Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

China calls US bluff on North Korea – again

Full text and analysis of latest UN Security Council sanctions Resolution 2375 against North Korea.

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

8,147 Views

The North Korean crisis took a further twist on Monday with a significant climbdown by the US at the UN Security Council and a further diplomatic victory by China.

This is not being widely reported in the West though some sections of the Western media have  reported that the final draft of the Resolution that was voted on by the UN Security Council was ‘watered down’ by comparison with an earlier draft of the Resolution presented to the UN Security Council by the US because of Chinese and Russian pressure.

The US did indeed earlier present to the UN Security Council a draft Resolution, which called for a total stop of the supply of oil to North Korea and which imposed what would have amounted to a naval blockade of North Korea, with the UN navy authorised by the UN Security Council to stop and search any ship travelling to and from North Korea (the draft of the Resolution presented to the UN Security Council by the US contained the words “all necessary means” which the US would have taken as authorising the US navy to do this).

Moreover in the days before the vote US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin publicly threatened that the US would sanction any country which voted against the Resolution which had been proposed by the US and even said that an Executive Order to that effect had already been prepared and merely needed President Trump’s signature.

The fact that the Resolution that the UN Security Council eventually voted for did not impose either a stop in the supply of oil to North Korea or the sort of naval blockade of North Korea the US demanded is what led some sections of the Western media to report that under pressure from China and Russia the US was forced to ‘water down’ its draft of the Resolution, making it weaker than the US originally intended.

In my opinion this is a total misconception.  The US draft was not so much ‘watered down’ as simply scrapped.

That this is so is shown by the fact that the Resolution the UN Security Council actually voted for is not just completely different from the US draft but clearly reflects Chinese thinking.

In order to explain this I herewith set out the full text of the UN Security Council Resolution (Resolution 2375) as provided by the United Nations’ website.

“The Security Council,

Recalling its previous relevant resolutions, including resolution 825 (1993),  resolution 1695 (2006), resolution 1718 (2006), resolution 1874 (2009), resolution 1887 (2009), resolution 2087 (2013), resolution 2094 (2013), resolution 2270 (2016), resolution 2321 (2016), resolution 2356 (2017), resolution 2371 (2017) as well as the statements of its President of 6 October 2006 (S/PRST/2006/41), 13 April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/7), 16 April 2012 (S/PRST/2012/13), and 29 August 2017 (S/PRST/2017/16),

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 its gravest concern at the nuclear test by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (“the DPRK”) on September 2, 2017 in violation of resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016), 2356 (2017), and 2371 (2017) 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, and the danger it poses to peace and stability in the region and beyond,

Underlining once again the importance that the DPRK respond to other security and humanitarian concerns of the international community and expressing great concern that the DPRK continues to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles by diverting critically needed resources away from the people in the DPRK who have great unmet needs,

Expressing its gravest concern that the DPRK’s ongoing nuclear- and ballistic missile-related activities have destabilized the region and beyond, and determining that there continues to exist a clear threat to international peace and security,

Underscoring its concern that developments on the Korean Peninsula could have dangerous, large-scale regional security implications,

Underscoring its commitment to the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of all States in accordance with the Charter, and recalling the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing also its desire for a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the situation, and reiterating its welcoming of efforts by Council members as well as other Member States to facilitate a peaceful and comprehensive solution through dialogue,

Underlining the need to ensure international peace and security, and ensure lasting stability in north-east Asia at large and to resolve the situation through peaceful, diplomatic and political means,

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 September 2 of 2017 in violation and flagrant disregard of the Security Council’s resolutions;

“2.   Reaffirms its decisions that the DPRK shall not conduct any further launches that use ballistic missile technology, nuclear tests, or any other provocation; shall immediately suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program and in this context re-establish its pre-existing commitments to a moratorium on all missile launches; shall immediately abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner, and immediately cease all related activities; and shall abandon any other existing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner;

Designations

“3.   Decides that the measures specified in paragraph 8 (d) of resolution 1718 (2006) shall apply also to the individual and entities listed in Annex I and II of this resolution and to any individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, and to entities owned or controlled by them, including through illicit means, and decides further that the measures specified in paragraph 8 (e) of resolution 1718 (2006) shall also apply to the individual listed in Annex I of this resolution and to individuals acting on their behalf or at their direction;

“4.   Decides to adjust the measures imposed by paragraph 8 of resolution 1718 (2006) through the designation of additional WMD-related dual-use items, materials, equipment, goods, and technology, directs the Committee to undertake its tasks to this effect and to report to the Security Council within fifteen 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, and directs the Committee to regularly update this list every twelve months;

“5.   Decides to adjust the measures imposed by paragraph 8 (a), 8 (b) and 8 (c) of resolution 1718 (2006) through the designation of additional conventional arms-related items, materials, equipment, goods, and technology, directs the Committee to undertake its tasks to this effect and to report to the Security Council within fifteen 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, and directs the Committee to regularly update this list every twelve months;

“6.   Decides to apply the measures imposed by paragraph 6 of resolution 2371 (2016) on vessels transporting prohibited items from the DPRK, directs the Committee to designate these vessels and to report to the Security Council within fifteen days of adoption of this resolution, 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, and directs the Committee to regularly update this list when it is informed of additional violations;

Maritime Interdiction of Cargo Vessels

“7.   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 resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016), 2356 (2017), 2371 (2017) or this resolution, for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of those provisions;

“8.   Calls upon all States to cooperate with inspections pursuant to paragraph 7 above, 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 18 of resolution 2270 (2016), and decides further that, if a flag State neither consents to inspection on the high seas nor directs the vessel to proceed to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection, or if the vessel refuses to comply with flag State direction to permit inspection on the high seas or to proceed to such a port, then the Committee shall consider designating the vessel for the measures imposed in paragraph 8 (d) of resolution 1718 (2006) and paragraph 12 of resolution 2321 (2016) and the flag State shall immediately deregister that vessel provided that such designation has been made by the Committee;

“9.   Requires any Member State, when it does not receive the cooperation of a flag State of a vessel pursuant to paragraph 8 above, to submit promptly to the Committee a report containing relevant details regarding the incident, the vessel and the flag State, and requests the Committee to release on a regular basis information regarding these vessels and flag States involved;

