Pressure on Pyongyang

These sanctions against North Korea are just the newest in an ongoing struggle to get the Asian state to abandon its nuclear ambitions. It all started back in October 2006 when Pyongyang tested a nuclear device, causing the members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to issue UNSC Resolution 1718, which put sanctions on trade in major weapons system, all products related to the production of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and luxury goods.

But instead of convincing North Korea to back off, it actually incited them to try harder; a point that was proved when they launched a multi-stage rocket on April 5 of this year.

The newest sanctions imposed by the UNSC panel on Pyongyang for exploding a nuclear device on May 25, which is completely binding for all member states, is a little bit different in that they focus not on the government as a whole, but rather on individuals and economic entities.

The list includes five companies, including one based in Iran, and five North Koreans. The 15-nation council's panel also banned two goods to be imported by North Korea: graphite designed or specified for use in Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM) machines and para-aramid fiber - commonly known as Kevlar - filament and tape.

The panel imposed a freeze of assets belonging to Namchongang Trading Company, Hong Kong Electronics, Korea Hyoksin Trading Corporation, General Bureau of Atomic Energy and Korean Tangun Trading Corporation.

The five North Koreans are: Yun Ho-jin, director of Namchongang Trading; Ri Je-son and Hwang Suk-Hwa, both directors of separate departments in the General Bureau of Atomic Energy; RiHong-sop, former director of Yongbyon Nuclear Research Centre; Han Yu-ro, director of Korea Ryongaksan General Trading Corporation. The individuals' assets will be frozen and they will be banned from travelling abroad.

Smart sanctions

According to Professor Michael Brzoska, Director of the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg, sanctions against North Korea have been changed several times, but the main goal has always been to tighten the screws, particularly on the leadership, without harming the population too much.

The idea is to make life difficult for North Korean President Kim Jong-Il and those around him, as well as to limit the possibilities for state institutions, particularly in the financial field.

Using these so-called smart sanctions to target individuals rather than entire governments isn't new; since the early 1990s the UNSC decided to try and influence the behavior of decision makers without harming the general population.

The first cases were Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, says Brzoska, and since then there have been others, adding that the success of these actions has been very mixed.

In Angola, for example, the Unita rebel movement was targeted in this way and, in the end, lost the war to the government. In Liberia, where former President Charles Taylor, who is now at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, became a target and that was successful in limiting his possibilities to buy arms and to pay his soldiers.

"One could also argue that in Libya sanctions that harmed the leadership by making it more difficult to fly and to have money available for investment in the oil industry also helped to bring about change there. But there are a lot of other cases where these types of smart sanctions did not have much effect, like in Iran, the Ivory Coast or Sierra Leone," says Brzoska.

The China question

The key to any of these sanctions being successful has always been how inclined the Chinese government is to enforce them. China is North Korea's only ally in the region, if not the world, and they have been reluctant to put pressure on Pyongyang in the past.

This is mostly due to the fact that Beijing uses its relationship with North Korea - and the ability to bring Kim Jong-Il to the negotiating table - to bargain with both Japan and the United States, says Dr. Patrick Koellner, acting head of the Institute of Asian Affairs at the German Institute of Global and Area Studies.

According to Koellner, China, which holds a permanent position on the Security Council, has the ability to bring North Korea to its knees. Simply by cutting of supplies of energy and food and freezing the assets of North Korean leaders, Kim's regime would have no choice but to surrender to any demands the UN had of it.

However, unlike the Japanese and the Americans, the Chinese actually have a vested financial interest in the sound future of North Korea. According to a report by the Council on Foreign Relations, Chinese trade and investment in North Korea now totals $2 billion (1.4 billion euros) a year.

Enforcement

While complete Chinese cooperation would make things a whole lot faster, it isn't required to put pressure on North Korea. Stephan Haggard and Marcus Noland from the Peterson Institute for International Economics argue in a recently published report that the most interesting features of the resolution have to do with means of enforcement. The resolution calls upon member states to inspect vessels on the high seas or escort them to port if they have reasonable grounds to believe that they are carrying prohibited cargo.

However, there is a loophole in the wording, in order to intercept a ship, the country under which the vessel is flagged must give permission. According to Haggard and Noland, this could provide incentives for North Korea to do more shipping under its own flag; though that is doubtful given the country's standing in the international community.

Many ships, regardless of their country of origin, sail under the auspices of countries such as Liberia and Panama - countries where fees, taxes, regulations, and laws protecting seafarers are often minimal or non-existent.

That means that these nations will be under more and more pressure to allow these ships to be searched, leaving North Korea no choice but to use its own flag; though this causes its own potential drama as North Korea has stated in no uncertain terms that it would view such action as an act of war.

Author: Mark Mattox

Editor: Neil King