S/PV.9591 Security Council

The representative of the Russian Federation has asked for the floor.

We have already set out in detail our fundamental concerns about the approach taken by the French delegation on 25 March with regard to the Security Council meeting that we requested on the twenty-fifth anniversary of NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia, under the agenda item “Threats to international peace and security” (see S/PV.9587). In an ultimatum demanding that Russia abandon its request, our French colleagues formally initiated a procedural vote on the agenda for the meeting, despite the fact that the agenda item “Threats to international peace and security” falls directly under the purview of the Council and that the Japanese presidency had already scheduled the meeting. Regrettably, the presidency was unable to confirm its decision in the Chamber. Thus, the actions of France, as well as those of the United States and the United Kingdom, which supported France at the time, led to a Council member being denied the convening of a meeting that it had requested, which is a gross violation of each Council member’s right to request those meetings that it considers necessary, according to the Council’s mandate and the issues within its competence. Moreover, the role of the President in scheduling meetings was called into question. Unfortunately, the Japanese presidency did not express a clear position in that regard. Therefore, to avoid double standards and discrepancies with our Western colleagues, which are obviously political rather than procedural, we ask the Japanese presidency to put to the vote its decision to hold today’s meeting.

In view of the request made by the Russian Federation, I intend to put the provisional agenda to the vote. The Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the provisional agenda for today’s meeting. I shall put the provisional agenda to the vote now.

The provisional agenda received 15 votes in favour. The provisional agenda has been adopted. Non-proliferation/Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Note by the President of the Security Council (S/2024/215)

The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. Members of the Council have before them document S/2024/255, which contains the text of a draft resolution submitted by the United States of America. I wish to also draw the attention of Council members to document S/2024/215, which contains a note by the President of the Security Council. The Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make a statement before the voting.

On a file so often defined by division, the Security Council’s support for the Panel of Experts of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) has been an exception. Year after year, for 14 years, we have come together unanimously to renew the mandate of the Panel of Experts, which conducts credible, fact- based and independent investigations of the unlawful weapons programme and sanctions-evasion efforts of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Panel’s work is as essential as ever. Over the past year, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has unabashedly accelerated its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programmes in violation of multiple Security Council resolutions. Just last week, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea launched a new round of ballistic missiles. Those provocations are a direct threat to the non-proliferation regime and the peace and security of all Member States. That is why Member States from every corner of the world count on the Panel of Experts’ independent analysis and recommendations as they implement the resolution 1718 (2006) sanctions regime and hold the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to account. The approach of the United States to this mandate renewal has been inclusive and transparent. We negotiated in good faith for weeks to seek compromise and consensus among all Council members. We did not rush to a vote. Rather, we undertook a careful, methodological approach over weeks of multiple rounds of negotiations. We even delayed the vote twice to allow for additional diplomatic efforts. Now it is time to renew a mandate that is critical to protecting international peace and security. Last week, during Japan’s signature event (see S/PV.9579), we all reaffirmed our commitments to upholding the global non-proliferation regime. It is time to put that commitment into action with today’s vote. I urge every single member State to vote yes.

