The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a rather tough official statement, pointing out that the “defiant disregard for international law and decisions of the international community deserves the strongest condemnation” and “will have negative consequences, primarily for the DPRK itself.” The test has been dubbed a “perilous adventure”, and the DPRK has been urged to “strictly fulfill all the requirements of the UN Security Council to completely abandon its missile and nuclear programs and return to abiding by the conditions laid out in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferatio
At a joint press conference with US Secretary of State, John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, not only reiterated the fact that Moscow cannot ignore North Korea’s nuclear test, but also noted that “the current situation shows that, perhaps, diplomats have to be a little more creative, rather than simply reacting by imposing sanctions, sanctions and more sanctions whenever the situation deteriorates.”
Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, spoke in similar terms, “I think, first, we must condemn it, and then see how it will develop.” Responding to a question about whether Russia considers it necessary to extend sanctions against Pyongyang, the Russian diplomat said that such a matter was “still to be discussed.”
The Chinese Foreign Ministry also expressed formal condemnation by remarking, “The DPRK, despite the objections of the international community, has once again conducted a nuclear test. The Chinese government is firmly opposed to such action.” However, it was later noted in the document, that “China, together with the international community, is ready to work hard to achieve the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and settle relevant issues through the six-party talks.” It should be noted here that the denuclearization pertains not only to North Korea, but also to the rest of the entire peninsula. Other problems were also mentioned as well as hints at THAAD and beyond.
In the United States, Pyongyang’s fifth nuclear test has played out in the course of the US presidential election campaign. The Republican Party US presidential candidate, Donald Trump, called the test “yet one more example of Hillary Clinton’s catastrophic failures as secretary of state.” Trump’s representative, Jason Miller, said that “Clinton promised to work to end North Korea’s nuclear program as secretary of state, yet the program has only grown in strength and sophistication.”
The current US Secretary of State, John Kerry, responded by saying that while the US strongly condemns North Korea’s nuclear test, it is always ready to hold substantive talks on denuclearization with Pyongyang. “We remain open to honest and meaningful negotiations aimed at a complete and verifiable denuclearization of North Korea. Unfortunately, North Korea has chosen a different path, making it clear that it is not ready to participate in a dialogue that can be trusted.”
Meanwhile, the US military is adjusting its plans. After North Korea’s previous tests at the beginning of 2016, the director of US National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, announced that while the US cannot confirm North Koreas’ ability to design a warhead that can be mounted on ballistic missiles, the Pentagon had to start from the premise that the possibility does exist. This can de facto be considered as a recognition of Pyongyang’s nuclear capability.
In Seoul, a series of bellicose statements were issued that can compete with Pyongyang’s way of expression. South Korea finally publicized its own plans to wipe the DPRK capital from the face of the earth by means of a pre-emptive missile strike (we shall dedicate a separate article to this story, since, although this policy’s publication can be seen as a response to North Korea’s threats, the author has come across exactly the same wording coming from representatives of military circles in the South, dating back at least five years). At the same time, South Korean deputies of parliament belonging to the ruling party have once again proposed designing their own bomb. As Won Yoo-chul, who has for some time now been actively lobbying for this, said, “We are not able to put an end to Pyongyang’s nuclear missile provocations through sanctions and official statements. The most effective method is to develop our own nuclear weapons.” Twenty lawmakers support his radical stance.
Under such circumstances, on September 9, the UN Security Council held an emergency meeting, after which it adopted a statement condemning the DPRK’s fifth nuclear test. In accordance with the paragraph stipulating that stringent measures should be taken should the North conduct a nuclear test, the UN Security Council has immediately set to holding further discussions on additional sanctions against Pyongyang. The primary objective is to develop a resolution that is suitable under Article 41 of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which allows the UN Security Council to introduce measures not involving the use of armed forces. This may include the complete or partial discontinuation of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, as well as diplomatic relations. The US stressed the importance of a joint action by the UN Security Council, highlighting the need to use all resources to prevent the implementation of the DPRK’s plan to upgrade its nuclear weapons system.
Thus, even though they did condemn the test in the strongest terms, the resolution has stopped short of being adopted, and the parties involved will start working on it taking all the problems that accompanied the adoption of the previous one into account. The intrigue that remains is to what extent Russia and China are in line with the plans of the US and its allies. It is important to recall that on the one hand, it is clear to Moscow and Beijing what is forcing North Korea to act in this way. On the other hand, as permanent members of the Security Council Committee, they cannot refuse to formally join the condemnation. What’s more, the preparation of the previous resolution made it clearly apparent that after its adoption, the principle of “thanks for the favour but don’t expect anything back in return” will come into play. .
Here, perhaps, everything again rests on the question of what position Beijing will take. Read more about the possible decision of the Chinese leadership and a possible fluctuation in its currency’s exchange rate in one of the following articles.
Konstantin Asmolov, Ph.D, Chief Research Fellow of the Center for Korean Studies, Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
