hankyoreh

2009.

By Kwon Tae-ho

Contrary to the Lee Myung-bak administration’s initial expectations, the U.N. Security Council measures on the Cheonan sinking currently being pursued by the administration are known to be at a rather muted level.

Speaking about the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) Cheonan discussions during a talk with Washington correspondents Wednesday (local time), a senior government official visiting the United States said that an agreement was being reached on the draft document.

“We understand that China also agrees that we should present our position in the Security Council,” the official said.

As the talk went on, however, the official’s remarks became progressively more vague.

In the early stages, the Lee Myung-bak administration primarily used the phrase “a resolution for sanctions against North Korea” in referring to UNSC measures in response to the Cheonan sinking. Currently, however, it is having a difficult time inserting a passage in the president’s statement specifying that North Korea bears responsibility for the sinking of the Cheonan. The government official said that the draft adopted by the UNSC would be at the level of the statement from the G-8 summit held in Canada.

“The G-8 statement is not bad in a relative manner,” said the government official. “It states the investigation team’s opinion that North Korea is responsible, and contains criticism and denunciation directed at ‘those responsible.’”

However, due to objections from Russia, the G-8 summit did not specify that “those responsible” referred to “North Korea.” The UNSC, however, includes China, which is not part of the G-8 summit. In terms of scope, the UNSC draft is expected to fall short of the G-8 summit statement.

The official was unable to deny this expected difference in the two statements, saying, “It could happen that way.”

“We need to take a close look at the Security Council draft,” he added. “It is, however, a mistake to draw an x through the whole thing just because there is not a draft censuring North Korea.”

This stands in stark contrast with the administration’s tone early on, when it stated, “The Security Council statement obviously has to include a message of censure toward North Korea.”

In regards to the date the UNSC results would be released, the official said it would be sometime around July, but this also indicated a target rather than a definitive timeline.

When asked why the timeline and level of the UNSC response have not met the people of South Korea’s expectations, the official answered that it was “an issue where it was always unlikely things would be resolved quickly” and that the people of South Korea “set their standards too high.”

When a journalist pointed out that it was government authorities rather than the public who built up the standards early on, and questioned whether the government statements at the time were in error, the official said, “Oh, did we?” and was briefly at a loss for words.

“Nothing else is coming from the UN,” said the official in regards to what would follow after the UNSC measures. “There were some calls to disregard the Cheonan and pursue dialogue, but we do not believe it is the right time for dialogue to resume.”

Explaining the positive effects of UNSC measures, the official said, “If positive results emerge from the Security Council, internally we will gain the margin to show flexibility in dialogue, and North Korea will also feel pressure from the international community.”

Meanwhile, North Korea sent a letter to the UNSC on Tuesday stating the need for a joint North Korean-South Korean investigation to determine the facts of the Cheonan’s sinking. While this was not a significant departure from its previous request to send a review team, it does indicate a relative step forward. The U.S. expressed its opposition, saying that no further investigation of the Cheonan sinking was necessary.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]