It may seem that the Security Council has convened to consider the routine matter of extending the mandate of the Panel of Experts of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006). This mechanism is supposed to assist the work of the Committee to ensure the effectiveness of the restrictions imposed by the Council. However, the technical nature of the mandate should not mislead us. In recent years, the situation on and around the Korean peninsula has changed fundamentally. The sanctions regime adopted in Security Council resolutions with the noble intention of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region is now not only losing its relevance, but largely detached from reality. We are witnessing an unprecedented policy from a coalition of Western countries led by the United States to strangle Pyongyang, including harsh unilateral restrictions, aggressive propaganda and direct personal threats against the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Taken together, those measures call into question the very possibility of resolving problems on the peninsula in the future. The situation is being brought to an even more dangerous level by the active militarization of the peninsula, with the direct involvement of Washington and other NATO members that are located tens of thousands of kilometres away from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. What is particularly disturbing is the increasingly brazen invocation in the allies’ military manoeuvres of Washington’s nuclear capabilities. Such a dangerous turn of events in the region affects the fundamental interests of the Russian Federation in terms of national security. Against that backdrop, it is clear that, in recent years, sanctions have not been able to achieve the international community’s stated aims and have not led to a normalization of the situation around the peninsula. That situation does not encourage the parties to dialogue, particularly after Washington has demonstrated to the entire world the underhanded game that it is playing. And yet, the sanctions impose a heavy burden on the North Korean population. As a result of the undermined confidence between the United Nations and Pyongyang, no United Nations entities are present on the country’s territory — entities that could deal with this important issue. That situation must urgently be changed. In a certain sense, the example of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is unique. It is only in respect of that country that open-ended Security Council sanctions have been introduced and are being applied. There are no basic mechanisms to alter the restrictions. There are no procedures in place that would allow well- grounded decisions to delist particular individuals. All of the remaining restrictive measures in respect of individual countries have realistic aims and are subject to regular review. In that connection, we firmly believe that it is high time for the Council to engage in reflection on updating the sanctions regime in respect of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Our country has repeatedly put forward ideas to that effect and has tried to adapt the restrictions to the rapidly changing realities on the ground. One such initiative is the Russia-China humanitarian draft resolution, which remains relevant. However, all our attempts to advance that have, time and again, come up against the absolute reluctance of Western countries to deviate from their destructive and punitive logic regarding the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Panel of Experts of the 1718 Committee now serves as a tool in that harmful situation. It has ceased to carry out its direct obligations. Its work is increasingly being reduced to playing into the hands of Western approaches, reprinting biased information and analysing newspaper headlines and poor-quality photos. In so doing, the Panel is essentially conceding its inability to come up with sober assessments of the status of the sanctions regime. The Panel has continued to focus on trivial matters not commensurate with the problems facing the peninsula. Against that backdrop, Russia has called for the Council to adopt a decision to hold an open and honest review of the Council’s sanctions measures in respect of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, moving the restrictions onto an annual basis. That would allow us to organize a genuinely engaged discussion of the problems that have built up and also to adapt the Council’s measures to the rapidly changing circumstances. This could also give Pyongyang incentives to dialogue. Had we agreed on renewing the sanctions annually, the mandate of the Panel of Experts would then make sense. It would be able to propose constructive ideas to update the current restrictions. However, the United States and its allies did not want to listen to us and did not include our ideas in the draft resolution that is being put to a vote today. In these circumstances, we do not see any added value in the work of the Panel of Experts of the Committee, and we cannot support the American draft text. We call on members of the Security Council to listen to our arguments, which are aimed at finding a way out of this harmful situation.

The Republic of Korea will vote in favour of the draft resolution (S/2024/255) and calls on all members of the Security Council to do the same. The draft resolution presented to us is the best compromise of the views exchanged during the series of negotiations. In that regard, the Republic of Korea highly appreciates the efforts of the United States for professionally drafting the draft resolution and leading the negotiations as the penholder. Unfortunately, what should have been a simple technical rollover turned into complicated political negotiations. The Panel of Experts on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea sanctions has been faithfully carrying out its duty for the past 15 years. All of us in this Chamber acknowledge and appreciate the dedication and hard work of the Panel. The biannual reports by the Panel of Experts provided all States Members of the United Nations with valuable information regarding sanctions implementation and violations. The Panel also assisted the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) in playing a crucial role in providing capacity-building for better implementation of sanctions. Through close collaboration and cooperation among independent experts who work in an independent and professional manner, the Panel guided us through the complex web of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea sanctions regime, setting aside differences arising from geopolitical tensions. As everyone in this Chamber is well aware, the nuclear and ballistic missile programme of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is one of the most serious threats to the global non-proliferation regime. Faced with the continued provocations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the accelerated advancement of its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes and its increasingly sophisticated evasion of sanctions, the role of the Panel has become all the more essential. Failure to adopt this draft resolution will result in the abolishment of the Panel, which is something all Council members, in particular the five permanent members of the Council, should avoid by all means. At this moment, the international community is watching the Security Council. If we truly are to act on behalf of all the States Members of the United Nations and carry out our duty in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, we have to adopt this draft resolution. We therefore once again urge all Security Council members to vote yes on this important draft resolution. Let us stand united for the sake of nuclear non-proliferation and international peace and security.

