North Korea - France - United Nations France in denial
France and North Korea: A Denial of Reality at the Security Council
At the Security Council meeting called by the United States, Japan and France to condemn the test-firing of an intercontinental missile that ended in the waters of Russia's exclusive economic zone, without threatening any of the neighboring countries, Nicolas de Rivière, France's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, aligned himself totally with the United States. What a contortion to achieve this. To go so far as to proclaim that "France will not resign itself to North Korea (DPRK) becoming a nuclear state" when the UN panel of experts recognized that the DPRK's deterrent forces were substantial and of a high level. To venture so far as to say that "not to condemn Pyongyang would be to trivialize nuclear proliferation", when there is only one state concerned, Iran, which is already under sanctions. And how can we still speak of unanimity within the Council to condemn North Korea, when Russia and the Russian Federation have been blocking any sanctions for two years? Doesn't it take a lack of common sense and a singular aplomb to still demand that North Korea "abandon its programs in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner", when we have nothing to offer in exchange? Alas, isn't it France's credibility that is undermined by these denials of the truth, this unconditional Atlanticism?
Along with Albania, Japan, Malta, the United Kingdom and the United States, France called for a Security Council meeting the day after the DPRK launched an intercontinental ballistic missile. Specifically, the test firing of a solid-propellant Hwasong-18 missile, whose non-threatening trajectory ended in the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation.
The DPRK was present at this Council meeting, a first since 2017. It was unanimously welcomed. Unsurprisingly, the DPRK representative condemned the convening of this meeting, seeing it as an encroachment on his country's legitimate right to self-defense and pointing out that this test launch had no negative effect on the security of neighboring countries. He could have added that this family of long-range missiles can only fly over them, and threaten only the United States.
In the absence of a consensus, the Council was unable to adopt a common position. For its part, France condemned the launch of1 in the strongest possible terms, and it is precisely the position adopted at the time that is the subject of this critical analysis.
If it is true, as Nicolas de Rivière, France's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, states, that the 20 missiles to be launched in 2023 are primarily intended to carry nuclear weapons, he is merely repeating Pyongyang's statements, and is singularly reductive when he adds: "that North Korea has declared itself an irreversible nuclear power2 ."
It would have been more relevant, if not "professional", to quote the annual report on sanctions monitoring by the group of experts appointed by the Security Council (an extremely well-documented 490-page document, written with the reservations that diplomats must retain, which is a benchmark). It gives a very comprehensive description of North Korea's substantial deterrent force and the doctrine associated with it, emphasizing its exclusively defensive nature3 .
North Korea is displaying its missiles in such a way that there can be no doubt as to their number and technological level. So it's hard to make sense of the words "France will not resign itself to North Korea becoming a nuclear state". Since March 23, it has been a denial of the truth to suggest that we can doubt it.
Further on, the French representative comes close to a paralogism when he writes: "doing nothing or being complacent is tantamount to trivializing nuclear proliferation. It means accepting that, tomorrow, proliferation crises will multiply elsewhere in the world. We'd love to find the arguments that would validate this thesis. To date, we know of only one proliferating state, Iran, which is already under sanctions.
Once again, we are embarrassed to read: "To halt the escalation, it is therefore necessary to fully apply all the international sanctions adopted unanimously and to fight against all forms of circumvention, including in the cyber and maritime fields." Once again, the expert group's report has been ignored. While the sanctions set out in resolutions 1718 and 2397 were intended to sanction only the continuation of the nuclear program, and were to have no negative humanitarian consequences for the civilian population, and not to hinder or obstruct cooperation, food aid and humanitarian assistance, this is not the case. Every year, the group of experts deplores this fact. At issue is the extensive interpretation of sanctions, and in particular financial sanctions resulting from legislative measures decided unilaterally by Washington to asphyxiate Pyongyang.
On two occasions, the French representative relied on a pretty word - unanimity - to make his point and convince. Both to denounce the nuclear-armed DPRK and to justify sanctions, he refers to the unanimity of the Council. Isn't he cheating time? Admittedly, this unanimity was achieved in 2017, but it has not existed for at least two years, with China and Russia vetoing any condemnation if necessary.
Then comes the conclusion. Disarming! "The priority is to resume dialogue without preconditions, so that North Korea abandons its programs completely, verifiably and irreversibly. Proposals to this end have been made. It is up to the North Korean authorities to seize them, and to the States in the region to encourage them to do so." But what are these proposals that could justify abandoning the operational deterrent force that guarantees the country's independence and the existence of its regime? The only ones known are those formulated by Donald Trump. And there can be none other than American. As the sad fate of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran and its legislation on the dollar has shown, the United States is free to lock in sanctions.
In psychoanalysis, denial is the individual and unconscious attitude of refusing to take into account a part of reality, experienced as unacceptable by the individual. Is this not what France is doing when it aligns itself with the United States on the Security Council?
We would have preferred it if, instead of this sad stance, it had been Nicolas de Rivière who had uttered the words of the Brazilian representative: "The Security Council has to face up to a harsh reality: our approach to this issue simply hasn't worked." The pre-2018 paradigm of uniting around new rounds of sanctions is leading nowhere. "Each new launch shows more clearly that a new approach is needed.".
What could it be? Inspired by the words of great foreign ministers, here's a suggestion:
- acknowledge what is: the existence of North Korean deterrent forces;
- consider that recognition of a nuclear Korea is first and foremost a matter for the countries of the region;
- that it is up to North Korea, the source of the trouble, to reassure its neighboring states;
- that it won't be able to achieve this unless it agrees to open its borders, and to impose itself through a transparency that is set to grow.
As the Brazilian delegate observes, with a minimum of confidence, it will be possible to open a window of negotiation. The Security Council will then be able to bring its political weight to bear to help build a lasting solution and bring peace to the Korean peninsula.
EV
Sources:
- Security Council: calls to restore communications channels in wake of DPRK's intercontinental ballistic missile launch, https://press.un.org/fr/2023/cs15355.doc.htm#:~:text=La%20RPDC%20a%20%C3%A9also%20relevant%20of%20the%20Council%20of%20s%C3%A9security%C3%A9.
- France will not accept North Korea becoming a nuclear state, UN https://onu.delegfrance.org/la-france-ne-se-resoudra-pas-a-ce-que-la-coree-du-nord-devienne-un-etat.
- Letter dated March 3, 2023 from the Group of Experts established pursuant to resolution 1874 (2009) addressed to the President of the Security Council.
.jpg)
.jpg)
