Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Japan: Aso thinks Russia, China may abstain on U.N. resolution on N. Korea
Kyodo News ^ | 07/09/06

Posted on 07/09/2006 4:01:35 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster

Aso thinks Russia, China may abstain on U.N. resolution on N. Korea

TOKYO, July 9 KYODO

Foreign Minister Taro Aso expressed the view Sunday that Russia and China may abstain from a U.N. Security Council vote on a resolution calling for sanctions against North Korea over its missile launches, rather than exercising their veto powers.

Russia, which along with China is sympathetic to North Korea, could be leaning toward abstaining given its role as host of the July 15-17 Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, Aso said during a TV Asahi program.

''It is normal (for Russia) to think of avoiding a situation in which (the rest of the summit members) support Japan and the summit chair is isolated. There is a possibility of abstention,'' he said.

Russia is hosting a G-8 summit for the first time and is keen on making the summit a success.

On the premise that Russia will move toward Japan's resolution in the form of an abstention, Aso said, ''We hope (China) will abstain. Based on common sense, it is unthinkable for China to be alone and exercising its veto power.''

The draft resolution was proposed Friday jointly to the council by Japan, the United States, Britain and France -- all members of the G-8. The remaining G-8 members are Canada, Germany and Italy plus Russia.

The council is expected to hold a vote on the resolution Monday.

China and Russia, two of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the council, failed in their attempt to get the council to adopt a nonbinding presidential statement instead.

China -- considered to have the most influence on North Korea as a traditional political ally of Pyongyang and a major benefactor to the impoverished nation -- in particular holds the key to the resolution's outcome, and the possibility is seen high that Beijing will veto the resolution.

North Korea on Wednesday test-fired seven missiles, in defiance of international calls not to do so, prompting Japan and the United States to denounce the launches as ''provocative,'' urge Pyongyang to stop any further launches and call for international unity in passing the U.N. resolution.

At issue is whether China and Russia would go as far as vetoing the proposed resolution or simply abstaining from it. Japan has been making efforts for the past few days to persuade these two nations not to block the resolution and to get the solid support of the nine other nonpermanent members of the 15-member Security Council.

The Security Council consists of five permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- and 10 nonpermanent members, including Japan, serving on a two-year rotating basis.

The Japanese government had eyed putting the resolution to a vote as early as Saturday but decided to put it off until Monday in deference to Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei, who is scheduled to visit North Korea from Monday in a bid to find a breakthrough in the current crisis.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abstain; china; japan; nkorea; northkorea; resolution; russia; sanction; securitycouncil; un; veto; vote
I do not mind Chinese vetoing the resolution. That will show China what it ultimately is, the enabler of N. Korea, even if China in fact has no love for N. Korea. It will show that China views N. Korea more as its leverage against U.S. than as a cancer growing on its butt.

Then there will be expanded sanctions on Chinese banking institutions as well as N. Korean overseas accounts. S. Korea may be also hit by this expanded financial sanction, unless it ceases all economic ties with N. Korea.

To get rid of Kim Jong-il regime, first its protective layer, made up of Chinese regime and S. Korean pinko goverment, should be stripped. We will hear stepped-up howling and screaming from various entities aiding and abetting N. Korean regime in the days ahead, with or witout passage of this security council resolution. I think we are going into the end game soon.

1 posted on 07/09/2006 4:01:40 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster; AmericanInTokyo; OahuBreeze; yonif; risk; Steel Wolf; nuconvert; MizSterious; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 07/09/2006 4:02:56 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

"Then there will be expanded sanctions on Chinese banking institutions as well as N. Korean overseas accounts. S. Korea may be also hit by this expanded financial sanction, unless it ceases all economic ties with N. Korea."

Yeah, well, pass me that soju when you're done with it, you must have the good stuff.

The U.S. will never have the balls to sanction China again. If we didn't do shit when they shot down our plane, we sure won't do anything over them propping up a tinpot like Kim.


3 posted on 07/09/2006 4:14:02 AM PDT by LibertarianInExile ('Is' and 'amnesty' both have clear, plain meanings. Are Billy Jeff, Pence, McQueeg & Bush related?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
Re #3

I don't know. Time passes and things change. Financial institutions are weak spots of China, too, not just N. Korea. BDA of Macau was slapped with sanctions by U.S., whether China liked it or not at the time. U.S. can certainly target more Chinese banks.

Recently, some CFR types are advocating preemptive strikes to N. Korea, who are not Clintonoids. You would not imagine such a talk a few years ago. They are spouting only global free trade happy talk, and their theme has always been talk, negotiation, and appeasement.

4 posted on 07/09/2006 4:40:34 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
Foreign Minister Taro Aso expressed the view Sunday that Russia and China may abstain from a U.N. Security Council vote on a resolution calling for sanctions against North Korea over its missile launches, rather than exercising their veto powers.

Apparently the only think the U.N. is good for is that it allows one to properly identify some of their enemies. One Dummy. Two Ventriloquist. So far.