I shall put the draft resolution to the vote now.

The draft resolution received 13 votes in favour, one against and one abstention. The draft resolution has not been adopted, owing to the negative vote of a permanent member of the Council. I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements after the voting.

The United States is deeply disappointed by the outcome of today’s vote. Today’s vote was nothing more than the attempt by one Council member to silence the independent, objective investigations into the Security Council violations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. There is simply no other honest way to view this. It is important to ask ourselves why. Why would any Council member not vote in support of this mandate renewal? Why would any Council member break the 14 years of otherwise unanimous adoption? Just looking over the reports of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Panel of Experts, the answer is quite clear. The Panel began reporting in the last year on Russia’s blatant violations of Security Council resolutions, in addition to the persistent sanctions evasion efforts of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea within Russia’s jurisdiction. I provide this message to all Member States. Russia owns this failure. Russia is the reason Council members will no longer receive reports from the Panel of Experts. Today’s vote will only embolden the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to act with further impunity, as it jeopardizes global security through the development of long-range ballistic missiles and sanctions evasion efforts. That is not the behaviour of a responsible Member State, let alone a permanent member of the Security Council. And China, with its abstention, has once again shown us where it stands on curbing proliferation by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Today was not the outcome that the United States wanted, or the outcome the rest of the Council members worked so hard over the past five weeks to avoid. The draft resolution before us (S/2024/255) was, in the view of the United States, far from ideal, but this draft resolution reflected our most sincere attempt at compromise and flexibility. We commend our colleagues who put aside their differences in support of the Panel, but some proposals were simply unacceptable. Unprecedented attempts to silence the Panel and otherwise corrupt its independence have no place in any committee. Just as egregious was the proposal to undermine all of the sanctions working to curb the unlawful pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Council members have heard us say it here before, but I will say it again. The United States will not reward the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for its repeated violations of Security Council resolutions and attempts to undermine the global non-proliferation regime. The sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea need maintenance, not elimination, in order to work effectively, especially when it comes to building Member States awareness and capacity to protect against malicious cyberactivity by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Moscow has done more today than simply obstruct the work of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006). Moscow has undermined the prospect of a peaceful diplomatic resolution of one of the world’s most dangerous nuclear proliferation issues. But let me be clear: Russia may have silenced the Panel of Experts today, but it will never silence those of us who stand in support of the global non-proliferation regime. The Security Council resolutions and all their measures against the unlawful pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea still remain. And it is the responsibility of every Member State to fully abide by those Security Council obligations. The United States remains committed to continuing to work with allies and willing partners to hold the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and its defenders accountable for its actions.