“10.  Affirms that paragraph 7 contemplates only inspections carried out by warships and other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect, and underscores that it does not apply with respect to inspection of vessels entitled to sovereign immunity under international law;

“11.  Decides that all Member States shall prohibit their nationals, persons subject to their jurisdiction, entities incorporated in their territory or subject to their jurisdiction, and vessels flying their flag, from facilitating or engaging in ship-to-ship transfers to or from DPRK-flagged vessels of any goods or items that are being supplied, sold, or transferred to or from the DPRK;

“12.  Affirms that paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 apply only with respect to the situation in the DPRK and shall not affect the rights, obligations, or responsibilities of Member States under international law, including any rights or obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, with respect to any other situation and underscores in particular that this resolution shall not be considered as establishing customary international law;

Sectoral

“13.  Decides that all Member States shall prohibit the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK, through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, of all condensates and natural gas liquids, and decides that the DPRK shall not procure such materials;

“14.  Decides that all Member States shall prohibit the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK, through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, of all refined petroleum products, decides that the DPRK shall not procure such products, decides that this provision shall not apply with respect to procurement by the DPRK or the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK, through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, of refined petroleum products in the amount of up to 500,000 barrels during an initial period of three months beginning on 1 October 2017 and ending on 31 December 2017, and refined petroleum products in the amount of up to 2,000,000 barrels per year during a period of twelve months beginning on 1 January 2018 and annually thereafter, provided that (a) the Member State notifies the Committee every thirty days of the amount of such supply, sale, or transfer to the DPRK of refined petroleum products along with information about all the parties to the transaction, (b) the supply, sale, or transfer of refined petroleum products involve no individuals or entities that are associated with the DPRK’s nuclear or ballistic missile programmes or other activities prohibited by resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016), 2356 (2017), 2371 (2017) or this resolution, including designated individuals or entities, or individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled by them, directly or indirectly, or individuals or entities assisting in the evasion of sanctions, and (c) the supply, sale, or transfer of refined petroleum products are exclusively for livelihood purposes of DPRK nationals and unrelated to generating revenue for the DPRK’s nuclear or ballistic missile programmes or other activities prohibited by resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016), 2356 (2017), 2371 (2017) or this resolution, directs the Committee Secretary to notify all Member States when an aggregate amount of refined petroleum products sold, supplied, or transferred to the DPRK of 75 per cent of the aggregate amount for the period between 1 October 2017 and 31 December 2017 has been reached, and again notify all Member States when 90 percent and 95 percent of such aggregate amount has been reached, directs the Committee Secretary beginning on 1 January 2018 to notify all Member States when an aggregate amount of refined petroleum products sold, supplied, or transferred to the DPRK of 75 per cent of the aggregate yearly amounts have been reached, also directs the Committee Secretary beginning on 1 January 2018 to notify all Member States when an aggregate amount of refined petroleum products sold, supplied, or transferred to the DPRK of 90 per cent of the aggregate yearly amounts have been reached, and further directs the Committee Secretary beginning on 1 January 2018 to notify all Member States when an aggregate amount of refined petroleum products sold, supplied, or transferred to the DPRK of 95 per cent of the aggregate yearly amounts have been reached and to inform them that they must immediately cease selling, supplying, or transferring refined petroleum products to the DPRK for the remainder of the year, directs the Committee to make publicly available on its website the total amount of refined petroleum products sold, supplied, or transferred to the DPRK by month and by source country, directsthe Committee to update this information on a real-time basis as it receives notifications from Member States, calls upon all Member States to regularly review this website to comply with the annual limits for refined petroleum products established by this provision, directs the Panel of Experts to closely monitor the implementation efforts of all Member States to provide assistance and ensure full and global compliance, and requests the Secretary-General to make the necessary arrangements to this effect and provide additional resources in this regard;

“15.  Decides that all Member States shall not supply, sell, or transfer to the DPRK in any period of twelve months after the date of adoption of this resolution an amount of crude oil that is in excess of the amount that the Member State supplied, sold or transferred in the period of twelve months prior to adoption of this resolution, unless the Committee approves in advance on a case-by-case basis a shipment of crude oil is exclusively for livelihood purposes of DPRK nationals and unrelated to the DPRK’s nuclear or ballistic missile programmes or other activities prohibited by resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016), 2356 (2017), 2371 (2017) or this resolution;

“16.  Decides that the DPRK shall not supply, sell or transfer, directly or indirectly, from its territory or by its nationals or using its flag vessels or aircraft, textiles (including but not limited to fabrics and partially or fully completed apparel products), and that all States shall prohibit the procurement of such items from the DPRK by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, whether or not originating in the territory of the DPRK, unless the Committee approves on a case-by-case basis in advance, and further decides that for such sales, supplies, and transfers of textiles (including but not limited to fabrics and partially or fully completed apparel products) for which written contracts have been finalized prior to the adoption of this resolution, all States may allow those shipments to be imported into their territories up to 90 days from the date of adoption of this resolution with notification provided to the Committee containing details on those imports by no later than 135 days after the date of adoption of this resolution;

“17.  Decides that all Member States shall not provide work authorizations for DPRK nationals in their jurisdictions in connection with admission to their territories unless the Committee determines on a case-by-case basis in advance that employment of DPRK nationals in a member state’s jurisdiction is required for the delivery of humanitarian assistance, denuclearization or any other purpose consistent with the objectives of resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016), 2356 (2017), 2371 (2017), or this resolution, and decides that this provision shall not apply with respect to work authorizations for which written contracts have been finalized prior to the adoption of this resolution;

Joint Ventures

“18.  Decides that States shall prohibit, by their nationals or in their territories, the opening, maintenance, and operation of all joint ventures or cooperative entities, new and existing, with DPRK entities or individuals, whether or not acting for or on behalf of the government of the DPRK, unless such joint ventures or cooperative entities, in particular those that are non-commercial, public utility infrastructure projects not generating profit, have been approved by the Committee in advance on a case-by-case basis, further decidesthat States shall close any such existing joint venture or cooperative entity within 120 days of the adoption of this resolution if such joint venture or cooperative entity has not been approved by the Committee on a case-by-case basis, and States shall close any such existing joint venture or cooperative entity within 120 days after the Committee has denied a request for approval, and decides that this provision shall not apply with respect to existing China-DPRK hydroelectric power infrastructure projects and the Russia-DPRK Rajin-Khasan port and rail project solely to export Russia-origin coal as permitted by paragraph 8 of resolution 2371 (2017);

