North Korean Missile Test, Q3 2015

[South Korea (Farrfin)]

Choi Young-jin, the Republic of Korea's Ambassador to the United Nations, took a sip of water before speaking. He had spent most of the morning on a conference call with Seoul preparing his remarks, and now was the time to test the waters of international opinion concerning the DPRK's latest missile test.

"Fellow delegates, I address you today about a grave matter; that of the recent testing of a submarine-launched ballistic missile by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I believe that this matter requires the full attention of the UN Security Council and, as a responsible member of the international community, the Republic of Korea has chosen to refer the matter to this body."

"You will all, no doubt, have been briefed by your respective national governments as to the events of the last few days. Pyongyang now appears to have conducted a semi-successful test of a submarine-launched ballistic missile which, in theory, is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead up to 4,000km from its launch site. The fact that this missile can be launched from a submarine now means that virtually any nation in Asia and the Americas is capable of being hit by a North Korean SLBM."

"Given the recent dispute over the Spratly Islands, the launch of a ballistic missile by North Korea is highly irresponsible and provocative and has further increased political tensions within the region. The price of oil has risen in response to the North's actions, and there will inevitably be unease in the economies of nations in close proximity to the DPRK - namely South Korea, China and Japan."

"In the past, the DPRK has sought to hide its missile tests behind the veil of a space programme. Setting aside the ludicrousness of a nation which faces crippling food shortages and an imploded economy having a space programme, this time the North has specifically stated that the purpose of this recent action was to test a new missile - a weapon of war. This is in direct violation of previous UN Security Council Resolutions, chiefly UNSCR 1874 in which North Korean ballistic missile tests are expressly forbidden."

"I believe that this Council cannot afford to allow this event to pass without severe consequences for Pyongyang. The consequences of this Council failing to enforce its previous decisions are obvious. President Park has already ordered the closure of the Kaesong Industrial Park, which will see the DPRK lose over $2 billion in taxes and wages each year. Further sanctions are under active consideration, but I would implore the Security Council to act now and stop provocative actions such as missile tests and nuclear tests once and for all."

"I yield the floor to the other delegates for their comments and proposed courses of action."

[Best Korea (Schwerpunkt)]

Pak Kil-yon, dual-hatted as both representative in the United Nations and ambassador to Canada, invoked United Nations Security Council protocol to speak. After all, the matter at hand dealt directly with North Korea. And then he opted to speak.

"For decades this council -- and I use the word loosely, for you lot can find no common ground save your irrational distrust and contempt of my country -- has lorded over the rest of the world with its powers derived from its own will and machinations. For over two decades this community has presumed to tell us what we can and cannot do. You have presumed to deny us our sovereign right to pursue space technology -- and you tell us we cannot do this because you create artificial shortfalls in food supply in effort to starve us because we do not consent to your egregious violations of our sovereignty.

"You sit here and speak of the evil that is North Korea. I ask you this: how many nations has North Korea invaded since Resolution 825, the first hallmark of your international tyranny? Zero. This was in 1993. Now I pose the same question to the permanent representatives here. America has invaded more countries than I'd care to count. Russia has invaded Georgia, to say nothing of the Chechen wars. The United Kingdom has followed America on every international adventure. The French have spear-headed the intense bombing campaign of Libya. None of you, save China, can claim to have acted solely in the defense of your sovereignty. And yet all five of you will sit here, smug in your superiority, and throw stones at North Korea -- a nation that has not gone to war without provocation.

"And now the American puppets lead the charge against Pyongyang. We have launched a missile, yes -- and we did this because, as any aerospace engineer can tell you, missile launches nearer the equator are more likely to achieve escape velocity. At no point in the missile's flight did it pass within a hundred kilometers of Seoul's airspace. And yet, despite our intention to announce that, Seoul made no attempt to hide its hunt of our submarines. A hunt that backfired so spectacularly." The projector hummed to life, displaying a half dozen North Korean submarine crew making crude gestures at distant South Korean warships. "Seoul could not even track the right submarine -- but here they sit, telling us what our intention was, what our goal was, what our desires are. As if they have ever understood us. They have spent too long under the American boot to even remember what it is to be Korean.

"I find it sad that we announced our intent to conduct this missile test and Seoul failed to lodge a protest with our foreign ministry. And yet, once the test is conducted -- once the unreadiness and general incompetence of their military is highlighted for all the world to see -- they are suddenly full of vim and vigor, making declarations and gesticulating wildly. Where was the attempt at diplomatic discourse? Nowhere, naturally. Why bother with diplomacy when you can immediately resort to outright hostility?

"In closing, I formally announce that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, in view of Seoul's breach of contract with regards to the Kaesong Industrial Complex, formally announces that the leases, rents, and salaries due will remain legal obligations of the participants. The corporations that fail to fulfill these obligations will have their rights and properties in North Korea revoked -- and these will then be sold to the highest bidder."

[United States (Fish)]

Pawlenty almost had to admire the Koreans, unlike many of the ‘crazy’ states their audaciousness against their southern neighbours had somehow managed to maintain fairly accurate and will special orders just received from Washington DC he took the podium to relay the American opinion.

“The issues caused by this testing to the foreign aid policy in regards to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are primarily a bilateral affair, South Korea has executed its right to do so as a result of this citing the obvious terms that had been agreed on, in the United States we will be making a decision regarding this in the days to come.

Realistically we must all see that the underlying issues of this conflict are not being addressed by this persistence in the United Nations Security Council and General assembly, nor in the continuation of the almost pointless discussions in summits such as those of the Six Party Talks. Yes North Korea has done wrong, South Korea wants them punished and we understand that, but beyond what it can do itself domestically by promoting more international sanctions you are in a way provoking the North to continue this audacity when we should be encouraging its discontinuation. With every missile test they are getting the reaction of panic and fear around the Western world be it in fuel prices, social media or wherever else. We all know that North Korea would be stupid to do something that was seriously provocative, this is just testing the water to see how far they can get in on our nerves, one real attack and the collective force of the western world would make their present state of poverty look attractive. Therefore I implead the international community to accept the situation that has occurred, denounce it and then leave it alone. This is not going to affect you unless you yourselves make it affect you, through promoting the fear and whatever else. Allow the involved parties to address this and we may, hopefully, gain some sort of a result”

[Best Korea (Schwerpunkt)]

Pak Kil-yon did not opt to speak in light of the American position. Instead, he opted for non-verbal communication. He eyed the South Korean representative, Choi Young-jin, and offered the southerner his best 'Queen to G3; check' grin, the well-honed grin that was the diplomatic equivalent to a slap in the mouth.

And then it was back to straight-laced, passive expression and rigid posture ambassador that he was supposed to be. North Korea wasn't out of the woods yet. Did that expression work with countries? Whatever. The point had been made.

[Georgia (Zodiac)]

Catching the facial expression of the North Korean the Georgian representative wondered what sort of intimidation he was trying "With all due respect Mr. Kil-yon, it's not the missile test it self the worries this council, bar the fact it goes against a UN emposed ban but we'll get to that later. It's the fact that we fear what those wissiles would be used for given North Korean aggressive posture against South Korea. Now you are developing missiles capable of hitting any where in the south, or even Japan. Now I'll ask you directly, Yes or No Is North Korean developing an offensive missile program for use against the South? Yes or no Mr. Kil-yon"

[Best Korea (Schwerpunkt)]

"How quaint," Pak replied. "A government that has a proven history of attacking its own autonomous regions is presuming to make demands of us." The North Korean ambassador gestured at the Russian ambassador. "Why don't we ask Moscow whether or not you've earned that moral high horse you're sitting on?"

[Georgia (Zodiac)]

"well mr.ambassador, you seem quick to hide behind Russia after just critizing them for invading my country. There is no moral high ground here, nor my country, you or Russia now are you going to dodge my question more or answer it?"

[Best Korea (Schwerpunkt)]

Pak smiled insincerely. "You have asked me a loaded question. I am obligated to disregard it. I can only assume you slept through that lecture at law school." Pak deliberately looked away from the Georgian, eyeing the rest of the delegates. "I somehow doubt the rest of you intend to allow some up-jumped fry cook to represent you in this matter. I will entertain questions from the other fourteen delegates -- assuming that their nations don't have a tendency of bombarding civilian cities with artillery because they do not like the notion of autonomous regions with constitutional rights."

[South Korea (Farrfin)]

Choi caught the expression on the North Korean's face, and did his level best to ensure that his own face remained entirely neutral. In his mind, however, he was concerned by the Americans. Had they slept through the entire thing? Did they not realise that a nation that routinely denounced them in its propaganda now had a credible weapon with which it could attack American cities? Of course, the hawks in Washington would be falling over themselves to denounce North Korea and rush to South Korea's aid. But they were no longer in charge.

The bickering between the Georgian and the Korean was a sideshow. The North Korean had already highlighted the hypocrisy of the permanent members, and everyone around the table knew that their nation was to blame for something or other. That was entirely besides the point.

"The fundamental point that the Council must address is simple: the DPRK has violated UNSC Resolution 1874 which was unanimously adopted by this body in 2009. The Council must decide how it chooses to respond, and must understand that the world is watching. Your decision here today will have ramifications that resonate far beyond the Korean Peninsula."

[Russia (Skyenet)]

"Firstly, I feel the need to correct several misconceptions in this chamber.

"First," Churkin started, turning to the North Korean representative, "Russia has never invaded Georgia. Georgia attacked Russian peacekeepers on non-Georgian soil, prompting a... forced disarmament of Georgia under Article 51 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

"Second," he continued, turning to the South Korean representative, "North Korea has, in this case violated Resolution 1718, not 1874. The former deals with ballistic missile tests, the latter largely with financial and trade sanctions as a response to a DPRK nuclear weapon test.

"However, the issue still stands. Russia recognizes the DPRK's right under the Outer Space Treaty to maintain a peaceful space program for the betterment of its people. The issue is not that we are trying to deprive your nation of that right, but that this body is convinced, including Russia, that while these tests may partially be related to a space program, their primary purpose are advancing your ballistic missile technology.

"On the other hand, we do recognize that the DPRK took effort in said test taking part away from the RoK, a step in the right direction at the very least. It shows, in the opinion of Moscow, that the DPRK is willing to work with the international community to resolve the issues surrounding this.

"Lastly, Russia supports the American position. In light of the circumstances, we do not support extended sanctions against the DPRK, but instead urge the parties to return to the negotiating table."

[South Korea (Farrfin)]

"I think," Choi said, "It would be worth reminding the Council exactly what 1874 says. The Russian point is a valid one, but 1874 itself also explicitly forbids further nuclear and ballistic missile tests at point 2 which states as follows: Demands that the DPRK not conduct any further nuclear test or any launch using ballistic missile technology. It goes on to call for the DPRK to honour its previous commitments to hold a moratorium on missile tests and return to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

"Let's face facts. This was a test of a ballistic missile in violation of international law. You do not launch civilian space rockets from attack submarines. The trajectory of the missile is wholly irrelevant, and makes the matter no less serious. It is still a violation of the law, irrespective of which way the missile was pointing when it was launched. I must strongly disagree with you, Mr. Churkin, when you say that this is a step in the right direction."

"Now, the Republic of Korea is more than willing to talk about the issues. President Park herself has said that the door to dialogue is never closed, but based on previous evidence I believe that it is futile to simply agree to negotiations with no consequences if the North does not approach them in good faith. The DPRK has a tendency to demand concessions, attend the meeting and then walk away from the negotiating table without making any concessions of their own."

"The international community must see that allowing such an approach to continue will not lead to the resolution of the issues at hand. That is why the President of the Republic of Korea has suspended operations at Kaesong; there has to be consequences for a violation of international law, otherwise the resolutions of the UN Security Council aren't worth the paper they are written on. States will feel that they will be allowed to violate international law and ignore the UN Security Council because, when it comes to the crunch, the Council will not enforce its own decisions."

"I would like to put a suggestion to the Council which may be helpful. A new round of negotiations will be set up to discuss the DPRK's missile and nuclear programmes with the aim of resolving them. No party will put any preconditions into place or make any demands; they will simply arrive to discuss the issues. If no deal can be reached, and here's where the notion of consequences comes into play, then the matter will be referred back to the UN Security Council who will then have the opportunity to put into place further sanctions if negotiation fails."

"Such an approach gives the North Koreans the chance to have the matter resolved through negotiation, with the understanding that consequences will follow if they do not arrive with the intention of negotiating in good faith."

[Georgia (Zodiac)]

The Georgian representative was annoyed enough being blamed by a country that starved it's own people to keep it's army going, and the missile program they were discussing. He knew this wasn't going to get any where, the North Korean representative was disengaging from the discussion and just talking about what he wanted to. He continued writing notes as the discussioon was on going, he also wrote something down and passed it to the South korean and American representatives without making an movements suggesting he was doing such. The note simply read "The north Korean doesn't seem interested in these talks at all, rather it seems he is trying just to tell us the same thing his own state run news agency could tell us. Perhaps if food aid to the North was suspended, he would be more willing to talk"

[Best Korea (Schwerpunkt)]

If Pak was at all disturbed by the Russian 'correction,' he didn't show it. Besides, his new orders said he shouldn't poke the bear with a stick. So he didn't poke the bear with a stick. He merely made a conciliatory nod at the 'correction,' knowing full well that Churkin was full of it.

But he did not remain silent on the South Korean matter.

"You wish to face facts?" He asked. "Fine, let us face facts. When we planned to conduct this missile test, we published the relevant information in our news outlets. Such information is readily available to the southern puppet regime, and by extension America. And yet our Foreign Ministry fielded no complaints. The Americans said nothing. The Chinese said nothing. The Russians said nothing. Your government's only response was saber rattling in your media.

"Meanwhile, your government postures and sputters, declaring that you will trail our vessels. Had we not opted to mock your military's incompetence, and had we allowed you to follow the submarine in question, you likely would've found yourself passing through Chinese territorial waters with several heavily-armed warships. I can only imagine how you would explain that to Beijing, ambassador. Perhaps you would prattle on about trade and act like you didn't just violate China's sovereignty. But we did not force you to commit what would have amounted to act of war against another sovereign state and so we will let this matter rest.

"Immediately after the missile launch -- which showed a marked improvement in satellite carrier technology for us -- you unilaterally closed the DMZ, slapping your own corporate masters in the face so you could spit in our eye. We have, of course, taken steps to replace you -- to mitigate your attempts to harm us. As if such a minor thing could destabilize our regime. And now, seeing that your temper tantrum was futile and did no more than irritate us, you stand before this Council and rant about the evils of North Korea.

"But then the political winds turned against you. The Russians recognized our attempt to avoid provoking Seoul; the Americans recognized that the Six Party system has failed. And now you are scrambling to do something to harm us, to scribble out some half-baked resolution so you can go back home to your corporate masters and say 'look, pa, I did something meaningful today!' And only now, when all your bluster has availed you nothing, do you start speaking of dialogue.

"Allow me to make this perfectly clear, ambassador: the Democratic People's Republic of Korea will not sit at a table with your government. You have shown nothing but poor foresight in this affair. You have shown us that you are hamfisted in the political arena. You are nothing but a poison. We will speak with China. We will speak with Russia. We will even speak with America. But we will not sit down at a 'dialogue' with one such as you -- a government characterized solely by its obsession with attempting to provoke war on the Korean peninsula."

[South Korea (Farrfin)]

Ambassador Choi could have burst out laughing if the matter were not so serious. The North Korean was clever. Very clever and very persuasive. His attempt to pin the blame on South Korea was downright ballsy, and Choi admired his skill in a way. The North Korean had earned his respect, even if they fundamentally disagreed on the issues at hand.

"Ambassador Pak, I think we may be straying slightly from the point. I commend your skill at attempting to transfer the international community's ire to South Korea, but those remarks are irrelevant. The fact remains that the DPRK has violated international law. South Korea has approached the UN Security Council to resolve the matter within the scope of international law. The comments, or lack thereof, from any nation does not excuse your actions. The resolutions laid down by the Security Council remain in force irrespective of whether Beijing or Washington or Moscow make any public comment or not."

"In any event, the South Korean government made its opposition to this violation of the law perfectly clear well before the event, and warned that consequences would follow."

"Our intention is not to harm North Korea. My government remains committed to a peaceful reunification, and cordial relations in the meantime. What concerns me is that your country is letting off missiles - and your media has already admitted that this was a missile test, not a civilian space rocket, when the test was announced earlier this year - when there is no need to do so and when it is specifically banned under international law. Indeed, the Russians, Chinese and Americans effectively made that law."

"And now, once again, you take the same approach to negotiations as you always have. Setting preconditions and refusing to speak to us. You have done exactly as I suggested you would in my previous statement. I have offered you an olive branch, Mr Ambassador. You have thrown it back in my face. Earlier in our discussions here today you have criticised the South for refusing to negotiate and when the offer is made to you, you refuse to do it. Frankly, it is wholly unreasonable to conduct any negotiations without the Republic of Korea being present and taking an active part. There cannot be calm on the Korean Peninsula without both Pyongyang and Seoul being represented. I'm sure that all members of this Council can see that."

[Best Korea (Schwerpunkt)]

The North Korean smiled. "We call it a missile because the difference in terminology is irrelevant. I refer you to the United States' own Mercury program, which involved using a military-grade ballistic missile as a jumping-off point for its space development. We are merely doing that which the United States did decades ago. Surely you will not fault us for following in the footsteps of one of the foremost leaders in space technology. Besides," he continued, "the missile did not have guidance systems and so it was not truly a missile -- or, rather, it does not fit the NATO definition of the word 'missile.' It would more accurately be termed a 'military-developed rocket.' We opted to avoid calling it a rocket because, as you should well know, it bears no similarities to what we in Korea have historically referred to as rockets. I dare assume you are familiar with the hwacha, ambassador. Can such a system truly be classified as the same sort of weapon as the missile we launched? No, of course not. That would be as ridiculous as referring to a bayonet as a spear.

"All that legalese aside, we have no intention of including you in any discussions because, quite simply, you have demonstrated that you have no interest in dialogue. We do something you don't like; you overreact, you close the DMZ, you start railing against us on this council. Meanwhile, we have direct, high-level communication with China, Russia, and America -- all three of whom are apparently far more willing to hear our concerns and work with us to address them than you are.

"The bottom line is this, ambassador. You have lived your entire life hearing of how evil the north is, how terrible and unjust we can be. You walk into every discussion prejudiced against us, ready to lash out at even the slightest wrong. If we agree to sit down at a table with you, the negotiations will invariably dissolve into Seoul throwing a temper tantrum and Pyongyang walking away. You do this, time and time again, because you speak of reunification but you have no interest in it. What you wish for is annexation. Anything that does not subordinate Pyongyang to Seoul is unacceptable to you. The fact that you have failed to even acknowledge that closing Kaesong was an overreaction underscores this. You wish to be the one in charge and when we buck that trend you stonewall everything.

"Pyongyang will speak with foreign parties to address their concerns, hear their desires, and to voice our own issues. And we will make some small progress. A bit here with the Russians, a bit there with the Americans, and a bit more with the Chinese. And we will be satisfied that the latest round of negotiations have done something. And then we will resume discussions several months or a year later, creating further common ground and addressing additional issues.

"This will be a long, drawn-out process. You do not have the patience for it. You do not have the foresight for it. You do not even have the tolerance for it. Until such time as you demonstrate that your government is able to sit down and say words like 'reunification' without immediately assuming that Seoul will be the capital, that we will conform to the capitalist system, and that America will get basing rights north of the Yalu -- until you are able to accept those things as less then guaranteed then we have nothing whatsoever to talk about. We have no interest in speaking with an American puppet that wishes to treat us like 18th century Poland."

[South Korea (Farrfin)]

"Oh, but the terminology is relevant. And once again, the missile was launched from a submarine - even NASA don't use submarines to launch civilian space rockets - into what was, at the time, an area of immense international tension with the Spratly dispute ongoing. That is not the way a responsible nation conducts itself."

"It is clear to me that the DPRK will not accept the logic of the South's position. I also fail to understand where your views of our apparent interpretation of reunification have come from. This has not been discussed in great detail since before Kim Jong-il's death; both Koreas have gained new leaders since that time. I think, sir, your information may be out of date. Your characterisation of South Korea's negotiating style is also wildly inaccurate."

"And to accuse Seoul of being an American puppet is no more accurate than me accusing Pyongyang of being a Chinese puppet. Spare us the dramatics please, Mr. Ambassador. If you wish to negotiate separately with the Chinese, the Russians and the Americans then so be it. I would like to state, for the record, that the offer of direct negotiations remains open to you. Whether you choose to accept this is, of course, up to you."

"Now, to get back onto the matter at hand, I would be grateful for the comments of the other members of the UN Security Council. The matter at the heart of this discussion has not yet been resolved."

[Turkey (Dax)]

Mr. Ercin shifted through a stack of notes and memorandums, trying to locate the one that had informed the Council that the Secretary-General had permitted the North Korean ambassador to take part in the Council's deliberations. Unable to locate it, he frowned, annoyed at the oversight of the Secretary-General (a South Korean, no less!)

Addressing the council, Mr. Ercin specifically did not address the ambassador from Pyongyang, instead directing his comments at the Security Council's members, specifically the P5. "The majority of the discussion taking place regarding the weapon test by the North Korean regime in this council are completely beside the point. The ambassador from Seoul has approached the correct matter that this council should be focusing on: the North Korean regime is in direct, unequivocal violation of a number of resolutions passed by the very members sitting in this chamber, specifically UNSC 1874, as the South Korean representative has rightly pointed out.

"We can discuss the reasons why the international community has come to the conclusion that the Pyongyang regime cannot and should not be trusted with a ballistic missile program, as has been discussed and agreed upon a veritably immeasurable number of times; we can debate with Pyongyang the reasons for the existence of their missile program - or 'space program', as they fancy it - until the cow's come home, as they say; we can discuss the wars, conflict, and transgressions that have occurred by nations here in this chamber, and indeed anywhere in the world; but all of these subjects are patently irrelevant to the matter at hand.

"When it comes to the matter of states in the international community conducting activities which are in flagrant violation of the resolutions, adjudications, and decisions of the United Nations Security Council, decreed the highest law in the land by the United Nations Charter to which all signatories are bound, the matter of the individual action becomes largely of marginal importance. The matter which is really being deliberated - or rather, should be deliberated - is whether this Security Council intends to stand behind its decisions and preserve its legitimacy and lawful authority. If Pyongyang or any other member of this council wishes to reexamine the matter of North Korea and the various issues that its neighbors and regions have with regards to its weapons programs, then there are avenues for them to do so. However, this matter is one of upholding the Security Council's unified front in defending its authority.

"To this end, I find the positions of Washington and Moscow curious. If the members of this Council, especially the permanent members entrusted in leading the charge towards the United Nations' ideals of peace, security, and common principles of safety and justice for all peoples, do not intend to stand behind this council's legal authority and its decisions reflected in its resolutions, then it may as well dissolve itself. For the resolutions of this council are only as authoritive as its members' willingness to stand behind and enforce them."

[Best Korea (Schwerpunkt)]

"And what would you propose these new round of sanctions do?" Pak asked. "The American puppets have already unilaterally closed Kaesong and the DMZ; such a clause in a resolution would be irrelevant. You could not demand we return to the Six Party Talks because you have no means of enforcing said demand even if America didn't just denounce them. You already barred our military exports and we can import nothing larger than an assault rifle.

"You have already frozen our assets and banned the export of luxury goods. You have already bandied about travel bans. You have created a panel to oversee these sanctions, though said panel is apparently toothless because China has already blocked the publication of its findings. Tell me, Mr. Ambassador. What on earth can the United Nations do to us that it hasn't already done -- or that one of its over-zealous members has not already done?

"I would dare say that Russia and America realize the current path hasn't worked. It will not work. And I would dare say they have realized that dialogue is the only way to even hope to rectify this situation. But if the entire world order will come crashing down because this council doesn't send us a sternly-worded letter... then, by all means, send us your sternly-worded letter. Then you can sit content with the knowledge that you have done something meaningful and productive. After all, is that not the purpose of this council?

"Pyongyang has made its point clear; we are willing to negotiate provided we are not forced to suffer the insults of a Seoul that has thus far failed to learn anything at all about diplomacy. And we shall pursue these negotiations with or without the United Nations' blessings. Let this council draft whatever it damned well pleases."

And, with that, the North Korean ambassador departed the hall, leaving the Security Council to continue to demonstrate its irrelevance. And, oddly enough, he was smiling every step of the way.

[Turkey (Dax)]

Mr. Ercin, seasoned diplomat or not, had to stop himself from openly rolling his eyes at Ambassador Pak's melodramatics. The North Korean's pompous hyperbole, to say nothing of his ostentatious style, merely deflected attention away not only from the important matters, but towards those which were utterly nonconstructive.

Turkey, Ambassador Ercin recognized, was not a directly concerned party to the matter of North Korea's eternal petulance. While bilateral Turkish-Korean relations went back over half a century, Ankara extended recognition to Pyongyang only in 2001; Turkey's interests, such as they existed, were represented in the north via its embassy in Beijing, and value of bilateral trade counted in the single-millions of dollars. Simply put, North Korea ranked just below Vanuatu as far as Turkey's diplomatic and foreign policy priorities. Sure, Turkey opposed North Korea's nuclear weapons program on the basis of nonproliferation, as most countries did, but outside of that regard, North Korea was largely Seoul, Beijing, and Tokyo's problem. Even vis-a-vis proliferation prevention, if the world's nuclear powers - especially the most influential ones - exhibited a more relaxed attitude compared to the last, oh, 80-some-odd years, Turkey was in no position to spearhead those efforts; North Korea's best rockets couldn't threaten Turkey.

However, Turkey was a leading developing country with ever-expanding global influence. And while that influence was minuscule in East Asia compared to, say, the Muslim world, Mr. Ercin understood that Turkey must be prepared to take a position on North Korea, if only to keep precedent for when, say, Egypt decided to develop a WMD-cum-ballistic missile program. Furthermore, as a country elected by the international community to sit on the Security Council, Ankara was expected to contribute and play a constructive role in the best way it knew how. Even if that meant, as it did in this case, criticizing the Security Council's direction with regards to handling Pyongyang's boorish behavior.

"I must extend my gratitude to the gracious North Korean ambassador in absentia for taking his prompt leave. With his departure, we may continue with the real issues at hand. Included in that list, as far as I can see, are two important matters that must critically be addressed.

"Firstly, and most critically, is the acknowledgement of the uncomfortable truth that is the failure of the Security Council's members and the nations in the region to monitor and enforce the various sanctions put in place against Pyongyang, as well as monitor its compliance to various resolutions. How, for example, was a five-decade old North Korean submarine on an announced mission to the East China Sea in order to -- by Pyongyang's prior admission -- test a ballistic missile, able to leave the Yellow Sea?

"Pyongyang openly acknowledged that a submarine would be travelling to the East China Sea in order to conduct a ballistic missile test. Evidently there were two submarines, of course, one which sailed in clear view and range of both Chinese and RoK navies; the second, while ultimately the one which would be firing the missile, turned up just off the territorial waters of the People's Republic of China, in range of the island of Taiwan - which, of course, the missile sailed clear over, uninterrupted - as well as close to territorial waters of Japan. These submarines traveled over 1000kms outside of the territorial waters claimed by North Korea, passing either very close or directly through the waters of several nearby nations, and at the very least in range for interdiction, explicitly and unapologetically for the purpose of violating the resolutions of this body in the most flagrant manner imaginable.

"I hope that my point is becoming clear, ambassadors. Pyongyang openly stated that it would be violating UNSC resolutions in plain sight and with arrogance, flamboyance, and open mockery. Meanwhile, four nations -- one of which a permanent member of the Security Council - and the military forces of other nations stationed in the region, lifted not the slightest finger in an effort to enforce the resolution passed by this council. Not a single intelligence agency, reconnaissance asset, or maritime patrol unit came forth with the knowledge that there were two submarines instead of one. To presume that the sophisticated and advanced technology available to the nations in question wouldn't have spotted a boisterous, gaudy, 1970s-era Soviet submarine would be an insult to the intelligence of all assembled.

"This leads a reasonable analysis to conclude that the resolutions passed by the UNSC are not being enforced by the nations most charged with enforcing their provisions, and in this case by the Council's own members. Indeed, no nation even attempted to enforce the ban, and indeed encouraged the brazen derision by the North Korea regime by sheer passivity. This further begs the question: if that is so, why are we here? Why bother with a ban in the first place? If the UNSC refuses to even condemn the unambiguous insult by Pyongyang with its behavior on the seas and in this chamber; if a permanent member is unwilling to intercept or otherwise prevent its coast from being a staging area for expressly banned ballistic missile tests to which that member itself agreed to; if failure to enforce the rules espoused by this council is commonly accepted as 'following the wrong path with North Korea', then in what conflict or resolution is the Council's decree worth anything?

"Ambassador Pak may well have been correct that there are few other sanctions which the Security Council can subject the North Koreans to. His emphasis on diplomacy and negotiations may please passive, feckless ears - the same ears which perk up excitedly at any bone Pyongyang dangles in front of them in order to divert attention from their indefensible treatment of their citizens, their unabated nuclear program, their perpetual provocations, and their bold mockery of this council. But that is not the crux of the matter, fellow delegates. The Security Council's very relevance is at stake."

[South Korea (Farrfin)]

"Ambassador Ercin raises some extremely important points that the Council must address. If the UN Security Council fails to act now, if it fails to stand by the decisions which it has already made unanimously, then it is essentially irrelevant."

"The only realistic way to hold the North to account is to negotiate with it jointly. If Russia, China and the United States negotiate separately then you merely play into Pyongyang's hands. The North Koreans will play each side off against the other and extract the concessions they wish to extract whilst offering nothing in return. That, fellow delegates, is why they do not wish South Korea to be represented."

"The United States and the Russian Federation in particular must seriously reflect on their stated positions, and whether their national interests are truly served by ignoring this violation of international law. It seems obvious to me that they are not."

"The issue of North Korea's ballistic missile technology and nuclear weapons programme has dragged on for the best part of three decades. In those three decades, the North has never negotiated in good faith and has consistently flouted the law. The death of Kim Jong-il appears to have ushered in no major changes to the North's outlook on the world. You are dealing with the same regime. Ambassador Pak's conduct within this chamber merely confirms my previous analysis."

"If this is ignored, the UN Security Council will be an irrelevance. If you do not act now, in future your words will be meaningless. This body is the court of international opinion and you, the members of the Security Council, are the judges. It would be a gross dereliction of your duties and responsibilities if you fell into the trap that Pyongyang has set and ignore the matter."

"The Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, and many of the non-permanent members, are powerful nations. You have the power and the resources to resolve this problem. You now also have the opportunity to put those resources to good use. I implore each of you to seize it and make the world a safer place."

[United Kingdom (LaVoie)]

''The United Kingdom wholeheartedly supports the views of the Republic of Turkey. If we sit here as a council and allow the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to violate a United Nations Security Council Resolution directly with no form of sanctions then the Security Council has failed with its "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security". The council agreed in 2009 unanimously that any further nuclear or missile tests conducted by the DPRK were a direct threat to world security and so with this incident in mind we must take some form of action. The former British Deputy Ambassador to the UN, Philip Parham said in 2009 "the international community is united in condemning North Korea's proliferation activities." What has changed? The DPRK continues to attempt to arm itself with weapons capable of striking not only South Korea and Japan but also with its newfound ability to deploy such weapons from submarines, perhaps numerous other nations it defines as a threat albeit this being a rather long list of United Nations Members. We call upon the council members to begin discussions over a series of measures to ensure that North Korea cannot continue to violate Security Council Resolutions at will.’’

[Georgia (Zodiac)]

"Due to the fact some one has to play this role, The Republic of Georgia recommends the use of force in the form of a single targeted strike against the production facilities of these offensive weapons. As the British ambassador has pointed out we have seen no changes in the DPRK in over 30 years. It is my view that this means they dont care about the security council and see us as having no firm will or action behind us. Gentlemen we must send a strong message to North Korea that if you violate international law in such an aggressive manner you will pay the price. I'll remind the council I said single targetted attack, meaning a one time military strike, once the target is confirmed destroyed we are done, any further action will once again go through the council"