The draft resolution that was just rejected (S/2024/255) had a simple goal, namely, to renew for one year the mandate of the Panel of Experts of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006). France supported that draft resolution because the role of the Panel of Experts is essential. On 18 March, North Korea carried out three new ballistic missile launches. A few months ago, it put into orbit a military satellite. For two months now, North Korea has been providing Russia with military equipment in support of its war of aggression against Ukraine, in violation of many resolutions for which Russia itself voted in favour. A new nuclear test cannot be ruled out. Another nuclear test cannot be ruled out. In that context, who can seriously doubt the need for a group of independent experts to document violations of Council resolutions? France deeply regrets the veto against the renewal of the mandate. It deprives the Council of an essential tool for monitoring the implementation of its resolutions, including sanctions, but also humanitarian exemptions. The veto deprives all Member States of a crucial source of information on a subject that directly affects their security and international stability. Lastly, it is a further factor undermining our non-proliferation architecture. Please, do not tell us that the Panel of Experts has failed in its duty of impartiality. It does not judge States. It works on the basis of information that all States are free to share with it. It provides analytical input for the deliberations of the members of the 1718 Committee, without prejudging the decisions they will take. Please do not tell us that the mandate of the Panel of Experts had to be changed or sacrificed to allow for a general discussion on the review of sanctions. Existing resolutions already provide for the Council to stand ready to review sanctions regimes in the light of North Korea’s compliance with its obligations. The draft resolution presented today even proposed that such a review take place by April 2025. The inclusion of such a paragraph in a text that was not intended for that purpose was clearly a significant sign of flexibility. As North Korea continues its destabilizing activities, the Council has a responsibility to act. France will continue to work to ensure that the Council regains its unity in order to respond to this major proliferation crisis. Dame Barbara Woodward (United Kingdom): First, allow me to extend our utmost gratitude to the Panel of Experts of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) and to the United States for its work as penholder. The nuclear and ballistic missile programmes of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea present a global and escalating threat to international security and the global non-proliferation regime. Over the past decade, the Panel of Experts has played a vital role in constraining the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by exposing the progress of its nuclear and missile programmes and other forms of sanctions non-compliance. This veto undermines the Panel’s work, the integrity of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime and the Council’s credibility in upholding Security Council resolutions. It follows arms deals between Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in breach of Security Council resolutions. Those deals include the transfer of ballistic missiles, which Russia has then used in its illegal invasion of Ukraine since the early part of this year. Claims that calls for a review of the sanctions regime were ignored are simply not accurate. Let us be clear: nothing in the draft resolution (S/2024/255) prevents the Council from reviewing or amending the sanctions regime, should consensus be found. This veto does not demonstrate any concern for the North Korean people or the efficacy of sanctions. It is about Russia gaining the freedom to evade and breach sanctions in pursuit of weapons to be used against Ukraine. The Panel, through its work to expose sanctions non-compliance, was an inconvenience for Russia. It is deeply concerning that Russia, a permanent member of the Council, has taken such action. Let me be clear to Russia: the sanctions regime remains in place, and the United Kingdom remains committed to holding the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to account for its compliance with the sanctions regime and will continue to work with all members in support of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

I will be brief. Slovenia engaged in good faith in the negotiations on the draft resolution (S/2024/255) with the aim of ensuring the continuation of the good work that the Panel of Experts has been doing in supporting the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006). We deeply regret that despite all the concessions made, a veto has been cast, preventing the renewal of the mandate of the Panel. Independent monitoring and assessment of sanctions implementation are invaluable. It is imperative that the wider United Nations membership has access to professional and objective assessments that guide the Council’s activities on the sanctions regime. Only a fully functioning Panel of Experts is able to provide that. We will continue to engage constructively, and we call on Russia to do the same.

We thank the United States, as penholder, for its tireless efforts to achieve consensus on the draft resolution (S/2024/255). We deeply regret the use of the veto to block the renewal of the mandate of the Panel of Experts of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006). The current text represents a set of significant compromises on the Panel’s mandate. First, it accommodated requests to link the renewal of the mandate of the Panel to broader discussions on sanctions, as well as dialogue on the file. Secondly, it established the confidential nature of the mid-term report, greatly affecting the ability of the wider United Nations membership to remain informed and engaged on the file. Despite those significant changes, and even though most Council members supported a technical rollover, the text was accepted in the spirit of compromise. Regrettably, the compromise was vetoed by the Russian Federation. We also highlight that a significant cross- regional group of delegations expressed their support for the Panel during the open briefing on Wednesday (see S/PV.9589) and called for the renewal of its mandate. It is deeply regrettable that those calls have gone unanswered. We strongly agree that dialogue is crucial to achieve progress on the overall file. However, we stress that the draft resolution was meant to meaningfully renew the Panel’s mandate. Any discussion on the sanctions architecture as well as an overarching dialogue on the file should be kept separate from the Panel’s mandate renewal. Panels of experts are independent and impartial, and their mandates ought to be treated that way. We reiterate our full support for the work of the Panel of Experts, including its reporting. It has been a crucial instrument to display the sophisticated architecture of sanctions evasion by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and a crucial source of information for the wider United Nations membership. National competent authorities who read those reports have been able to use them to keep pace with the ever- evolving means of sanctions evasions investigated by the Panel. In the absence of such reports, the relentless evasion of sanctions by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea will continue to grow unchecked. This is a sad disservice to regional and international peace and security.