Sanctions Implementation

“19.  Decides that Member States shall report to the Security Council within ninety 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 this resolution, requests the Panel of Experts, in cooperation with other UN sanctions monitoring groups, to continue its efforts to assist Member States in preparing and submitting such reports in a timely manner;

“20.  Calls upon all Member States to redouble efforts to implement in full the measures in resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016), 2356 (2017), 2371 (2017), and this resolution and to cooperate with each other in doing so, particularly with respect to inspecting, detecting and seizing items the transfer of which is prohibited by these resolutions;

“21.  Decides that the mandate of the Committee, as set out in paragraph 12 of resolution 1718 (2006), shall apply with respect to the measures imposed in this resolution and further decides that the mandate of the Panel of Experts, as specified in paragraph 26 of resolution 1874 (2009) and modified in paragraph 1 of resolution 2345 (2017), shall also apply with respect to the measures imposed in this resolution;

“22.  Decides to authorize all Member States to, and that all Member States shall, seize and dispose (such as through destruction, rendering inoperable or unusable, storage, or transferring to a State other than the originating or destination States for disposal) of items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016), 2356 (2017), 2371 (2017), or this resolution that are identified in inspections, 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 Development 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;

“23.  Emphasizes the importance of all States, including the DPRK, taking the necessary measures to ensure that no claim shall lie at the instance of the DPRK, or of any person or entity in the DPRK, or of persons or entities designated for measures set forth in resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016), 2356 (2017), 2371 (2017), or this resolution, or any person claiming through or for the benefit of any such person or entity, in connection with any contract or other transaction where its performance was prevented by reason of the measures imposed by this resolution or previous resolutions;

Political

“24.  Reiterates its deep concern at the grave hardship that the people in the DPRK are subjected to, condemns the DPRK for pursuing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles instead of the welfare of its people while people in the DPRK have great unmet needs, and emphasizes the necessity of the DPRK respecting and ensuring the welfare and inherent dignity of people in the DPRK;

“25.  Regrets the DPRK’s massive diversion of its scarce resources toward its development of nuclear weapons and a number of expensive ballistic missile programs, notes the findings of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance that well over half of the people in the DPRK suffer from major insecurities in food and medical care, including a very large number of pregnant and lactating women and under-five children who are at risk of malnutrition and nearly a quarter of its total population suffering from chronic malnutrition, and, in this context, expresses deep concern at the grave hardship to which the people in the DPRK are subjected;

“26.  Reaffirms that the measures imposed by resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016), 2356 (2017), 2371 (2017) and this resolution are not intended to have adverse humanitarian consequences for the civilian population of the DPRK or to affect negatively or restrict those activities, including economic activities and cooperation, food aid and humanitarian assistance, that are not prohibited by resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016), 2356 (2017), 2371 (2017) and this resolution, and the work of international and non-governmental organizations carrying out assistance and relief activities in the DPRK for the benefit of the civilian population of the DPRK and decides that the Committee may, on a case-by-case basis, exempt any activity from the measures imposed by these resolutions if the committee determines that such an exemption is necessary to facilitate the work of such organizations in the DPRK or for any other purpose consistent with the objectives of these resolutions;

“27.  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;

“28.  Reaffirms its support for the Six Party Talks, calls for their resumption, and reiterates its support for the commitments set forth in the Joint Statement of 19 September 2005 issued by China, the DPRK, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United States, including that the goal of the Six-Party Talks is the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner, that the United States and the DPRK undertook to respect each other’s sovereignty and exist peacefully together, that the Six Parties undertook to promote economic cooperation, and all other relevant commitments;

“29.  Reiterates the importance of maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in north-east Asia at large, expresses its commitment to a peaceful, diplomatic, and political solution to the situation, and welcomes efforts by the Council members as well as other States to facilitate a peaceful and comprehensive solution through dialogue and stresses the importance of working to reduce tensions in the Korean Peninsula and beyond;

“30.  Urges further work to reduce tensions so as to advance the prospects for a comprehensive settlement;

“31.  Underscores the imperative of achieving the goal of complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner;

“32.  Affirms that it shall keep the DPRK’s actions under continuous review and is prepared to strengthen, modify, suspend or lift the measures as may be needed in light of the DPRK’s compliance, and, in this regard, expresses its determination to take further significant measures in the event of a further DPRK nuclear test or launch;

“33.  Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

 

Annex I

Travel Ban/Asset Freeze (Individuals)

1.    PAK YONG SIK
a.    Description: Pak Yong Sik is a member of the Workers’ Party of Korea Central Military Commission, which is responsible for the development and implementation of the Workers’ Party of Korea military policies, commands and controls the DPRK’s military, and helps direct the country’s military defense industries.
b.    AKA: n/a
c.    Identifiers: YOB: 1950; Nationality: DPRK

 

Annex II

Asset Freeze (Entities)

1.    CENTRAL MILITARY COMMISSION OF THE WORKERS’ PARTY OF KOREA (CMC)
a.    Description: The Central Military Commission is responsible for the development and implementation of the Workers’ Party of Korea’s military policies, commands and controls the DPRK’s military, and directs the country’s military defense industries in coordination with the State Affairs Commission.
b.    AKA: n/a
c.    Location: Pyongyang, DPRK

2.    ORGANIZATION AND GUIDANCE DEPARTMENT (OGD)
a.    Description: The Organization and Guidance Department is a very powerful body of the Worker’s Party of Korea. It directs key personnel appointments for the Workers’ Party of Korea, the DPRK’s military, and the DPRK’s government administration. It also purports to control the political affairs of all of the DPRK and is instrumental in implementing the DPRK’s censorship policies.
b.    AKA: n/a
c.    Location: DPRK

3.    PROPAGANDA AND AGITATION DEPARTMENT (PAD)
a.    Description: The Propaganda and Agitation Department has full control over the media, which it uses as a tool to control the public on behalf of the DPRK leadership. The Propaganda and Agitation Department also engages in or is responsible for censorship by the Government of the DPRK, including newspaper and broadcast censorship.
b.    AKA: n/a
c.    Location: Pyongyang, DPRK

