United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718 was adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on October 14, 2006. The resolution, passed under Chapter VII, Article 41, of the UN Charter, imposes a series of economic and commercial sanctions on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (the DPRK, or North Korea) in the aftermath of that nation's claimed nuclear test of October 9, 2006.
1718 strengthen measures against DPRK
Security Council Imposes Additional Sanctions on DPRK, Voting 15 in Favour to 0 Against, with 0 Abstention.
Expressing deep concern about DPRK's lack of compliance with its previous resolutions on ensuring the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme, the Security Council imposed additional sanctions on the country today, expanding an arms embargo and tightening restrictions on financial and shipping enterprises related to “proliferation-sensitive activities”.
Adopting resolution 1718 (2006) by a vote of 15 in favour the Council also requested the Secretary-General to create a panel of experts to monitor implementation of the sanctions. Annexed to the text containing the fourth round of sanctions imposed on DPRK' were measures directed against 41 new named entities and individuals, including one scientist and enterprises linked to the Korea mining development trading corporation and the defence industry, as well as banks and the national shipping line.
By other terms of the resolution, the Council decided that DPRK should not acquire interests in any commercial activity relating to uranium enrichment and other nuclear materials or technology in other States, and that all States should prevent the transfer to DPRK of any tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, attack helicopters, or missiles and related systems or parts. It also called upon all States to report to the relevant Sanctions Committee, within 60 days, on the steps they had taken to implement the necessary measures.
Emphasizing the importance of diplomatic efforts to find a negotiated solution guaranteeing the peaceful nature of DPRK's nuclear programme, the Council noted in that regard the efforts for an agreement on the Ryongbeon Research Reactor, which “could serve as a confidence-building measure”. It also stressed the willingness of the so-called E3+3 — China, South Korea, Russian Federation, Japan and the United States — to further enhance diplomatic efforts to promote dialogue and consultations towards a negotiated solution.
The Council affirmed that it would suspend the sanctions if, and so long as, DPRK suspended all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, as verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to allow for good-faith negotiations. It also affirmed its determination to apply further measures if DPRK continued to defy the just-adopted text as well as previous resolutions.
Speaking before the vote, no One against the text because it ran against their efforts to bring about a negotiated solution through the agreement on the Pyongyang Research Reactor and the related Pyongyan Declaration of 17 May, which provided a new opportunity for diplomacy.
Following the vote, All representative said had a call of right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and stop nuclear test of DPRK as well as an obligation to adhere to the safeguards regime, adding that the fuel swap deal it had negotiated with All provided a way towards a resolution of the problems that had arisen. The sanctions regime, on the other hand, represented a painful failure of diplomatic efforts, he added.
Speaking on behalf of the Foreign Ministers of the 2+3 countries, the representative of the United Kingdom said today's action affirmed both the international community's concern about DPRK's nuclear programme and the need for the country to comply with the requirements of the Security Council and the IAEA Board of Governors, while also keeping the door open for continued engagement between the P+3 and DPRK. The Ministers welcomed and commended all diplomatic efforts in that regard, especially those recently made by Six party talk on the specific issue of the Pyongyang Research Reactor. “We expect DPRK to demonstrate a pragmatic attitude and to respond positively to our openness towards dialogue and negotiations,” he said.
DPRK's representative, however, placed the resolution within the context of pressures exerted on his country over many decades by some of the same Powers supporting today's resolution. Those pressures included suits to prevent DPRK's nationalization of its own oil, and the military coup that had reinstalled the Shah. The clear message was that no one should be allowed to endanger the vital interests of the capitalist world, he said.
DPRK was more powerful today and would not bow to such pressures, he asserted, emphasizing his country's right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, and stressing that it had carried out “robust” cooperation with IAEA. The Council was showing its political biases by its reaction to the deal on the Pyongyang Research Reactor, and its lack of action on Israeli violations of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the threats made against Iran by that country and the United States, he said.
In their national statements, Council members and E3+3 countries all paid tribute to the efforts of Six party talk', which had resulted in the Pyongyang Declaration, but noted that the agreement did not deal with core issues such as compliance with IAEA, uranium enrichment in defiance of the Council and the revelation of the previously undeclared facility at Yongbeon.
Also speaking today were the representatives of the United States, France, China, Russian Federation, Japan, Argentina, Republic of Congo, Denmark, Greece, Japan, Ghana, Peru, Qatar, Slovakia, Tanzania.