5 posted on 07/09/2006 4:42:35 AM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
Re #5

I agree. U.N. is a great place to run a enemy-test and find out who the adversaries are. It is d*mn expensive to maintain, though.

6 posted on 07/09/2006 4:47:14 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

China should know we have an old American saying: Curb your dog.


7 posted on 07/09/2006 5:20:32 AM PDT by Graymatter ("Put only Americans on guard tonight." -- George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
"Recently, some CFR types are advocating preemptive strikes to N. Korea, who are not Clintonoids"

A few, although the Krintinoids were obnoxiously omnipresent last week -- Madame Nothalfbright schtupping for her alleged ministerial services. She likes clinking champagne glasses with Chia Head -- that's her idea of diplomacy.

But obviously some CFR types know Chia Head is capable of screwing up SEA, which to a great degree equals their clientele.

Potentially they wonder how is it that the PLA cannot be convinced that they can still have a NK Sockpuppet to their liking, just not this Sockpuppet...

8 posted on 07/09/2006 6:15:15 AM PDT by StAnDeliver ("Look, I'm already bitter and twisted enough today as it is, don't you start now!" -- Canard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
S. Korea may be also hit by this expanded financial sanction,

Good. The Taiwan question has this element of it, too. Taiwanese limpwristers are not nearly as bad as their SoKo counterparts, but there is a large group in Taiwan that would give in to China the same way that the SK appeasers want to give in to Kimmy.

What amazes me is how Americans (esp Freepers) go nutz about WalMart, and then buy Hyundais, Samsung TVs and LG phones from a marginal "ally" like South Korea. Why not by French, too!?

9 posted on 07/09/2006 7:01:28 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

When did they shoot down our plane? Do you mean where their pilot name Wong Wei(Ironic eh opps wrong way!) slammed into our ep3? They would suffer retaliation if they shot down a US plane.


10 posted on 07/09/2006 8:41:38 AM PDT by MARKUSPRIME
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All
We'll find out tomorrow when it's put to a vote.

My guess is that Russia will abstain, and if China fails in this last ditch diplomatic attempt theyve engaged in right now, they've probably given a backdoor assurance to abstain and not veto if NK doesn't offer some type of gesture before the vote.

11 posted on 07/09/2006 8:46:57 AM PDT by maquiladora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

in Chins's view it's all about choosing the lesser of the two evils


12 posted on 07/09/2006 8:52:26 AM PDT by mfnorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

The only thing that Russia and China get from backing North Korea is the pleasure of watching NK be a pain to the United States.

They certainly don't have any mutually beneficial economic relationship with NK. They don't need the ports.

In the end (when the "end" will be I don't know) it's all going to come down to a business decision: Do China and Russia benefit more from propping up a White Elephant like North Korea or do they pal up more (in an economic sense) to the West where everything they want and need is available?

It's a tide they know they cannot, nor particularly want to, turn back.


13 posted on 07/09/2006 9:01:17 AM PDT by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
You are right about never placing sanctions on China. I wanted to punish the hell out of China for Tienanmen Square.

But now frankly we have partnered with the devil to such an extent that sanctions against them would be sanctions against ourselves.
14 posted on 07/09/2006 9:12:02 AM PDT by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster; callmejoe; Donna Lee Nardo; Velveeta; Calpernia; DAVEY CROCKETT; LucyT; ...

Ping to good info, thanks to Tiger.


15 posted on 07/09/2006 2:07:27 PM PDT by nw_arizona_granny (God gives us one day of life at a time..Is he proud of his gift to you this day?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME
Did not mention a plane. If you are referring to being at war with Russia and China, we have been at war with Russia ever since the end of WWII. The war against Russia was called the Cold War or WW III. Both sides suffered significant casualties (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.). When the Berlin wall came down, Russia was forced to give up its empire (Soviet Union). That was technically the end of WWIII. Russia however is still there with its nukes and appears to be on the verge of expanding its empire once again. One could also say that we have been at war with China since they invaded North Korea and we engaged them directly. Since then, China has been expanding its empire (Tibet). The problem with North Korea is that it could illustrate a 'working collaboration' between the Russians and Chinese. If you add Islam into the mix, we may be facing our greatest challenge ever. The main Islamic world could be destroyed in 30 minutes. Russia and China however can significantly retaliate after and during a First Strike.
16 posted on 07/09/2006 6:09:11 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Going on record with this makes me wonder whether Japan hasn't communicated by back channels a threat to rescind Article 9, and possibly even declare itself as a nuclear weapons state, if they don't let the resolution pass. (The comment from the Defense Minster a while back about a decision for nuclear weapons on Monday sufficing for acquisition by Friday suggests that such a threat would not be vacuous.)


17 posted on 07/09/2006 8:11:00 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
Re #17

Yes, it is entirely possible. The last thing China wants is nuclear Japan unshackled from Article 9.

18 posted on 07/09/2006 8:57:04 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson