Anyone Else Getting Tired of Hearing About More Sanctions Against North Korea?

[Lewdog]

Spare_change won't answer because he knows he'll be shamed so I'll go ahead and answer.

#1. In 2006 did the UN place sanctions on North Korea to deter them from building a nuclear weapons program? Yes or no?

That's a Yes.

#2. Has the UN continued to place tighter sanctions on North Korea since 2006 until the present in order to try and deter them from working on a nuclear weapons program? Yes or No?

That's a Yes.

#3. Despite all the sanctions against North Korea over the last 12 years, has North Korea stopped building a nuclear weapons program through nuclear tests and developing better ICBM technology?

That's a hard No.

Soooo... have sanctions worked with North Korea?

 

[EverCurious]

Lets eyeball the sanctions hmm? It's not just how many times we "throw sanctions" but also finding the particular thing to get them to move.

UNSCR 1718 (2006)

UNSCR 1874 (2009)

Resolution 2087,

Resolution 2094

Resolution 2270,

Resolution 2321

United States sanctions
In February 2016, President Obama enacted the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016, which passed the House of Representatives and the Senate with nearly unanimous support.[3] This law:
This followed the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act of 2013 which the Senate failed to pass.

South Korean sanctions
South Korea imposed sanctions against North Korea following the 2010 sinking of the South Korean naval ship, the Cheonan.

Japanese sanctions

European Union
The European Union has imposed a series of sanctions against North Korea since 2006.
Assessment
A report by the United Nations Panel of Experts stated that North Korea was covertly trading in arms and minerals in defiance of the sanctions.[15]

The academic John Delury has described the sanctions as futile and counterproductive. He has argued that they are unenforceable and unlikely to stop North Korea's nuclear weapons program.[16]

On the other hand, Sung-Yoon Lee, Professor in Korean Studies at the Fletcher School, and Joshua Stanton, advocate continued tightening of sanctions, targeting Pyongyang's systemic vulnerabilities, including blocking the regime's "offshore hard currency reserves and income with financial sanctions, including secondary sanctions against its foreign enablers. This would significantly diminish, if not altogether deny, Kim the means to pay his military, security forces and elites that repress the North Korean public".[17][18]

 

[Gracie]

Well, something has to be done because Fatty is waving his pudgy fists and has great scalding tears running down his chunky cheeks in anger at the new sanctions and threatening everyone again.

 

[EverCurious]

I cannot decide if we ignore his tantrum like we would an child who didn't get cake for dinner, or if he's seriously off his rocker and needs to be "dealt with." On the other hand I have assurances that dipstick cannot land shit on the US nor our allies so I'm a bit less concerned about if he does pop off a shot I suppose. It's an irritating situation and I've noted a few times that Kim needs to contract himself some Clintonitis...

 

[Gracie]

I think he is off his rocker, and one of his marvin martian missiles may indeed hit the west coast or maybe hawaii. Are we willing to see thousands die..worse than 9/11, over this schmuck and his acme rocket?

 

[Gracie]

Remember what JFK did with cuba? He took no chances. None. Kaput. So why is this asshole getting away with his banty rooster shenanigans? Its not just us on the west coast at risk either. Japan, S Korea, Mexico...no telling where that thing will go once it's fired. Hell, it could do a loop de loop and wind up in Russia for all we know. Lets hope it thinks its a boomerang and lands right back on his own doorstep.

 

[EverCurious]

I have faith in the military, and my father, who says that despite the misconceptions in the media and general public, we can indeed shoot his toys out of the sky, and in fact, we can do it off the top of a car... It is a valid concern of course, but as I said, I'm a bit less concerned about if one actually makes landfall.

As far as why we haven't offed him already I suspect it's because there's some panic from the left that IF we strike NK, China will go to war with us - preposterous imho, but I've no doubt that's preventing Kimmy finding a pine box.

 

[Gracie]

China doesn't want a war with us any more than Russia does. Both are buds of Trump, but they have to keep up appearances for us peons.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Spare_change won't answer because he knows he'll be shamed so I'll go ahead and answer.

#1. In 2006 did the UN place sanctions on North Korea to deter them from building a nuclear weapons program? Yes or no?

That's a Yes.

#2. Has the UN continued to place tighter sanctions on North Korea since 2006 until the present in order to try and deter them from working on a nuclear weapons program? Yes or No?

That's a Yes.

#3. Despite all the sanctions against North Korea over the last 12 years, has North Korea stopped building a nuclear weapons program through nuclear tests and developing better ICBM technology?

That's a hard No.

Soooo... have sanctions worked with North Korea?

China never agreed with the UN sanctions until Trump ordered it.

 

[Auld Phart]

Lets eyeball the sanctions hmm? It's not just how many times we "throw sanctions" but also finding the particular thing to get them to move.