(bold highlighting added)
Turning first to the question of the sanctions, the key point to grasp is that the sanctions imposed on North Korea by Resolution 2375 do not materially change the economic situation of North Korea.  Moreover paragraph 26 of Resolution 2375 specifically rules out any suggestion that they should do so.
The sanctions are not intended to ‘punish’ North Korea economically.  Rather they are intended as a signal to North Korea of the UN Security Council’s strong disapproval of its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programme, whilst the text of Resolution 2375 is also intended to set a clear limit on how far sanctions on North Korea can go.
The second important point about Resolution 2375 is that enforcement of the sanctions is not delegated to UN Member States – which in this context means the US – but to a special sanctions Committee set up previously by the UN Security Council, which not only reports to the UN Security Council but on which both China and Russia are represented.
Turning to the specific sanctions which have been imposed on North Korea, Resolution 2375 does not order a stop in the supply of oil to North Korea.  Instead it caps the quantity of oil supplied to North Korea at existing levels.  The point about this is that this of course the same quantity of oil that North Korea has been choosing to import.  The fact that North Korea is known to have been stockpiling oil since the spring of last year means that this is a greater quantity of oil than North Korea actually needs, so that if North Korea continues to import oil at this level it can continue to stockpile it.
The Resolution does restrict the supply of refined oil and gas products to North Korea.  However it seems that these are not being supplied to North Korea in any great quantity anyway since in accordance with its Juche policy North Korea does not import gas condensates in any significant quantity and itself refines most of the oil it imports.   Moreover the complex wording of paragraph 14 makes it clear that North Korea can continue to import refined petroleum products for use by its civilian economy and that the export of refined petroleum products to North Korea is not entirely prohibited.
These provisions – of which US ambassador Nikki Haley made a great deal in her speech to the UN Security Council – are not intended to cause North Korea further economic damage.  Rather they appear to be primarily intended to prevent North Korea from circumventing the cap imposed on its crude oil imports by increasing its import of refined oil and gas imports in their place.  In addition there seems to be a secondary motive of limiting the import by North Korea of certain refined oil products (diesel oil in particular) which are used by its military.
As for the elaborate procedure outlined in Resolution 2375 for inspecting ships trading with North Korea, the reality – as everyone knows – is that the US navy has been stopping and searching North Korean ships and other ships trading with North Korea on the high seas for some time.
This is of course an entirely illegal practice, but the US has never shown any hesitation in acting in this way when it thinks it can.
Resolution 2375 not only implicitly forbids this practice by setting out a procedure which instead should be followed but by setting out such an elaborate procedure for inspecting ships trading with North Korea essentially precludes the US from stopping and searching Chinese ships, which are of course the main carriers of traded goods between North Korea and China.
Resolution 2375 also imposes a ban on North Korean textile exports.  This is the major concession in the Resolution to the US, which has seized on North Korea’s textile exports as North Korea’s major foreign currency earner since prohibition of its coal exports earlier this year.
The key point about this provision is however that this is both a relatively minor trade (its annual value is put at around $700 million) whilst enforcement on its prohibition is all but impossible given the difficulty of tracing the origin of textile goods and the ease with which such goods move across the border between North Korea and China.
The underlying truth is that North Korea’s annual trade turnover in 2016 is calculated to have been no more than $3 billion.  Even on the most pessimistic assessment of the size of the North Korean economy that figure is remarkably low, and points to the limited importance of foreign trade to North Korea.  It is likely that the only product which North Korea needs to import in order to sustain its economy at its existing level is crude oil.
The true meaning of Resolution 2375 is that it shows that China is determined to continue supplying North Korea with crude oil at existing levels, and that it is not prepared to change its stance on this.
Chinese thinking on this issue has been set out clearly in a Global Times editorial published directly following the vote in the UN Security Council on Resolution 2375.  Its most important passages read as follows

The new resolution has triggered widespread discussion in the West, and some believe China and Russia “softened” a plan drafted earlier by the US.

The resolution represents the unified stance and will of the Security Council members and the international community to sanction North Korea at this point. The new sanctions are welcomed by Washington and Seoul, and will be largely pushed forward by Beijing and Moscow.

The US first circulated a draft resolution that called for a full oil embargo on North Korea in an attempt to win more leverage. As the new UN resolution has already been passed, raising such a request would be against the will of the international community and destroy international unity on the Pyongyang issue…..

Some Americans and South Koreans have attempted to collapse Pyongyang’s economy and suffocate the current Pyongyang regime. This is dangerous. North Korea’s nuclear crisis requires arduous efforts to find a final solution, and any attempt to immediately end the crisis will only escalate tensions and eventually jeopardize self-interests.
(bold italics added)
In other words the fact that Resolution 2375 does not impose a full oil embargo on North Korea means that imposing such a full oil embargo is “against the will of the international community” and merely to make such a demand – in the event for example that North Korea were to conduct another nuclear test – is construed by China as being unacceptable and wrong.
Read in this way it becomes clear what Resolution 2375 is intended to do.  Instead of “punishing” North Korea it imposes a sanctions red line beyond which China is not prepared to go.   That red line is a “full oil embargo”.
China not only rejects that demand but regards it as being made “against the will of the international community” and as being therefore illegitimate.
In place of US efforts to “solve” the North Korean crisis by “collapsing” North Korea’s economy – an approach Global Times says is “dangerous” – Resolution 2375 instead makes clear in paragraphs 28 to 30 that the objective is a negotiated solution of the crisis.  Moreover the highlighted words in the preamble make clear that a military solution, such as has been proposed for example by Senator Lindsey Graham and which from time to time has been hinted at by President Trump, is absolutely excluded.
As is often the case what the Chinese say softly the Russians, who the Global Times editorial confirms are working closely with the Chinese on this issue, say more forcefully.  Here is how the United Nations’ website summarises the comments made by Vasily Nebenzia, Russia’s new UN ambassador, at the UN Security Council meeting on Monday

VASSILY A. NEBENZIA (Russian Federation) said his country did not accept the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s claim to be a nuclear-weapon State, emphasizing provisions in Council resolutions that called for a peaceful, political and diplomatic resolution of the situation.  Ignoring those provisions would mean a direct violation of the consensus within the Council.  The rejection by the resolution’s sponsors of the Secretary-General’s good offices, and reluctance to reaffirm the “four nos” — regime change, regime collapse, accelerated reunification and military deployment north of the thirty-eighth parallel — raised serious questions that remained unanswered, he emphasized.