Ecuador voted in favour of the draft resolution proposed by the United States (S/2024/255). My delegation is convinced that collective work and good-faith negotiation are indispensable for effective multilateralism and are the best way to fulfil the responsibilities entrusted to us. Ecuador believes that the text proposed by the penholder contained the necessary basis for the renewal of the mandate of the Panel of Experts of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) and the continuity of its professional and independent work. The search for a peaceful, diplomatic and political solution on the Korean peninsula requires concerted action and respect for the resolutions adopted by the Council. I regret that, once again, due to the use of the veto, the Council was unable to adopt a decision that enjoyed the majority support of its members — especially when it comes to a sensitive issue for international peace and security. I express Ecuador’s concern about this outcome, which represents a serious threat to the global disarmament and non-proliferation architecture. Furthermore, it undermines the efforts made by the international community and especially those made by the Council, thus weakening the organ’s response capacity, and it could exacerbate tensions in the region.

We express our deep regret that draft resolution S/2024/255 was not adopted. We nevertheless recognize and commend the penholder, the United States, for its efforts. We wish to state that, as a Council, we have just missed out on a very important information service tool that is of great benefit in the discharge of the Council’s mandate. We reiterate our strong call for the Security Council to live up to its responsibility to promote international peace and security through the established mechanisms at its disposal, in line with Charter of the United Nations.

What we just heard in the Chamber from our Western colleagues only strengthened our conviction that we took the right decision to not support the extension of the mandate of the Panel of Experts of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006). NATO members today have essentially dropped their masks and clearly demonstrated why they actually want to extend the mandate of the Panel of Experts — to use it to channel unfounded and biased insinuations against Russia, which we have heard excessively today in the Chamber. It is particularly cynical and pathetic of the United States delegation to reproach us. Let me be clear. A country that in the past five months has used the veto four times in order to give Israel the opportunity to mercilessly kill and starve Palestinian civilians and one that declares, in the Chamber, that Security Council decisions are non-binding, does not have the right to lecture others.

Guyana voted in favour of draft resolution S/2024/255, on the renewal of the mandate of the Panel of Experts of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006). We regret that the Council was not able to adopt the text in its present form and urge members to continue working together to find a constructive way forward. Guyana believes that the work of the 1718 Committee, supported by its Panel of Experts, is vital in monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the relevant sanctions measures relating to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We are committed to cooperating with the 1718 Committee so as to ensure the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We hope that the challenges preventing the adoption of the text of the resolution, in its current form, will soon be resolved and that the mandate of the Panel of Experts can be renewed as early as possible.

I would like to thank the penholder for its efforts. It is regrettable to witness today an absence of consensus among Security Council members regarding the renewal of the Panel of Experts, which is a component in supporting the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006). We acknowledge the concerns raised by certain Member States. However, we believe that those could be addressed through constructive dialogue and collaboration within the 1718 Committee. Together, must find a balanced solution that respects the legitimate concerns of all parties. We urge all Security Council members to redouble their efforts to find common ground and reach a consensus on the renewal of the Panel of Experts’ mandate. Unity within the Security Council is paramount in confronting global peace and security challenges. We are confident that the Council members have the ability to approach this issue with a spirit of cooperation and compromise. Divergence must not impede the work of our Council. With more flexibility, we can find a solution that allows for the renewal of the Panel of Experts’ mandate and addresses the issues raised.

