Draft UN sanctions resolution against North Korea includes oil sales ban

By Benjamin Katzeff Silberstein

Several news outlets have reported that a draft UNSC-resolution that the United States intends to propose includes a ban on member states on selling oil to North Korea, and on purchasing textiles from the country. Wall Street Journal:

If adopted, the resolution would significantly escalate political and diplomatic pressure on Pyongyang as it continues to defy U.N. resolutions with its nuclear and ballistic-missile tests.

The U.S. circulated a draft of the resolution, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, to all 15 members of the Security Council, and diplomats said they expect a vote on Sept. 11. Negotiations for a consensus have expanded from talks between the U.S. and China to all members of the council, diplomats said.

[…]

The resolution faces hurdles in winning the backing of China and Russia. Both veto-holding countries are allies of North Korea and have said they don’t favor sanctions that would cripple the economy to the brink of collapse, or contribute to the suffering of civilians. Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that cutting off oil exports to North Korea would violate humanitarian norms.

[…]

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi criticized North Korea’s most recent nuclear test on Thursday, saying Beijing approved of “further action” by the Security Council in response, according to a statement posted on the ministry’s website.

Mr. Wang said China was “firmly opposed” to the Sunday test and urged North Korea to cease “obstinately walking its own path,” the statement said. It didn’t elaborate on what type of U.N. action China would support, but quoted Mr. Wang as saying any measures needed to be aimed at reopening dialogue.

[…]

Under the resolution, member states and their citizens and vessels would be prohibited from exporting to North Korea all crude oil, refined petroleum products and liquefied natural gas.

North Korea would also be banned from selling or transferring textiles, including fabrics and apparel products and member states prohibited from procuring textiles originating from North Korea.

Individuals targeted under the proposed asset and travel freeze include: Hwang Pyong So, vice chairman of the State Affairs Commission; Kim Ki Nam, director of the Workers’ Party of Korea Propaganda and Agitation Department, which controls all media; his Vice Director Kim Yo Jong; and Pak Yong Sik, a member of the Workers’ Party of Korea Central Military Commission.

Seven key government institutions that help prop up the North Korean regime and its control of the public are blacklisted in the resolution. They include the Central Military Commission, the army and propaganda and state-media ministries.

The list of sanctioned entities would also be expanded to Air Koryo, North Korea’s national airline, which the resolution says is implicated for carrying illicit military equipment.

The resolution also would authorize all member states to inspect North Korean cargo vessels on high seas and report the details of the ship and the inspection to the U.N. sanctions committee.

As well, member states would be prohibited from hiring or paying North Korean nationals working in their countries unless approved in advance by the sanctions committee on a case-by-case basis. The resolution stipulates that workers can be expelled back to North Korea if they are remitting funds to the government.

Full article:
U.N. Resolution Proposed by U.S. Would Sanction Kim, Cut Oil Supplies
Farnaz Fassihi
Wall Street Journal
2017-09-07

An oil embargo would likely carry a significant impact on North Korean society and its economy overall. True, there are probably larger-scale unofficial channels than we really know of for North Korea’s oil and fuel imports, and the flow through these channels is likely underestimated in the most commonly cited numbers for North Korean oil and fuel consumption and imports. But still, even though sanctions are never foolproof and often contain massive holes, they often create severe additional obstacles for acquiring the sanctioned products. Particularly when it comes to oil and other basic essentials, the military and higher echelons of the state and Party likely have their own channels for acquiring what they need. They’ll always be first in the hierarchy, as we’ve seen during the gasoline price hike of the spring likely caused at least partially by hoarding by the state, in anticipating difficulties ahead.

On textiles, a great deal of textile products are already exported under Chinese labels even when they’re manufactured in North Korea. It’s unclear how an embargo would impact that side of the exports.

The vessel inspections mandate also raises questions. Several North Korean ships already sail under other countries’ flags. It is unclear to me whether this mandate would include only North Korea-flagged vessels, in which case it should be pretty easy for North Korea to sidestep, or if it would also include ships that are known to be of North Korean origin but registered in other countries. (I am by no means an expert on the technicalities of shipping registries, so anyone who has better knowledge on how this would work, please do get in touch).

In any case, Putin has already come out publicly against an oil embargo, and it seems highly unlikely that China would ever go along with one. China is unlikely to support any sanctions that could seriously de-stabilize North Korea or really cause severe, long-term damage to the North Korean economy. An oil embargo, if properly enforced, surely would do the latter. So whether this ever becomes really is an open question. Perhaps the US will use China’s potential refusal to go along with an oil embargo as leverage for expanded secondary sanctions against Chinese entities trading with North Korea.

Anyway, as has been the case for the past few months on all things North Korea, more to follow…

Share

An affiliate of 38 North