Recalling that President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation had denounced Pyongyang’s recent provocations, he said it would be a “big mistake” to underestimate the Russian Federation-China joint initiative, and insisted that it be taken into consideration.  While it would be wrong not to react firmly to nuclear tests, the Council’s response must be thought out thoroughly, taking the humanitarian situation into account, he stressed.  He concluded by recalling that in the course of finalizing today’s resolution, many Council colleagues had described it as a “prologue” to work on a political settlement.  “We would like to see proof of that in the near future,” he said.

(bold italics added)

Though Nebenzia’s words are far more direct than those the Chinese use, the sentiments are the same.

Resolution 2375 does not therefore actually represent a ‘softening’ of the original draft Resolution presented to the UN Security Council by the US.  Instead it amounts to a complete replacement of that draft, even if it borrows from the US draft some of its language.  This is a point which incidentally is implicitly made in the wording of the Global Times editorial which I quoted above.

What then happened that caused the US to drop its demands for a “full oil embargo” and naval blockade?

The short answer is that the Chinese and the Russians in the discussions which took place in the UN Security Council over the weekend made it clear that they would veto the US backed draft and that faced with this threat the US backed down and instead agreed to the sort of Resolution the Chinese wanted.

The reason for that is that it would have been a total disaster for the US if China and Russia had vetoed a Resolution the US presented to the UN Security Council on the North Korean issue.

Not only would such a veto have ended North Korea’s isolation in the UN Security Council.   More seriously still, it would have put the US in a position where it might have felt obliged to act on US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s foolish threats of sanctions against China or risk losing face by not doing so.  With China holding $1 trillion of US treasury bonds and running a $300 billion surplus in its trade with the US it is easy to see how that might have ended in disaster, and why that was an outcome the US in the end chose to avoid.

In other words the US again tried to bluff China and again saw its bluff called.

This is becoming a regular pattern throughout the North Korean crisis.  Unfortunately Mnuchin’s foolish repetition of the same threats after Resolution 2375 was voted into force shows that no lesson has been learnt from it.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Simon
Guest
Simon

I’m glad Alexander Mercouris is back.
He’s so cold and clinical. In a way it is quite brutal how he destroys the accepted ‘narrative’. But then I guess it is only natural – ‘survival of the fittest’.

Hamletquest
Guest
Hamletquest

I think stylite, rather than lonely…

Melotte 22
Guest
Melotte 22

Regardless of all this, the bottom line is Russia and China SHOULD NOT have voted for new sanctions.
Both of them look weak by implementing US initiated sanctions. Lets not forget that Russia is also a victim of US imposed sanctions.

Simon
Guest
Simon

Belch. Sick of this Russia should, China should …do….x y z.
They make their own decisions, and they are not what you want.
And the evidence shows – WHO is winning right now?
Clue – it’s NOT the imploding USA.

Melotte 22
Guest
Melotte 22

10 day ago,
Putin: Additional sanctions against North Korea are ‘useless’

a couple days ago Russia votes for new sanctions.

fredd
Guest
fredd

because they know they are useless

John C Carleton
Guest
John C Carleton

Just no fun being a Washington DC thirty shekel call boy any more!

Hamletquest
Guest
Hamletquest

2375 represents the taming of the shrew (Nikki Halley?). Another triumph for “shrewd” Russian and Chinese diplomacy. That is why it has gone largely unreported and certainly not analysed in the “faked out” WMSM. Thanks to Alexander for this much needed and very useful piece.

Putin's baby
Guest
Putin's baby

Yankees, just go home, stay home and clean up your falling apart country, yes? Thanks.

TecumsehUnfaced
Guest
TecumsehUnfaced

I’m American and totally agree. Would you take our banksters off our hands and give them justice in return?

Nightcrawler136
Guest
Nightcrawler136

No! have a revolution against your overlords and hang them from lamp posts, it’s your responsibility, your citizens fell asleep at the wheel you deal with it! The alternative is the end of all life on this planet in a nuclear winter!

TecumsehUnfaced
Guest
TecumsehUnfaced

I see. You’re one of those that like to blame people for being brainwashed from birth.

Nightcrawler136
Guest
Nightcrawler136

It’s still their responsibility how much suffering must they experience before they wake up and revolt? We’re all born into a system but that doesn’t mean we have to conform when it is blatantly wrong!

TecumsehUnfaced
Guest
TecumsehUnfaced

How many systems have you revolted against?

Nightcrawler136
Guest
Nightcrawler136

Many ever since I was a kid my last was voting for Brexit! You?

TecumsehUnfaced
Guest
TecumsehUnfaced

Quite a revolt! I’m very impressed!

Nightcrawler136
Guest
Nightcrawler136

But you offer no example of your own!

JNDillard
Guest
JNDillard

I also welcome Mr. Mercouris back from vacation. I highly respect the clarity of his arguments, based in part in training as a lawyer. That fate caused him to leave the bar of London has been a boon to the understanding and education of the world as a whole. Sometimes we do not see how the bitterness of lemons can be turned into lemonade. But Mr. Mercouris is an outstanding example of how, when a person recognizes their strengths and builds on them, they cannot only overcome great obstacles but provide important services to a much broader audience.

Rex drabble
Guest
Rex drabble

Yes,Alexander is the most astute columnist I have read.Very impartial and often a different angle on things.Well researched too,which is a rarity nowadays.

hvaiallverden
Guest
hvaiallverden

Hehe What to say, I do understand ( not agreeing, but …) the “double speak” (aka sanctions) as it has been done, by the Russian and Chines diplomats and leaders, where if you see it as it is, they have just given the ignorant and arrogant Yankikes just an nuf rope to hang them self with, and the idiots walked right into it, of course, blinded by their own perverted reality. Threatening China, in their own back yard, naval blockad, are you kidding Yankikes, the rest, well, I have to state that to me, Russia and China have done the… Read more »

Rex drabble
Guest
Rex drabble

America has many faces,none of them good.They are out classed by Putin and the Chinese president much to my pleasure but most of all they will stop the US from destroying our world.