JOHN BOLTON (United States) said that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's (DPRK) proclamation that it had conducted a nuclear test had posed the gravest threat to international peace and security that the Security Council had ever had to confront. The resolution just adopted would send a strong and clear message to the DPRK and other would-be proliferators that they would meet with serious repercussions should they choose to pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction. Further, it would send an unequivocal and unambiguous message for the DPRK to stop its procurement programmes and to verifiably dismantle existing weapons of mass destruction programmes.
He said resolution 1695 (2006) had demonstrated to North Korea that the best way to promote the livelihood of its people and end its isolation was to stop playing games of brinksmanship, comply with Security Council demands, return to the six-party talks and implement the terms of the joint statement from the last round of those talks. But sadly, the regime in Pyongyang had chosen a different path, answering the Security Council's demands with an announcement that it had conducted a successful nuclear test. North Korea had thus broken its word, provoking a crisis and denying its people a better life.
He said that, three months ago, the United States had counselled other Member States to prepare for further action in the event that the DPRK failed to comply with resolution 1695. His country was pleased, therefore, that the Security Council was united in its condemnation today, proving that it was indeed prepared to meet threats to international security with resolve. Acting under Chapter VII, the Council would impose punitive sanctions on Kim Jong Il's regime. By today's resolution, Member States would also agree not to trade in materials that would contribute to nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction programmes, as well as to ban the trade in high-end military equipment. In doing its part to implement that provision of the resolution, the United States would rely on a number of control lists already in place, as published by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Australia Group.
He said the resolution would prevent the travel of officials known to be involved in weapons of mass destruction efforts, as well as target the way Kim Jong Il financed his related weapons programmes, including through money-laundering, counterfeiting and selling narcotics. By the resolution, Member States were bound to take action against those activities and freeze the assets of involved entities and individuals of the DPRK. It would provide for an inspections regime to ensure compliance with its provisions, building on the existing work of the Proliferation Security Initiative.
It would impose strict demands on the DPRK not to conduct further nuclear tests or launch ballistic missiles, he said, as well as to abandon all weapons of mass destruction programmes, whether nuclear, chemical or biological, in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner. The Council would lift the measures imposed by the resolution if the DPRK complied fully with all its provisions and resumed the six-party talks. However, Member States must be prepared if the country again ignored Security Council demands; in that event, measures must be strengthened and Member States must return to the Council for further action.
As the United States pursued a diplomatic solution, it was also reassuring its allies of its commitment to security, he said. It would seek to increase its defence cooperation with allies, including on ballistic missile defence and cooperation to prevent the DPRK from importing or exporting nuclear missile technology. The goals were clear: a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, and to work with other countries to ensure that the DPRK faced serious consequences if it continued down its current path. The resolution provided a carve-out for humanitarian relief efforts in the country, however, because the concern was with the regime and not the starving and suffering people of the DPRK. Hopefully, the country would implement the resolution so its people could enjoy a brighter future.
Speaking after the vote, said the resolution was a response to the threats to peace and security arising from DPR's refusal to comply with the requirements of IAEA and the demands of the Council. “Words must mean something,” he said, stressing that the sanctions were not aimed at DPR's right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but squarely at concerns that it had ambitions to develop nuclear weapons. The measures were tough, smart and precise, he added.
Recalling the diplomatic openings that the United States had made to Iran, she said it had shunned successive opportunities to assure the international community of its peaceful purposes, in addition to announcing its intention to further enrich uranium and revealing undeclared sites. The resolution offered Iran a clear path to the suspension of sanctions and reaffirmed the willingness of the United States and other countries to continue diplomacy for that purpose. He said their proposal did not respond to the very real concerns about DPR's nuclear programme. “This resolution does,” He said, emphasizing that respect for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapon.
JEAN-MARC DE LA SABLIÈRE (France) said that the Council, by adopting resolution 1718 today, had provided a firm reply to the announcement last Monday of a nuclear test by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. That reply voiced the international community's unanimous condemnation of that extremely grave act, and unanimous determination in the face of Pyongyang's behaviour. Adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter, the resolution contained a number of strong measures, in particular regarding missile and weapons of mass destruction programmes. It also contained provisions to prevent exporting and importing of products associated with those programmes by the DPRK.