Could resuming tourism to Mt. Keumgang violate UN sanctions?

Posted on : 2014-02-27 16:06 KST Modified on : 2014-02-27 16:06 KST
Unification and Foreign Affairs ministries disagree over interpretation of UN sanctions barring transactions with the North
 Aug. 21. (by Shin So-young
Aug. 21. (by Shin So-young

By Choi Hyun-june, staff reporter

The Ministry of Unification (MOU) and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) are marching to different beats on the possibility of resuming tourism at Mt. Keumgang.

The MOU, which is the chief agency for inter-Korean activities, believes United Nations Security Council sanctions shouldn’t apply to tourism, while MOFA is arguing that the matter requires UNSC consent. Tourism at the resort has been suspended since the 2008 shooting death of a South Korean tourist.

Speaking at a regular briefing on Feb. 25, MOFA spokesperson Cho Tae-young responded to a reporter’s question on whether resuming tourism at Mt. Keumgang would violate UNSC Resolution 2094 - adopted in the wake of North Korea’s third nuclear test - by saying, “Ultimately, we will have to hear the authoritative interpretation from the UNSC.”

Cho’s remarks suggest UNSC consent would be needed because tourism at the resort would be an area subject to UNSC sanctions.

Resolution 2094 bars countries from “the provision of financial services or the transfer . . . of any financial or other assets or resources, including bulk cash, that could contribute to the DPRK’s nuclear or ballistic missile programs, or other activities prohibited by [previous] resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), or this resolution.” The MOFA’s view is that if tourism is resumed, revenue would qualify as “bulk cash” under its terms.

The MOU holds a different position. Responding to a similar question at a March 2013 briefing, deputy spokesperson Park Soo-jin agreed that South Korea “has to uphold [the sanctions] as a UN member state,” but added, “We see tourism at Mt. Keumgang as a separate issue.” This suggests the ministry does not see tourism as falling within the scope of the sanctions.

Another MOU official said on Feb. 26 that the issue was the original intent of the resolution’s “bulk cash” provision.

“That was developed to prevent North Korea from engaging in cash transactions as a way of skirting the financial sanctions,” the official explained. “You can’t really apply that characterization to tourism at Mt. Keumgang.”

Indeed, Hyundai Asan paid for past tourism through an official bank transfer into a North Korean account.

With the two ministries disagreeing on the resort’s reopening, the issue appears likely to stir up controversy when the issue of resumption actually starts being debated.

 

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

button that move to original korean article (클릭시 원문으로 이동하는 버튼)

Most viewed articles