TecumsehUnfaced
Guest
TecumsehUnfaced

No, no, the good faces are sat upon and shat upon by the ruling elite and their paid minions.

Abi Shah
Guest
Abi Shah

Resolutions upon resolutions upon resolutions upon resolutions…hahahhaha! The Israeli hardcore lobbyists in the jewunited states are now understanding how powerful Russia And China are in providing full blown security to North Korea and the rhetoric by these two close alliances clearly proves that the Goyim such as Japan,South Korea along with the US BASE IN GUAM will provide a proxy war with their neighbours fully instigated by the zionists backed agenda. The Sanctions IMPOSED by the zionists has achieved nothing and will achieve nothing because North Korea are self sufficient in many ways understanding that a sovereign nation along with… Read more »

TecumsehUnfaced
Guest
TecumsehUnfaced

How come the U.S. isn’t presenting a resolution like this against Israel. I find the possession of nuclear weapons by this rabidly aggressive state frightening. They have already threatened to destroy the world and claim to have all the capitals of Europe targeted.

Punisher 1
Guest
Punisher 1

So then the bottom line is Russia and China said “No, 100 blows of the bullwhip are too much.Lets only give them 50 instead”. And that is “somehow” considered by us as a “victory”. Interesting logic,foolish me,I would have thought of that as a defeat.Stopping “any blows” I would call a victory.But then,I’m not so well versed in “victory and defeat” I guess. I wonder how the victim feels about that question.How about asking the North Koreans if 50 blows instead of a 100 is reason for throwing a victory party. I have a feeling they won’t be partying over… Read more »

johndoe3433
Guest
johndoe3433

They also rewarded Russia by banning the use of Kaspersky software on US computer systems and reported to american consumers that their software is used to spy on people for Putin. Kaspersky offered to let his source code be examined to disprove the allegation but there has been no response.

Keith Smith
Guest
Keith Smith

a lot of NK news is just M S M make believe stories. US will be having their ‘war games’ again in four year in the same area

cortisol
Guest
cortisol

The “indispensible nation” threatened to isolate itself from almost half of the world GDP? Almost wish they wouldn’t have been bluffed out, it would’ve only hastened the disappearence of the reserve currency status.

Either way, they are pretty much toothless even in their own playground at the UN, which has long been a gauge for how much bs vassals are willing to shove down their throats.

Latest

Fake news media FREAK OUT over Trump and NATO (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 172.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the media meltdown over remarks that U.S. President Trump may have made with regard to NATO, and how neo-liberal war hawks championing the alliance as some sort of foreign policy projection of peace and democracy, are really just supporting aggression, war, and the eventual weakening of the United States.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Top 10 Reasons Not to Love NATO, Authored by David Swanson:


The New York Times loves NATO, but should you?

Judging by comments in social media and the real world, millions of people in the United States have gone from having little or no opinion on NATO, or from opposing NATO as the world’s biggest military force responsible for disastrous wars in places like Afghanistan (for Democrats) or Libya (for Republicans), to believing NATO to be a tremendous force for good in the world.

I believe this notion to be propped up by a series of misconceptions that stand in dire need of correction.

1. NATO is not a war-legalizing body, quite the opposite. NATO, like the United Nations, is an international institution that has something or other to do with war, but transferring the UN’s claimed authority to legalize a war to NATO has no support whatsoever in reality. The crime of attacking another nation maintains an absolutely unaltered legal status whether or not NATO is involved. Yet NATO is used within the U.S. and by other NATO members as cover to wage wars under the pretense that they are somehow more legal or acceptable. This misconception is not the only way in which NATO works against the rule of law. Placing a primarily-U.S. war under the banner of NATO also helps to prevent Congressional oversight of that war. Placing nuclear weapons in “non-nuclear” nations, in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, is also excused with the claim that the nations are NATO members (so what?). And NATO, of course, assigns nations the responsibility to go to war if other nations go to war — a responsibility that requires them to be prepared for war, with all the damage such preparation does.

2. NATO is not a defensive institution. According to the New York Times, NATO has “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is an article of faith, based on the unsubstantiated belief that Soviet and Russian aggression toward NATO members has existed for 70 years and that NATO has deterred it rather than provoked it. In violation of a promise made, NATO has expanded eastward, right up to the border of Russia, and installed missiles there. Russia has not done the reverse. The Soviet Union has, of course, ended. NATO has waged aggressive wars far from the North Atlantic, bombing Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya. NATO has added a partnership with Colombia, abandoning all pretense of its purpose being in the North Atlantic. No NATO member has been attacked or credibly threatened with attack, apart from small-scale non-state blowback from NATO’s wars of aggression.

3. Trump is not trying to destroy NATO. Donald Trump, as a candidate and as U.S. President, has wondered aloud and even promised all kinds of things and, in many cases, the exact opposite as well. When it comes to actions, Trump has not taken any actions to limit or end or withdraw from NATO. He has demanded that NATO members buy more weapons, which is of course a horrible idea. Even in the realm of rhetoric, when European officials have discussed creating a European military, independent of the United States, Trump has replied by demanding that they instead support NATO.

4. If Trump were trying to destroy NATO, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Trump has claimed to want to destroy lots of things, good and bad. Should I support NAFTA or corporate media or the Cold War or the F35 or anything at all, simply because some negative comment about it escapes Trump’s mouth? Should I cheer for every abuse ever committed by the CIA or the FBI because they investigate Trump? Should I long for hostility between nuclear-armed governments because Democrats claim Trump is a Russian agent? When Trump defies Russia to expand NATO, or to withdraw from a disarmament treaty or from an agreement with Iran, or to ship weapons to Ukraine, or to try to block Russian energy deals in Europe, or to oppose Russian initiatives on banning cyber-war or weapons in space, should I cheer for such consistent defiance of Trump’s Russian master, and do so simply because Russia is, so implausibly, his so-inept master? Or should I form my own opinion of things, including of NATO?

