Annex 5: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874 (2009)

India: more stakes in this crisis than would appear initially
It has been argued that these developments in Northeast Asia have little relevance to India
and South Asia. But according to the Indian analyst Chari, this comforting thesis is seriously
flawed. North Korea’s aberrant behaviour threatens to unravel the international nonproliferation
regime. The linkage, for example, between Pyongyang and Islamabad—both
blatant proliferators—could strengthen in future. These general possibilities would have
profound implications for India’s national security. Three particular developments, which,
admittedly, lay out worst case scenarios are of special significance. First, North Korea’s
intransigence will boost Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and encourage its exercise of the nuclear
option, sooner rather than later. An unbroken chain of nuclear weapon states would then be
established extending from Pyongyang to Beijing to Islamabad, New Delhi and Teheran.
This proliferation chain would, almost inevitably, extend further into the Gulf and Middle
East region. Second, a quantum increase in the number of nuclear armed countries in India’s
neighbourhood raises the spectre of nuclear weapons being used in anger, but also the
possibility of nuclear accidents rising exponentially, and the likelihood of these weapons
falling into the hands of non-state actors. Third, the long-standing and close nuclear and
missile transfer relationship between North Korea & Pakistan is well documented. Currently,
both North Korea and Pakistan are currently being subjected to minute scrutiny, but their
past ingenuity suggests that their clandestine relationship could get revived. According to
Chari, this must attract India’s serious concerns. India should pose some counterfactual
questions to the United States, China and Russia: “How could the financial instrumentality be
fashioned to halt North Korea’s nuclear program? If this is considered impractical, why is this policy
being pursued with Pakistan? If North Korea and Pakistan continue with their nuclear programs, how
is it proposed to persuade Tehran to forsake its own nuclear quest” (Chari, 2009: 8-9).
Russian Federation: Many Goals, Little Activity
The relations between the DPRK and the
Russian Federation are less close
compared to the relation China-North
Korea, but there is a clear mutual
understanding about the importance of
containing US influence in the region
and the world. The interests of Russia,
China in the North Korean issue are
relatively recent, having been triggered
by the nuclear crises with North Korea
of 1993 and 2002. Along with China,
Russia is the only country in the Six-
Party Talks (SPT) that maintains
diplomatic relations with all of the other
participants. Russia contributed to
resolving the dispute between the US Treasury and North Korea on the Banco Delta Asia in
2006-2007 (De Ceuster and Melissen, 2008). The Russian Federation is often considered to be
the weakest party within the Six-Party Talks. Initially, Russia was not even supposed to have
a role at all in the Five-Party Talks that the United States had planned to start in 2003; it was
only by North Korean pressure that Russia was invited to join the talks as the sixth party.
This does not mean, however, that Russia did not have any role of importance during the
negotiations, but Russia’s role has been important for only two of the six countries involved:
North Korea; and Russia itself. After Vladimir Putin became the Russian President in 2000
that friendly relations between Russia and North Korea were re-established to some extent,
© 2009 – Dr. D. Criekemans – Negotiations in UNSC on the continuing security provocations by North Korea 24