UNSCR 1718 (2006) banned a range of imports and exports to North Korea and imposed an asset freeze and travel ban on persons involved in the country’s nuclear program. This trade ban included “battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems.” The resolution also prohibited imports of luxury goods to the country.[1] Large-scale arms, nuclear technology, and related training on nuclear weapons development were prohibited from being provided to North Korea. All states were to cooperate in inspecting cargo suspected of trafficking nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons into the country.

UNSCR 1874 (2009)
The provisions of the resolution include:

• Authorizing member states to inspect, "in accordance with their national authorities and legislation, and consistent with international law", North Korean cargo on land, sea, and air, and to destroy any goods suspected of being connected to the DPRK's nuclear programme.[2]
• Requiring the North Korean government to return immediately to the six-party talks and renounce its announcement of withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[3]
• Preventing financial services that could contribute to the nuclear or ballistic missile related programmes.[4]
• Instructing member states not to provide financial assistance to the DPRK nuclear programme, or enter into loans with the country, except for humanitarian or developmental reasons.[4]
• Extending the arms embargo on North Korea by banning all weapons exports from the country and most imports, with an exception to small arms, light weapons and related material – though member states must notify the Security Council five days prior to selling the weapons.[5][6]
• Demanding that North Korea halt its nuclear weapons program and conduct no further nuclear or missile tests.[5]
• Asking member states to notify the Council of steps they are taking to implement the sanctions within 45 days.[7]
• Affirming the Security Council's commitment to a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to the situation.[7]

Resolution 2087, (January 2013 Not really a "new" sanction here, JS) after a satellite launch, strengthened previous sanctions by clarifying a state’s right to seize and destroy cargo suspected of heading to or from North Korea for purposes of military research and development.[3][1]

Resolution 2094 (March 2013) after the third nuclear test. It imposed sanctions on money transfers and aimed to shut North Korea out of the international financial system.[3][1]

Resolution 2270, (March 2016) after the fourth nuclear test, further strengthened sanctions.[7] It banned the export of gold, vanadium, titanium, and rare earth metals. The export of coal and iron were also banned, with an exemption for transactions that were purely for "livelihood purposes".[8][1] Contains exceptionally comprehensive sanctions against North Korea beyond responses to the development of WMD, which are expected to have a profound impact across many facets of North Korea.[3]

The main provisions of the resolution include weapons transactions, proliferation of nuclear activities, maritime and air transport, export control of WMD, foreign trade, and financial transactions. The resolution also affirms that any transfer of weapons for the purpose of maintenance and services constitutes violations, and it designates a number of North Korean bodies to be subject to sanctions, including the National Aerospace Development Administration, the Ministry of Atomic Energy Industry, the Munitions Industry Department, the Reconnaissance General Bureau, and Office No. 39.[4]

Furthermore, members of the international community, including South Korea, Japan, and the European Union, began to impose independent embargoes on North Korea, trying to fill gaps in the current sanctions. South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on April 5, 2016, about a month after the adoption of the resolution, that “There has been visible progress on various fronts, such as the ban on port entry of the sanctioned vessels of Offshore Marine Management (OMM), registration cancellation of UN members’ vessels carrying the North Korean flag of convenience, enhanced inspection of North Korean cargo, expulsion of North Koreans involved in illicit activities, and cancellation of teaching or training of North Koreans.[5]

Yonhap News Agency of South Korea reported on April 3, 2016, a month after the adoption of Resolution 2270, that the effects of sanctions were being detected in North Korea as seen in the soaring market prices and the food shortage affecting even members of the National Security Agency.[6]

The sanctions of the resolution, if faithfully implemented by member states, are expected to deal a severe blow against the illicit arms smuggling and also the foreign currency earnings of the North Korean regime, forcing the regime onto the path of change.[7]

Resolution 2321, (November 2016) capped North Korea's coal exports and banned exports of copper, nickel, zinc, and silver.[9][10] In February 2017, a UN panel said that 116 of 193 member states had yet not submitted a report on their implementation of these sanctions, though China had.[11] Also in February 2017, China announced it would ban all imports of coal for the rest of the year.

----

Cut & Paste w/assessment:

United States sanctions
In February 2016, President Obama enacted the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016, which passed the House of Representatives and the Senate with nearly unanimous support.[3] This law:

• requires the President to sanction entities found to have contributed to North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction program, arms trade, human rights abuses or other illegal activities.[3]
• imposes mandatory sanctions for entities involved in North Korea's mineral or metal trades, which comprise a large part of North Korea's foreign exports.[3]
• requires the US Treasury Department to determine whether North Korea should be listed as a "primary money laundering concern," which would trigger tough new financial restrictions.[3]
• imposes new sanctions authorities related to North Korean human rights abuses and violations of cybersecurity.[3]

This followed the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act of 2013 which the Senate failed to pass.

