U.S. Welcomes UN Security Council Statement on North Korea Launch

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
April 14, 2009

White House StatementAmbassador Susan Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN, delivered remarks on North Korea following a Security Council stakeout. Ambassador Rice said:"[T]he United States is very pleased that the [UN Security] Council today issued a strong, unanimous statement, clearly and unequivocally condemning the launch of April 5; making it plain that that launch was in contravention of Security Council Resolution 1718; and making it clear that any such future launches would also be in contravention or violation existing Security Council resolutions. It clearly demands that there will be no further such launches, and through the mechanism of the existing sanctions regime under 1718 allows for the substantial strengthening and augmentation of that regime."

Related entry: North Korea's Missile Launch a Violation.



United States
April 15, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

A sovereign state would have to consent to any treaty binding it. A UN resolution is not a treaty, it is an unsolicited opinion from a group of foreign nationals.

No nation can be legally bound by the opinions of other nations or groups of nations.

A nation can renounce a treaty when the agreement is no longer in its national interest but a nation needs to do nothing in order to ignore the opinion of others.

Rather than make unilateral resolutions that bind no one, result in no agreement, and violate the very concept of national sovereignty, the U.N. should be a place to facilitate treaty-making between nations, as it was created to do, rather than be a dictatorial oligarchy issuing decrees as it now appears to do.

The prohibition of an act by a nation must be written as a treaty, not as a decree, because as to a sovereign nation, decrees of foreigners have no legal standing without their consent.

If the U.N. has no legal obligation to obey international law when dealing with outlaw nations, then it seems equally just that outlaw nations have no particular obligation to listen to U.N. demands.

If there was such an international law that prohibits all missile tests, then that should be cited in either the resolution or the UNSC statement issued pursuant to that resolution.

If there is no such law, then the U.N. resolution is a mere demand and nothing more.

As long as the UNSC is making demands, why not make serious ones, such as demanding that North Korea allow free elections, free speech, free emigration, free markets, and free people? Nagging others about their bad habits of firing missiles without official permission seems a waste of time.

Maryland, USA
April 15, 2009

Patrick in Maryland writes:

Hello, States Department bloggers :)

I think Susan Rice is doing a great Job representing the United States at the U.N Meetings. I have seen her on TV a few times, and she always seem to be very Precise on what is going on at the U.N . I hope to hear more about her meetings with the U.N .

...Cya .. S. Rice..and bloggers...later.....


Latest Stories