The Republic of Korea voted in favour of draft resolution S/2024/255 for the reasons that I explained before the vote. Regrettably, the resolution was not adopted. The Panel of Experts of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) has been taken hostage by one permanent member, the Russian Federation. As Russia puts its blind self-centredness over the Council’s collective responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the Panel of Experts on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, one of the Council’s most vibrant and significant subsidiary organs, has been forced to cease its work. As we all know, the Panel of Experts has provided valuable information concerning the implementation of sanctions against the world’s most serious nuclear proliferator and offered well-documented recommendations to all States Members of the United Nations so that they could better implement their obligations. It also investigated possible sanctions violations and cases of evasion so that Member States could address any non-compliance accordingly. The draft resolution was a technical one. It was meant to simply renew the mandate of the Panel of Experts. On the other hand, the proposal previously made by Russia included a one-year sunset clause on the entire Democratic People’s Republic of Korea sanctions regime, tied to the mandate renewal of the Panel. Russia employed an all-too-familiar and obvious tactic — insisting on completely unacceptable conditions, without any room for compromise. Russia listed objections that they gladly took as an excuse to exercise the use of the veto. This is outrageous and makes no sense at all, given the continued and accelerated advancement of the North Korean nuclear and missile programmes. Pyongyang has been openly denouncing the authority of the Security Council and pursuing an increasingly dangerous and aggressive nuclear policy, in particular targeting the Republic of Korea. At this moment, Russia seems to be more interested in embracing or encouraging the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for its provision of munitions and ballistic missiles to conduct war in Ukraine, at the expense of nuclear non-proliferation regime and the proper functioning of the Security Council. There can be no justification for disbanding the guardians of the Organization’s Democratic People’s Republic of Korea sanctions regime, consisting of multiple resolutions adopted unanimously by the Council. This is almost comparable to destroying closed-circuit television systems so as to avoid being caught red-handed. Today we witnessed yet another setback in the authority of this organ, as well as in the international non-proliferation regime. The permanent member of the Security Council and the depository of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons completely abandoned its responsibility. Nevertheless, the Republic of Korea will continue its efforts, in collaboration with many like-minded countries, to achieve the goal of complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We will find our way and expect cooperation from other Council members and all the States Members of the United Nations.

Switzerland thanks the United States for facilitating the process of negotiations and for its efforts to reach a consensus. We also recognize the engagement of the other members of the Council. Switzerland voted in favour of draft resolution S/2024/255 because, like the large majority of the Council’s members, we believe that it represents an acceptable compromise. Switzerland regrets that the use of the veto by a single member of the Security Council puts an end to the mandate of the Panel of Experts that supports the work of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006). Targeted sanctions are an important tool of the Council for maintaining international peace and security. The Panel of Experts plays a key role in facilitating their implementation. Its reports, which are reliable, independent and of high quality — and I take this opportunity to thank the experts on the Panel of Experts — are an essential source of information for the Committee and all United Nations Member States, in particular at this critical time when the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea continues to considerably accelerate its illicit nuclear and ballistic weapons programme. Switzerland will therefore continue to work to find a solution — this one or others. This decision hampers efforts to monitor and ensure transparency in the implementation of Council resolutions. The arguments for the veto that we have heard will not convince us or other Member States. At a time when the Panel was investigating violations of sanctions measures, this veto only fuels suspicions with regard to violations. We reiterate that arms shipments from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea represent a flagrant violation of international law and contribute to undermining the global disarmament and non-proliferation architecture. The Committee’s mandate, however, remains intact. Its work may be hindered, but as Chair of the Committee, it is our duty and obligation to consider how to provide Committee members with the relevant information to assess the implementation of sanctions, to inform all members about the work of the Committee and to support them in their efforts to comply with the resolutions of the Council. That is what we will continue to do.