South Korean sanctions
South Korea imposed sanctions against North Korea following the 2010 sinking of the South Korean naval ship, the Cheonan. These sanctions, known as the May 24 measures, included:[3]

• banning North Korean ships from South Korean territorial waters.[3]
• suspending inter-Korean trade except at the Kaesong Industrial Zone.[3]
• banning most cultural exchanges.[3]

In 2016 President Park Geun-hye ordered the Kaesong complex shut in retaliation for the nuclear test in January and the rocket launch in February.[3]

Japanese sanctions
In 2016, Japan's sanctions against North Korea included:[3]

• banning remittances, except those made for humanitarian purposes and less than 100,000 yen in value.[3]
• freezing assets of suspect individuals and organisations in Japan.
• prohibiting North Korean citizens from entering Japan.[3]
• renewing the ban on North Korean ships entering Japanese ports and extending it to include other ships that have visited North Korea.[3]
• banning nuclear and missile technicians who have been to North Korea from entering Japan.[13]

European Union
The European Union has imposed a series of sanctions against North Korea since 2006. These include:[3]

• an embargo on arms and related materiel.[3]
• banning the export of aviation and rocket fuel to North Korea.
• banning the trade in gold, precious metals and diamonds with the North Korean government.[3]
• banning the import of minerals from North Korea, with some exemptions for coal and iron ore.
• banning exports of luxury goods.[3]
• restrictions on financial support for trade with North Korea.[3]
• restrictions on investment and financial activities.[3]
• inspections and monitoring of cargoes imported to and exported from North Korea.[3]
• prohibiting certain North Korean individuals from entering the EU.[14]

Assessment
A report by the United Nations Panel of Experts stated that North Korea was covertly trading in arms and minerals in defiance of the sanctions.[15]

The academic John Delury has described the sanctions as futile and counterproductive. He has argued that they are unenforceable and unlikely to stop North Korea's nuclear weapons program.[16]

On the other hand, Sung-Yoon Lee, Professor in Korean Studies at the Fletcher School, and Joshua Stanton, advocate continued tightening of sanctions, targeting Pyongyang's systemic vulnerabilities, including blocking the regime's "offshore hard currency reserves and income with financial sanctions, including secondary sanctions against its foreign enablers. This would significantly diminish, if not altogether deny, Kim the means to pay his military, security forces and elites that repress the North Korean public".[17][18]

PLEASE just post a snip (small portion) of and article, and a link. You guys have been asked to do this many times. Locking thread. If you want to try again with a link and snip, please feel free.

 

[Zander]

Sanctions are an act of war.

Sanctions do not hurt the Governments or Rulers of the countries they are sanctioning, they only hurt the citizens.

... and when the people hurt enough, when they get hungry, they remove their leadership.

Pardon the expression, but it ain't rocket science.

Please give me the names of some countries where this theory has worked.

Surely you must have dozens, I'll take just one.

Thanks in advance.

Why would I stop at just one? How about a dozen? (plus one)

13 times that economic sanctions really worked

Given that the concept has been around since at least the Greek ages*, it's a little worrying that there is still so much debate about whether economic sanctions actually work or not.

Right now, that problem appears especially acute: Sanctions seem to be the main, if not only, Western weapon for dealing with Russian aggression in Ukraine. Just Monday, the United States announced sanctions on those individuals close to President Vladimir Putin, part of a broader campaign of targeted visa bans and asset freezes on the Russian elite over Russia's actions in Ukraine. However, the success of the sanctions already in place is proving hard to ascertain: As Russia’s deputy prime minister said of the last round of U.S. efforts: "Send me your teeth ground in impotent rage."

So when have economic sanctions actually worked? One of the best known investigations of that question is "Economic Sanctions Reconsidered," first published in 1985, by Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Jeffrey J. Schott, Kimberly Ann Elliott. That book, now on its third edition (from 2009), attempts to access the aims and success of every economic sanction for which it can find data.

According to the latest edition, the sanctions listed below are the only instances from 1914 to 2008 in which not only was the stated goal of the measures reached, but the sanctions themselves were instrumental in achieving that goal – thus receiving a full rating of 16 out of 16.

It isn't a long list, and many of the entries are a little obscure. Where possible, the cost to the nation targeted has been included:

1921: the League of Nations vs. Yugoslavia
In 1921, the League of Nations threatened economic sanctions against Yugoslavia if it attempted to seize land from Albania. Yugoslavia backed down.

1925: the League of Nations vs. Greece
Four years later, the League of Nations threatened sanctions against Greece unless it withdrew from Bulgaria's border territory. Greece withdrew.

