for building a non-bloc collective security architecture in the region. April 24 saw the end of the latest “Freedom Flag” exercise, which is a combined joint all-domain exercise by the US and the Republic of Korea that involves a large number of personnel and military equipment. This bilateral format has been dubbed a “nuclear alliance” – on the model of the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) – and it may be expanded by bringing Japan into it. And Japan is developing protocols for participation in American schemes of “extended nuclear deterrence” while considering a possible revision of the “Three Non-Nuclear Principles.” This factor is of particular significance given that Japan’s remilitarization is gaining momentum, which is evidenced by a sharp increase in military expenditures. Before our very eyes, Tokyo is busy revising the very foundations of its previous pacifist policy, and it is yet to be assessed what consequences for international peace and security this may entail.
Now I wish to turn to the French delegation, which has been waxing poetic today about the goals of nuclear non-proliferation. Was it not your president who a month ago announced his intention to set off a non-transparent expansion of France’s nuclear arsenal? Was it not him who last week initiated joint air drills with Poland that will include, inter alia, simulations of nuclear strikes on Russian territory? Such a move is astoundingly provocative. All of the above-mentioned trends are significantly ratcheting up the degree of tension and the risks of military provocations.
In the context of the NPT Review Conference of the Parties, we cannot but note that the actions of all three Western nuclear-armed States – the United States, France, and the United Kingdom – are directly stoking a nuclear arms race. Two countries have already openly announced plans to expand their nuclear arsenals. The third one deliberately shed the limitations under the New START Treaty and for years ignored the need to facilitate the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), thereby signaling its willingness to commence its nuclear build-up and resume full-scale nuclear tests at the first nod of the head of State.
In light of what is transpiring on the Korean Peninsula, let us stress that the three countries that we are talking about – namely the US, the Republic of Korea, and Japan – rank among the top ten nations with the largest military budgets and the most advanced and destructive military equipment in the world on high alert. Faced with such animosity, the leadership of the independent and sovereign DPRK is compelled to seek solutions to ensure national security.
Pyongyang’s adversaries can speak as long as they want asserting that what they are doing is no way prohibited by any Security Council resolutions. However, this is not consistent with the Security Council’s demands regarding the need to resolve the situation on the Korean Peninsula exclusively through dialogue and diplomacy. In fact, we are bearing witness to direct and systematic violations of international obligations by a group of countries.
In conclusion, we urge the members of the Security Council to wholly rethink their outdated approaches, thus contributing to finally breaking the current dangerous deadlock, rather than further exacerbating the situation.
Thank you.
Right of reply by DPR Anna Evstigneeva:
Mr. President,
I would like to point out that, for all these years, Western countries, including France, have been funneling arms into Ukraine, including missiles. The level of escalation is already off the charts, since they are striving to sustain Ukraine by hook or by crook, so that it can serve a viable “geopolitical battering ram” to harm the security of the Russian Federation, provided there is Western support.
In this regard, as you rightly noted, we are particularly alarmed by the information coming from Russian intelligence agencies regarding the plans of London and Paris to transfer nuclear weapons components to Kiev. We are not surprised that you avail yourselves of the opportunity to deny this information – we can hardly imagine any other response from you.
However, members of the international community must understand that these countries – the UK and France – appear to have the capabilities, motives, and means to commit such a crime.
Thank you.
