It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sanctions on North Korea

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Yippe,

www.nytimes.com...

"In its most debated clause, the resolution authorizes all countries to inspect cargo going in and out of North Korea to detect illicit weapons."

Seems we have slapped on some sanctions, which ultimately.. mean nothing.

If he can create these weapons in his home... what good is stopping cargo?
He's been arming his army to the teeth since the 50's.
Now's he's got a small stockpile of nuclear material.. and he's tested..
so we'd better kick into gear NOW.. and limit what ELSE he has come in?
Give me a break.

But the real reason for this thread.

What are the rules of engagment in inspecting foreign containter ships?

Ive debated this prior but i want to know if anyone actually knows what the definate plans are here.

** A North korean ship is steaming towards north korea, still in international waters.... the (country name here) ship contacts thee korean vessel.

" Hault immediatley and prepare to be boarded for UN imposed investigation "

* Or what ever funky wording is used *

The ship refuses to slow, and continues on its path..
After various attempts at contact, and no reply in any way from the korean vessel.. ... what are the actions to be take now being North Korea is activley disobeying a world induced inspection requirement?

China already trying to protect its butt, isnt going to be a part of the 'search'
And the Australian media is reporting that the Aussie naval forces are going to be asked to perform the bulk of the force.

To me, this just isnt smart..

IS The Australian navy is goign to be forced into firering on a north korean vessel that refuses to stop?

Is this why china refuses to be part of it?

The world has managed to avoid direct one on one confrontation with north korea since the war ended... knowing full well if put into a confrontation, the koreans wont backdown... regardless of expected losses... where as the western world will.

for decades they were merely the pesky north koreans, striving for attention..looking for someone to face up to them..
what does it mean when they pick the fight.. and make you stand up to them?





[edit on 15-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 15-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 15-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]




posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Oh I didnt know that about the aussies having to do alot of the inspections.
Well if Bush tells howard to do it, i'm sure we would

I would hate for us to get involved, we're not really a country that would be good in any modern war. Sure we have spirit but errr that's about it lol.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Current and former Bush administration officials, and experts on the North, said that while the sanctions did not go as far as Washington wished, they probably gave it and Japan the legal means to squeeze the country. They provide the basis to inspect ships in ports around the world — though not necessarily on the high seas — and gives Washington a way to expand a program to force banks to halt dealings with the country.

Earlier this year, Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, said that the huge pressure put on one small bank in Macao, Banco Delta Asia, “was the first thing we ever did that got their attention.” Today one of his aides said, “Our plan is that Banco Delta is just a beginning.”

What the administration did not get was authority to use military force to stop ships in international waters. To win over China, it agreed to drop explicit reference to a chapter of the United Nations Charter that authorizes the possible use of military power to enforce sanctions.

www.nytimes.com


I think these are the salient issues of the resolution. It really sounds as though the idea is just to make life just a little more difficult for Kim. I don't know what would stop NK from transferring goods at sea, unless every ship is tracked somehow.

I think the sanctions will be effective, but how effective remains to be seen. Russia and China's cooperation is still a volatile variable, I believe, but I don't think either one wants NK rocking the boat while they are trying to become part of the world economy.


[edit on 2006/10/15 by GradyPhilpott]

[tags]

[edit on 10/15/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by T0by
Oh I didnt know that about the aussies having to do alot of the inspections.
Well if Bush tells howard to do it, i'm sure we would

I would hate for us to get involved, we're not really a country that would be good in any modern war. Sure we have spirit but errr that's about it lol.


Dont sell your military short. The aussie navy is a formidable fighting force. The majority of the offshore oil platform security done in the persian gulf is done by the Australian navy.

I dont believe they fire on the vessel if it didnt stop. They generally send out a boarding/inspection team in a RHIB to do the actual boarding.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Yep, thats what I thought.

Its not cemented yet, but ive heard a numbre of times that the Australian Navy has been asked to provide bulk of the force.

Australia's in range of nkorea's missles.

Not saying he'd attack us.. but if he's hell bent on war... i find it reckless that Howard is putting his country front and centre.

But again,

Under international LAW, what are we required to do, if the north korean ship failes to stop so it can be inspected?

Obviolusy we cant just let it go on through, ignoring world demands..
So what course are we reqiured to take?



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Yeah i'd like to know too, what we woul dbe required to do.
I know the forces that we have are good, but they're rather limited.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join