In 2006, the Security Council adopted resolution 1718 (2006), imposing sanctions, including an arms embargo, on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Over the past decade or so, the Council has adopted more resolutions to continue to strengthen the sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, resulting in a set of extremely stringent sanctions mechanisms. China supports the full and correct implementation of Council sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and supports the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) and the Panel of Experts in performing their duties independently, objectively and impartially, in strict accordance with their mandates, so as to promote the sanctions’ implementation. At the same time, we have always maintained that sanctions are not an end in themselves, but rather a means to an end. Sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should serve to promote the denuclearization of the peninsula, the launch of dialogue and negotiations among the parties, and a final political settlement to the peninsula issue. At the request of China and other members, the Council adopted the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea-related sanctions resolution with a reversal clause, which is aimed at aligning sanctions with the overarching goal of a political settlement in a coordinated way, forming effective synergies, thereby creating conditions for a final political solution. It is disconcerting that the harsh sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have not led to the achievement above of the above-mentioned goals. Instead, they have exacerbated tensions and confrontation with a serious negative impact on the humanitarian situation and livelihoods on the ground. The original intention of China and Russia in jointly introducing the draft resolution was to activate the reversal clause, adjust the sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with regard to their impact on the humanitarian situation and livelihoods, to use the humanitarian issue as an entry point, to create conditions for enhancing mutual trust among all parties and the resumption of dialogue. I would like to stress once again that sanctions should not be set in stone, nor should they be indefinite. I would like to once again to call on all parties to positively consider the final Russian draft resolution. Over the past period, in line with its consistent position, China has participated constructively in the consultations on the draft resolution extending the mandate of the Panel of Experts of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea sanctions Committee. Based on the performance of the Panel of Experts in recent years and the problems that exist, we have put forward proposals to improve the Panel’s work, which are partially reflected in the draft resolution. We highly appreciate and actively support the Russian proposal to set a time limit for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea sanctions and to conduct periodic reviews. We believe that the proposal is to the point, practical and feasible. If adopted, it would greatly improve the sanctions regime and would give impetus to breaking the current deadlock in the situation. Regrettably, the aforementioned views of Russia have not been taken on board. At a time when the mandate of the Panel is yet to expire and when parties still have time for consultations, the Council has been forced to vote on draft resolution S/2024/255. China must abstain in the voting on the draft resolution. The current situation on the peninsula is characterized by persistent tensions and growing confrontation, which is in no one’s interest. That is the last thing China wants to see. The settlement of the peninsula issue cannot be divorced from political mutual trust and a favourable climate. Blindly increasing sanctions and highlighting pressure will not help to resolve issues. It will only be counterproductive. Indulging in military alliances and obsession with military confrontation will only further exacerbate antagonism and tensions, making the goal of denuclearizing the peninsula and maintaining its peace and stability even more elusive. China once again calls on all parties to adopt a rational and pragmatic approach, stay committed to a political settlement, resume contacts, build mutual trust, restart dialogue as soon as possible and do more for peace and stability on the peninsula. The international community, including the Council, should also create a favourable environment to that end. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that China’s position on the peninsula issue is crystal clear. We have always been committed to maintaining peace and stability on the peninsula, to advancing in parallel the denuclearization of the peninsula, to establishing a peace mechanism and to resolving issues through dialogue and consultation. As a close neighbour of the peninsula, China will continue to actively maintain stability and promote talks and play a constructive role in advancing a political solution to the peninsula issue, the early resumption of dialogue among all parties and the realization of long-term peace and stability in North-East Asia.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of Japan. A draft resolution (S/2024/255) to fight against North Korea’s unlawful development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles was vetoed again in this Chamber. The result of the voting is deeply, profoundly regrettable. To our greatest regret, North Korea is continuing its unlawful nuclear and ballistic missile programme in flagrant violation of Security Council resolutions, and sanction evasions, and even sanction violations, are being conducted by North Korea and other actors who help them. Nevertheless, the Panel of Experts, which has been playing a crucial role in the fight against those proliferation activities, is now being forced to end its operations owing to the veto cast by one permanent member  — the Russian Federation  — of this organ, which bears primary responsibility for the maintenance international peace and security. We appreciate the tireless efforts of the United States as penholder to maintain unity among the Council members and ensure that the discussions took place in a balanced and transparent manner. It is irresponsible and shameful, especially when the permanent member who wielded its veto power to defend North Korea’s unlawful nuclear and ballistic missile programme has itself been violating the relevant resolutions by procuring military equipment and munitions from North Korea and using them for its unprovoked aggression against Ukraine in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations. It is no exaggeration to say that we are standing at a critical historic juncture for ensuring the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the future. Nobody except for the proliferators would benefit from weakening the global non-proliferation regime. Facing the veto today, we now need to engage in discussions on how to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles in the world where one of the permanent members of the Security Council denied the role of the Council in that regard. We will hear the voices of the wider membership during the General Assembly meeting that will be convened in response to the veto today. Japan’s commitment to non-proliferation is unwavering. The entire world is watching to see whether all the members of the Council will fulfil the heavy responsibility that has been placed on us. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. There are no more names inscribed on the list of speakers.