5. Trump is not working for, and was not elected by, Russia.According to the New York Times, “Russia’s meddling in American elections and its efforts to prevent former satellite states from joining the alliance have aimed to weaken what it views as an enemy next door, the American officials said.” But are anonymous “American officials” really needed to acquire Russia’s openly expressed opinion that NATO is a threatening military alliance that has moved weapons and troops to states on Russia’s border? And has anyone produced the slightest documentation of the Russian government’s aims in an activity it has never admitted to, namely “meddling in American elections,” — an activity the United States has of course openly admitted to in regard to Russian elections? We have yet to see any evidence that Russia stole or otherwise acquired any of the Democratic Party emails that documented that party’s rigging of its primary elections in favor of Clinton over Sanders, or even any claim that the tiny amount of weird Facebook ads purchased by Russians could possibly have influenced the outcome of anything. Supposedly Trump is even serving Russia by demanding that Turkey not attack Kurds. But is using non-military means to discourage Turkish war-making necessarily the worst thing? Would it be if your favorite party or politician did it? If Trump encouraged a Turkish war, would that also be a bad thing because Trump did it, or would it be a bad thing for substantive reasons?

6. If Trump were elected by and working for Russia, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Imagine if Boris Yeltsin were indebted to the United States and ended the Soviet Union. Would that tell us whether ending the Soviet Union was a good thing, or whether the Soviet Union was obsolete for serious reasons? If Trump were a Russian pawn and began reversing all of his policies on Russia to match that status, including restoring his support for the INF Treaty and engaging in major disarmament negotiations, and we ended up with a world of dramatically reduced military spending and nuclear armaments, with the possibility of all dying in a nuclear apocalypse significantly lowered, would that too simply be a bad thing because Trump?

7. Russia is not a military threat to the world. That Russia would cheer NATO’s demise tells us nothing about whether we should cheer too. Numerous individuals and entities who indisputably helped to put Trump in the White House would dramatically oppose and others support NATO’s demise. We can’t go by their opinions either, since they don’t all agree. We really are obliged to think for ourselves. Russia is a heavily armed militarized nation that commits the crime of war not infrequently. Russia is a top weapons supplier to the world. All of that should be denounced for what it is, not because of who Russia is or who Trump is. But Russia spends a tiny fraction of what the United States does on militarism. Russia has been reducing its military spending each year, while the United States has been increasing its military spending. U.S. annual increases have sometimes exceeded Russia’s entire military budget. The United States has bombed nine nations in the past year, Russia one. The United States has troops in 175 nations, Russia in 3. Gallup and Pew find populations around the world viewing the United States, not Russia, as the top threat to peace in the world. Russia has asked to join NATO and the EU and been rejected, NATO members placing more value on Russia as an enemy. Anonymous U.S. military officials describe the current cold war as driven by weapons profits. Those profits are massive, and NATO now accounts for about three-quarters of military spending and weapons dealing on the globe.

8. Crimea has not been seized. According to the New York Times, “American national security officials believe that Russia has largely focused on undermining solidarity between the United States and Europe after it annexed Crimea in 2014. Its goal was to upend NATO, which Moscow views as a threat.” Again we have an anonymous claim as to a goal of a government in committing an action that never occurred. We can be fairly certain such things are simply made up. The vote by the people of Crimea to re-join Russia is commonly called the Seizure of Crimea. This infamous seizure is hard to grasp. It involved a grand total of zero casualties. The vote itself has never been re-done. In fact, to my knowledge, not a single believer in the Seizure of Crimea has ever advocated for re-doing the vote. Coincidentally, polling has repeatedly found the people of Crimea to be happy with their vote. I’ve not seen any written or oral statement from Russia threatening war or violence in Crimea. If the threat was implicit, there remains the problem of being unable to find Crimeans who say they felt threatened. (Although I have seen reports of discrimination against Tartars during the past 4 years.) If the vote was influenced by the implicit threat, there remains the problem that polls consistently get the same result. Of course, a U.S.-backed coup had just occurred in Kiev, meaning that Crimea — just like a Honduran immigrant — was voting to secede from a coup government, by no means an action consistently frowned upon by the United States.

9. NATO is not an engaged alternative to isolationism. The notion that supporting NATO is a way to cooperate with the world ignores superior non-deadly ways to cooperate with the world. A nonviolent, cooperative, treaty-joining, law-enforcing alternative to the imperialism-or-isolationism trap is no more difficult to think of or to act on than treating drug addiction or crime or poverty as reason to help people rather than to punish them. The opposite of bombing people is not ignoring them. The opposite of bombing people is embracing them. By the standards of the U.S. communications corporations Switzerland must be the most isolationist land because it doesn’t join in bombing anyone. The fact that it supports the rule of law and global cooperation, and hosts gatherings of nations seeking to work together is simply not relevant.

10. April 4 belongs to Martin Luther King, Jr., not militarism. War is a leading contributor to the growing global refugee and climate crises, the basis for the militarization of the police, a top cause of the erosion of civil liberties, and a catalyst for racism and bigotry. A growing coalition is calling for the abolition of NATO, the promotion of peace, the redirection of resources to human and environmental needs, and the demilitarization of our cultures. Instead of celebrating NATO’s 70thanniversary, we’re celebrating peace on April 4, in commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech against war on April 4, 1967, as well as his assassination on April 4, 1968.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Turkey prepared to take Syria’s Manbij, won’t let it turn into ‘swamp’ like N. Iraq

Turkey sees the US-backed Kurdish YPG militias as an extension of the PKK and considers them terrorists as well.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


Ankara has “almost completed” preparations for another military operation in Syria and will launch it if “promises” made by other parties about the protection of its borders are not kept, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said.

Turkey still hopes that talks with the US, Russia and “other parties” will allow it to ensure its security without resorting to force but it is still ready to proceed with a military option and will not “wait forever,” Erdogan said. He was referring to Ankara’s plans for the northern Syrian territories east of the Euphrates River, which it seeks to turn into a “security zone”free of any Kurdish militias.

“We are on our border with our forces and following developments closely. If promises made to us are kept and the process goes on, that’s fine. Otherwise, we inform that we have almost completed our preparations and will take steps in line with our own strategy,” the president said, addressing a group of businessmen in Ankara on Monday.

He did not elaborate on the promises made. However, they are apparently linked to the withdrawal of the Kurdish YPG militia from the Manbij area and the regions along the border with Turkey. “We will never allow a safe zone to turn into a new swamp,” Erdogan said, referring to the northern Syrian territories and comparing them to the northern Iraq, where the militants from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) – an organization that Ankara considers a terrorist group – have been entrenched for decades.

