DPRK: IMPROVING THE UN'S RESPONSE TO DPRK

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000106

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/24/2020
TAGS: PREL PHUM ETTC MCAP KN UNSC
SUBJECT: DPRK: IMPROVING THE UN'S RESPONSE TO DPRK
SANCTIONS VIOLATIONS

Classified By: Amb. Alejandro Wolff for Reasons 1.4 (B),(D)


1. (C) SUMMARY: U.S., UK, French and Japanese missions have
urged the UN Security Council's North Korea Sanctions
Committee ("1718 Committee") to streamline and improve its
response to reported sanctions violations. Missions have
urged the chair (Turkey) to encourage vigorous Committee
investigation and follow-up to each incident. These
delegations have also developed with the chair a non-paper
(para 8) to help standardize the Committee's response to
violations, thereby making the process more predictable and
user-friendly. USUN has also discussed with the chair the
need to brainstorm specific actions the Committee can take
after these incidents to tighten sanctions enforcement, as
well as the need to develop supplemental guidance that the
Committee can release on its website to help Member States
enforce sanctions. END SUMMARY.


2. (C) On February 19, the Turkish Perm Rep Apakan, chair of
the Security Council's North Korea Sanctions Committee ("1718
Committee") asked his staff to convene a meeting with
Committee representatives from the U.S., UK, French and
Japanese missions to discuss ways to improve the Committee's
response to reported sanctions violations. Apakan had noted
that during Council consultations the previous week, a number
of delegations had encouraged the Committee to respond more
effectively to these violations. The Turkish mission noted
that the recent sanctions violation reported February 18 by
South Africa (tank parts aboard the vessel 'Westerhever')
marked the fifth such violation reported to the Committee
since UNSCR 1874 was adopted in June 2009. Other violations
have been reported by the UAE (arms-related materiel aboard
the vessel 'ANL Australia),South Korea (chemical protective
suits aboard the vessel 'MS Rachele'),Thailand (DPRK arms
seized aboard an aircraft),and Austria (luxury yachts being
transferred to the DPRK). On most of these cases the
Committee has engaged in some correspondence with involved
states, but has not yet taken additional actions in response.


3. (C) The U.S., UK, French and Japanese representatives
unanimously urged the Turks to encourage a vigorous Committee
response to all of these cases. Such responses could include
corresponding with the involved states (including alleged
violators),investigating the facts of each violation,
reporting regularly to the Security Council about the
incidents and, in a final stage, taking effective action to
help deter and detect future violations. All agreed that the
chair should also encourage the Panel of Experts (POE),a
team mandated in UNSCR 1874 to monitor and improve sanctions
implementation, to investigate these cases aggressively. On
this latter point, the Japanese representative noted that the
POE -- whose mandate expires in June 2010 -- may wish to
tread carefully on these incidents so as to avoid politically
sensitive findings that could jeopardize chances of renewing
the POE's mandate for another year.


4. (C) USUN suggested that the Committee standardize its
procedures to respond to these reported violations. USUN
explained that a number of states, in particular Thailand,
were confused about the Committee's exact procedures and had
complained that the Committee took so long to respond to
correspondence. A degree of standardization, USUN argued,
would reassure Member States that the Committee will deal
predictably with each reported violation and also accelerate
Committee response time -- as a result, Member States might
be more willing to report violations.


5. (C) Working with the Turkish chair, the U.S., UK, French
and Japanese missions developed a short non-paper (para 8) to
illustrate the steps the Committee should follow after
receiving a report of a sanctions violations. This informal
paper was intended to spell out the current practice that has
developed via precedents established in both the Committee
and the Iran sanctions context. The Turks agreed that this
paper could serve as a rough guide for responding to future
violations.


6. (C) USUN has also encouraged the Turks to help the
Committee brainstorm options for effective actions the
Committee can take to improve sanctions implementation in the
wake of a reported violation. For example, the Committee
could determine ways to "name and shame" companies that
repeatedly facilitate sanctions violations or post
Implementation Assistance Notices on the Committee's website
to share lessons learned and urge enhanced vigilance in
certain circumstances. U.S., UK, French and Japanese
missions agreed to seek further ideas from capitals for
effective responses.




7. (C) To further assuage Member State concerns about
reporting incidents, USUN also volunteered to work with the
Turkish chair to develop publicly-releasable fact sheets
describing in clear language the role of the Committee and
the Panel of Experts (POE). Similarly, USUN suggested the
Committee help resolve confusion among some states about how
they should "dispose" of seized contraband, as is required in
UNSCR 1874. For example, the Committee could draft
releasable guidance on this issue to help states understand
the range of permissible disposal options. The Turkish chair
reacted favorably to these suggestions.


8. //BEGIN NON-PAPER//

1718 COMMITTEE: THE LIFE CYCLE OF A SANCTIONS VIOLATION

(1) INTIIAL REPORT: A Member State reports a sanctions
violation to the 1718 Committee.

(2) POE OUTREACH: Panel of Experts (POE) reaches out to the
UN mission of the reporting state to ask follow-up questions
and discuss possibility of a site visit to inspect seized
cargo.

(3) COMMITTEE OUTREACH: 1718 Committee writes first round of
letters to involved states:

-- Response letter to reporting state (includes references to
POE and suggest that cargo be retained for inspection)

-- Request for an explanation from alleged violators within
thirty days.

-- Request for further information from all other states
(e.g., vessel's flag state, state of incorporation of
shipping company, etc.) within thirty days.

(4) POE INVESTIGATION: POE researches the case thoroughly,
including through:

-- Analyzing information supplied by Member States to the
Committee in response to the first round of letters.

-- Gathering information from other sources (e.g., press
accounts, personal interviews, independent research).

-- Consulting with Member States.

-- Site inspections / travel.

(5) INCIDENT REPORT: POE submits to the Committee a
confidential "Incident Report" that includes:

-- Summary of the facts of the incident.

-- Analysis of trends/patterns involved in the violation.

-- Recommendations for Committee action to respond
effectively to incident.

(6) COMMITTEE REVIEW/RESPONSE: Committee reviews Incident
Report and takes appropriate action in response.

(7) END OF INITIAL INVESTIGATION: Committee writes back to
the reporting state to explain that the Committee has
completed its initial investigation and that the reporting
state may dispose of cargo pursuant to UNSCR 1874.

(8) ONGOING CONSIDERATION: The Committee may at any time
review "lessons learned" and study patterns of sanctions
violations (e.g., identify companies or states linked to
multiple violations). The Committee may decide to issue
additional advisory notices / guidance to Member State or
engage in outreach/assistance where appropriate.

// END TEXT OF NON-PAPER //
RICE