1948-1949: the United States vs. Netherlands
As the Dutch East Indies struggled to become an independent Indonesia after World War II, the United States suspended the Marshall Plan aid to authorities in the region after the Dutch arrested Indonesian leaders. After threats of sanctions, the Dutch agreed to Indonesian independence in 1949. The sanctions cost 1.1% of the Dutch gross national product.

1958-1959: the U.S.S.R. vs. Finland
During the "Night Frost Crisis" of 1958 and 1959, Finnish-Soviet relations were fraught after the Communists were excluded from government and Karl-August Fagerholm, viewed as unfavorable to the Soviets, was appointed as prime minister. The U.S.S.R. used economic sanctions to force Fagerholm's resignation. The sanctions cost 1.1.% of the Finnish GNP.

1961-1965: the United States vs. Ceylon (Sri Lanka)
Between 1961 and 1965, the United States applied sanctions against the Dominion of Ceylon (what is now Sri Lanka) after the socialist government of Sirimavo Bandaranaike was accused of expropriating the assets of U.S. and British oil companies. The government fell in 1965, largely because of the economic effects of these sanctions, which cost 0.6% of the the country's GNP.

1965-1967: the United States vs. India
In 1965, the United States canceled food and military aid to India in a bid to force it to change its agricultural policies and to voice displeasure over its war with Pakistan earlier that year. In 1966, Indira Gandhi's government proposed new agricultural policies, and U.S. aid resumed the next year. The economic cost was 0.08% of the Indian GNP.

1975-1976: the United States vs. South Korea
In 1975, the United States used the threat of sanctions to discourage South Korea from buying a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant from France, which the U.S. thought might be secretly used to help make nuclear bombs. South Korea never bought the plant.

1976-1977: the United States vs. Taiwan
In 1976, the United States learned that Taiwan was secretly developing nuclear weapons, so the United States delayed its export of nuclear material to the country. Taiwan later announced that it was abandoning its plans. The estimated economic cost was 0.1% of Taiwan's GNP.

1982-1986: South Africa vs. Lesotho
South Africa applied economic pressure on Lesotho to make it return South African refugees with links to the African National Congress. After a military coup in Lesotho, South Africa lifted a blockade on the landlocked nation, and 60 ANC members were deported back home. The cost was estimated to be 5.1% of Lesotho's GNP.

1987-1988: the United States vs. El Salvador
In 1988, the United States used economic sanctions to block El Salvador from releasing those accused of killing U.S. citizens.

1992-1993: the United States vs. Malawi
The United States (and other nations) significantly cut aid in 1992 in a bid to improve the democratic standards and human rights situation in Malawi. Malawi was largely reliant on aid (the sanctions were estimated to cost 6.6% of its GNP) and swiftly adopted more open policies. After a referendum, multi-party democracy was introduced in 1993, and aid was soon resumed.

1993: the United States vs. Guatemala
In 1993, after President Jorge Serrano dissolved Congress and said he would rule by decree, the United States and European nations threatened sanctions. Business owners, scared of the economic effects, helped force Serrano out of power and installed a new president, Ramiro de Leon Carpio. The economic cost was said to be 1.3% of Guatemala's GDP.

1994-1995: Greece vs. Albania
Greece suspended European Union aid to Albania in 1994 after five members of an ethnic Greek group in the country were given prison terms. After this economic pressure (said to have cost Albania 2.9% of its GNP), Albania reduced the sentences and released two, and Greece resumed aid.

---

Maybe you should do some in-depth research before you embarrass yourself further. You know, like a 30 second Google search ...

Do Sanctions Work?

Do Sanctions Work? | HuffPost

Yes, Sanctions Work - The American Interest

Sanctions after Crimea: Have they worked?

Explainer: do sanctions work?

While I appreciate your list, none of those resulted in the "leadership Change" you said would happen. (your exact quote was: ...and when the people hurt enough, when they get hungry, they remove their leadership)

Simple fact - US sanctions have not worked against Iran, Russia, or North Korea.

 

[frigidweirdo]

All we keep hearing is about the U.S. putting more sanctions on North Korea, or the U.S. working with other countries to place more sanctions on them. Is anyone else getting tired of this garbage? The sanctions are absolutely useless when Russia, Iran, and China aren't part of it and they give Fat Boy whatever he wants. All the sanctions are doing is putting more money in the pockets of countries that are also being sanctioned by the U.S. and other countries.

South Korea, U.S. agree on pressure for North Korea, China media warns on sanctions

Well, are you demanding they go to war because you're fed up?

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

All we keep hearing is about the U.S. putting more sanctions on North Korea, or the U.S. working with other countries to place more sanctions on them. Is anyone else getting tired of this garbage?

Nope. I'm tired of hearing about your Russia fantasy

 

[Gracie]

From what I read this morning, Trump & Co are fed up with the temper tantrums from Fatboy. Any more threats to the USA, he's gonna get hammered.