Turkey sees the US-backed Kurdish YPG militias, which form the backbone of the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), as an extension of the PKK and considers them terrorists as well. “Our proposal for a security zone under Turkey’s control aims to keep terror organizations away from our borders,” the Turkish president said.

He went on to explain that Ankara does not seek any territorial gains in its military campaigns in Syria but merely seeks to restore order in the war-ravaged country. “We will provide security for Manbij and then we will hand over the city to its real owners,” Erdogan said. “Syria belongs to Syrians.”

Turkey also seeks to establish a “security zone 20 miles [32 kilometers] deep” into Syria, Erdogan said, adding that he already discussed this issue with the US President Donald Trump. “Those who insistently want to keep us away from these regions are seeking to strengthen terror organizations,” he added.

Ankara has been long planning to push YPG units out of the area east of the Euphrates River. Its operation was delayed by the US withdrawal from Syria. However, Erdogan repeatedly hinted that his patience is wearing thin and he is not ready to wait much longer. He warned Trump against backtracking on his pledge to withdraw some 2,000 US forces out of Syria following a suicide attack in Manbij that killed four Americans. If the US president halted the withdrawal, it would mean that Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL) had won, Erdogan argued.

He has also reiterated that Turkey is ready to take over Manbij “without delay.” The US military is currently working on security arrangements with the Turkish forces to create a buffer zone between Turkey and the Kurdish fighters. The Kurds, meanwhile, invited the Syrian government to take over the city and have reportedly begun to leave the area. Turkey has dismissed the reports saying its a “psyop”.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Political Knives Dull Themselves on the Rock of Brexit Article 50

The invocation of Article 50 was undertaken by an act of Parliament. And it will take another act of Parliament to undo it.

Strategic Culture Foundation

Published

on

Authored Tom Luongo via Strategic Culture Foundation:


Theresa “The Gypsum Lady” May went through an extraordinary twenty-four hours. First, seeing her truly horrific Brexit deal go down in historic defeat and then, somehow, surviving a ‘No-Confidence’ vote which left her in a stronger position than before it.

It looks like May rightly calculated that the twenty or so Tory Remainers would put party before the European Union as their personal political positions would be terminally weakened if they voted her out of office.

While there is little stomach in the British Parliament for a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, there is less for allowing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister. And that is the crux of why the incessant calls to delay Brexit, call for a ‘people’s vote’ or, in Corbyn’s case, “take a no-deal Brexit off the table,’ ultimately lead to a whole lot of political knife-fighting and very little substantive action.

The day-to-day headline spam is designed to wear down people’s resistance and make it feel like Brexit getting betrayed is inevitable. That has been the British Deep State’s and EU’s game plan all along and they hoped they could arm-twist enough people in parliament to succeed.

But the problem for them now, since the clock has nearly run out, is the invocation of Article 50 was undertaken by an act of Parliament. And it will take another act of Parliament to undo it.

And I don’t see anyone on the Remainer side working towards that end. That should be your clue as to what happens next.

Why? Because they know they don’t have the time to get that act past Parliament. So, the rest of this is simply a PR campaign to push public opinion far enough to allow for an illegal canceling or postponing of Brexit.

But it’s not working.

According to the latest polls, Brits overwhelmingly want the original Brexit vote respectedLeave even has a 5-6 point lead over Remain.

And, I think Theresa May now realizes this. It is why she invited the no-confidence vote against her. She knew she had the votes and it would give her the ammunition to ignore Corbyn’s hysterical ranting about taking a no-deal Brexit off the table.

Whether she realizes that the only negotiating tool she has with the EU is the threat of a No-Deal Brexit, exactly like Nigel Farage and those committed to Brexit have been telling her for two years is still, however, up in the air.

It looks like she’s finally starting to get it.

The net result is we are seeing a similar outing of the nefarious, behind-the-scenes, power brokers in the public eye similar to what’s been happening in the US with Donald Trump and Russiagate.

May has been singularly unimpressive in her handling of Brexit. I’ve been convinced from the beginning that betraying Brexit was always her goal. Negotiating a deal unacceptable to anyone was meant to exhaust everyone into the position to just throwing up their hands and canceling the whole thing.

The EU has been in the driver’s seat the entire time because most of the British establishment has been on their side and it was only the people who needed to be disrespected.

So, after all of these shananigans we are back to where we were last week. May has cut off all avenues of discussion. She won’t commit to taking ‘no-deal’ off the table to tweak Corbyn. She won’t substantively move on any other issue. This is likely to push her deal through as a last-minute panic move.

Corbyn is still hoping to get new elections to take power, and the majority of MP’s who don’t want to leave the EU keep fighting among themselves to cock up the entire works.

All they are doing is expending pound after pound of political capital beating themselves against their own act of Parliament which goes into effect on March 29th.

By the time that date comes around the frustration, shame and humiliation of how Parliament has mishandled Brexit will make it difficult for a lot of Remainers to hold together their majority as public opinion has decidedly turned against them.

In the past the EU has had that façade of democratic support undermining any change at the political level. With Brexit (and with budget talks in Italy) that is not the case. The people are angry.

The peak moment for Remainers to stage a bipartisan political coup against May should have been the most recent no-confidence vote.

With May surviving that it implies that Remainers are not willing to die politically for their cause.

This should begin to see defectors over the next couple of weeks as they realize they don’t have a hand to play either.

And by May refusing to rule out a ‘no-deal’ Brexit it has finally brought the EU around to throw a bone towards the British. Their admitting they would extend Article 50 is just that. But they know that’s a non-starter as that is the one thing May has been steadfast in holding to.

On March 29th with or without a deal the U.K. is out of the EU. Because despite the European Court of Justice’s decision, Britain’s parliament can only cancel Article 50 at this point by acting illegally.

Not that I would put that past these people, but then that opens up a can of worms that most British MP’s will not go along with. The personal stakes are simply too high.

When dealing with politicians, never bet against their vanity or their pocketbook. In May’s case she may finally have realized she could have the legacy of getting Britain out of the EU just before it collapses.

And all she has to do between now and the end of March is, precisely, nothing.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending