Sanctions Busting, North Korean-Style

0 comments

Sanctions Busting, North Korean-Style

alt
Surveillance imagery of a suspected illicit fuel transfer (file image courtesy U.S. Treasury)

By The Lowy Interpreter 2018-02-12 16:53:00

[By Justin Hastings]

A recent report from the UN sanctions committee suggests that North Korea has been able to generate an estimated $200 million from illicit dealings in the past year. Coal is being exported to China, Malaysia, Russia, and Vietnam in violation of current sanctions, and weapons (and materials for weapons production) have been sent to Myanmar and Syria over the past half-decade.

Does this mean that sanctions aren’t working?

Not quite. Sanctions, and Chinese enforcement of them, are having an effect, but some of the consequences of tightening sanctions are perhaps unintended. Interviews during the past six months that my research team conducted with northeastern Chinese businesspeople involved with North Korea suggest two things.

First, China seems to have subtly changed its tune on North Korea. Businesses pointed out that Chinese authorities became less sanguine about smuggling into and out of North Korea from the first half of 2017, something that had never (according to them) happened before. The government reassigned many local Chinese officials who had looked the other way at shady dealings along the border, and warned smugglers that the government would no longer distinguish between “bad smuggling” of weapons and drugs, and “good smuggling” of everything else.

As a result, smuggling networks along the border seized up. Chinese businesses moved on to other things, and North Korean black markets along the border began to struggle.

Beginning in the middle of 2017, the Chinese government began to slow trade with North Korea in the name of conducting inspections to enforce sanctions. This led to a diplomatic spat between China and North Korea, and the departure of many North Koreans from China, and vice versa, thus destroying many of the business networks that had developed over years.

China appears to be following a strategy of encouraging all trade with North Korea, both legal and illegal, into routes and forms that can be more easily monitored (and cut off when desired) by the Chinese government, apparently to increase China’s leverage over North Korea.

China does not want North Korea to fall apart, and does not intend for sanctions to have that effect. Much of the disagreement about sanctions enforcement stems from a disconnect between how China views sanctions – as a means to signal its displeasure with North Korea, without pushing it to the brink of collapse – and how the US views sanctions. This means that, aside from continuing humanitarian aid even as it cracks down on trade with North Korea, China may have reason to look the other way at certain North Korean activities, in order to allow the regime to survive.

The ship-to-ship oil transfers detected by the US last autumn are one example of this. China may have (possibly temporarily) cut off smuggling across the land border, but smuggling at sea that doesn’t use Chinese facilities, or take place in Chinese territory, is less of a concern.

Yet enforcing sanctions will become more problematic. Two inevitable problems have arisen during the past two years, as UN sanctions have moved from attempting to stop the trade of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology to banning trade in mundane items, such as seafood, textiles, and coal.

First, the mundane items now sanctioned would attract suspicion from investigators only because they come from North Korea. If their origin is concealed, they are more difficult to detect than other items, including those on a list of dual-use goods subject to export controls. In what way does North Korean seafood differ from north-eastern Chinese seafood? Even before the UN banned North Korea exports, much of the seafood being sold in north-eastern China originated in North Korea but was marketed as Chinese.

Second, the sanctions are now not only affecting the main state companies but also the livelihoods of private and hybrid businesses in North Korea. Non-state or public/private businesses (albeit ones that have often made some accommodation with North Korean state officials) are more likely to be involved in mundane trade than weapons-related trade, and it is these firms that were often smuggling goods to and from China.

Private and hybrid firms also have fewer resources to get around sanctions. The sanctions-busting activities (apparently) discussed in the UN report – ship-to-ship transfers in international waters, falsified shipping and origin documents, foreign brokers, and the like – are transactions that would largely be carried out, with a sufficiently complex set of front companies, by North Korean state trading firms with the resources and prerogatives of the state behind them. North Korea’s private and hybrid businesses are not capable of these activities.

The result is that tightening sanctions are not only more painful for the average person in North Korea but also harder to enforce against entities with the resources to obfuscate the origins and routes of their goods; namely, state trading firms.

North Korea’s sudden entry into the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics, and the historic handshake between Kim Jong-un’s sister, Kim Yo-jong, and South Korean President Moon Jae-in, do not change the fundamental calculus for North Korea. Kim Jong-un needs hard currency to build his nuclear weapons and pay off his elite supporters, or at least to provide those supporters with business opportunities to make their own money.

The illicit transactions that continue even under sanctions serve both functions for Kim Jong-un, and he has no choice but to continue to try and bust the sanctions.

Justin Hastings is a Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Comparative Politics in the Department of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney, where he is also affiliated with the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre, the China Studies Centre, and Centre of International Security Studies.

This article appears courtesy of the Lowy Interpreter and may be found in its original form here

Leave a Reply

SSCP   CAS-002   9L0-066   350-050   642-999   220-801   74-678   642-732   400-051   ICGB   c2010-652   70-413   101-400   220-902   350-080   210-260   70-246   1Z0-144   3002   AWS-SYSOPS   70-347   PEGACPBA71V1   220-901   70-534   LX0-104   070-461   HP0-S42   1Z0-061   000-105   70-486   70-177   N10-006   500-260   640-692   70-980   CISM   VCP550   70-532   200-101   000-080   PR000041   2V0-621   70-411   352-001   70-480   70-461   ICBB   000-089   70-410   350-029   1Z0-060   2V0-620   210-065   70-463   70-483   CRISC   MB6-703   1z0-808   220-802   ITILFND   1Z0-804   LX0-103   MB2-704   210-060   101   200-310   640-911   200-120   EX300   300-209   1Z0-803   350-001   400-201   9L0-012   70-488   JN0-102   640-916   70-270   100-101   MB5-705   JK0-022   350-060   300-320   1z0-434   350-018   400-101   350-030   000-106   ADM-201   300-135   300-208   EX200   PMP   NSE4   1Z0-051   c2010-657   C_TFIN52_66   300-115   70-417   9A0-385   70-243   300-075   70-487   NS0-157   MB2-707   70-533   CAP   OG0-093   M70-101   300-070   102-400   JN0-360   SY0-401   000-017   300-206   CCA-500   70-412   2V0-621D   70-178   810-403   70-462   OG0-091   1V0-601   200-355   000-104   700-501   70-346   CISSP   300-101   1Y0-201   200-125  , 200-125  , 100-105  , 100-105  , CISM   NS0-157   350-018  , NS0-157   ICBB  , N10-006 test  , 350-050   70-534   70-178   220-802   102-400   000-106   70-411  , 400-101   100-101  , NS0-157   1Z0-803   200-125  , 210-060   400-201   350-050   C_TFIN52_66  , JN0-102  , 200-355   JN0-360   70-411   350-018  , 70-412   350-030   640-916   000-105   100-105  , 70-270  , 70-462   300-070  , 300-070   642-999   101-400   PR000041   200-101  , 350-030   300-070  , 70-270  , 400-051   200-120   70-178   9L0-012   70-487   LX0-103   100-105  ,