2153 Hot Trends

Jumat, 08 Maret 2013

UN slaps sanctions on North Korea, Kim visits frontline - Reuters

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un (C) speaks with senior military officials at an undisclosed location, in this still image taken from video shown by North Korea's state-run television KRT on March 8, 2013. REUTERS/KRT via Reuters TV

By Louis Charbonneau and Jack Kim

UNITED NATIONS/SEOUL | Thu Mar 7, 2013 9:22pm EST

(Reuters) - The United Nations imposed new sanctions on North Korea aimed at curtailing its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and China, the isolated regime's only major ally, said it wanted the measures fully implemented.

The sanctions were approved just hours after North Korea threatened the United States with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, a largely empty warning since experts believe Pyongyang does not have the capability to hit the U.S. mainland.

With tensions high on the Korean peninsula, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un visited military units on the frontline of any potential clash with South Korea and the United States, which has 26,000 troops stationed in the South.

The new U.N. Security Council measures announced on Thursday tighten financial restrictions on North Korea and crack down on its attempts to ship and receive banned cargo.

They were agreed after three weeks of negotiations between the United States and China, which has a history of resisting tough penalties against its impoverished neighbor.

"When North Korea tries to move money to pay for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, countries must now block those transfers even if the money is being carried in suitcases full of bulk cash," said the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice.

China's U.N. ambassador, Li Baodong, said Beijing wanted "full implementation" of the new resolution.

The success of the new measures, council diplomats said, would depend to a large extent on the willingness of China to enforce them more strictly than it has in the past.

If carried out to the letter that would see China inspecting shipments from major ports such as Dalian, which could be a big blow to Kim, who appears to have risked distancing himself from his sole major ally and trading partner.

In a statement released late on Thursday, China's Foreign Ministry called the sanctions a "necessary and moderate response" to North Korea's February 12 nuclear test.

The U.N. resolution also specifies some luxury items North Korea's elite is not allowed to import but its main aims are to stop financial institutions dealing with North Korea and to staunch the flow of cash flowing into the country into what defectors have dubbed the "royal court" fund, used to finance the Kim family's opulent lifestyle and its nuclear ambitions.

"These sanctions will bite and bite hard," said Rice.

The sanctions were designed to make the punitive measures more like those used against Iran, which Western officials say have been surprisingly successful.

George Lopez, a professor at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana and a former member of the U.N. panel that monitors North Korea sanctions compliance, said the new measures should have a real impact on North Korea's movement of money and constrain access to equipment for its nuclear and missile programs.

"Now, we may yet see another launch or a bomb test, but over the medium term this resolution will degrade DPRK capabilities to grow its program," Lopez said, using the acronym for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

THREATS AND WAR GAMES

Washington said North Korea's nuclear threats would only lead to Pyongyang's further international isolation and declared the United States was "fully capable" of defending itself.

President Barack Obama's administration also said it had reassured South Korea and Japan "at the highest levels" of its commitment to deterrence, through the U.S. nuclear umbrella and missile defense, in the face of the new threats.

North Korea has accused the United States of using military drills in South Korea as a launch pad for a nuclear war and has again scrapped the armistice with Washington that ended hostilities in the 1950-53 Korean War.

Its soaring anti-American rhetoric is seen by experts as a ploy to be taken as a serious threat and to force Washington back to the negotiating table.

"This might have been a workable strategy in the past, but there will be little appetite to negotiate until North Korea shows it is committed to real change," said Matt Stumpf, Washington director of the Asia Society.

A more likely option for Pyongyang than a full-scale conflict is to stage a series of clashes along a disputed frontier with the South, a sea border known as the Northern Limit Line, which has been the scene of previous clashes.

In 2010, the North was widely believed to have sunk a South Korean naval vessel killing 46 sailors, something Pyongyang has denied. In the same year it shelled a South Korean island in the disputed area, killing civilians.

Kim Jong-un visited two military units on islands near the line on Thursday, according to state news agency KCNA, on what it termed "the biggest hotspot" in the waters of the Korean peninsula and where he urged the units to "make the first gunfire" in response to any attack on its territory.

North Korea was conducting a series of military drills and getting ready for state-wide war practice of an unusual scale, South Korea's defense ministry said earlier.

(Additional reporting by Michelle Nichols at the United Nations, Paul Eckert and Anna Yukhananov in Washington and David Chance in Seoul; Editing by Christopher Wilson and Dean Yates)

North Korea steps up rhetoric: How far will it push? - Christian Science Monitor

While North Korea does not have the capability to launch a nuclear strike against the US, analysts say they are paying attention to these new threats.

By Steven Boroweic, Correspondent / March 8, 2013

South Korean armored vehicles move during an exercise near the demilitarized zone of Panmunjom in Jeokseong, South Korea, Friday. North Korea grabbed international headlines yesterday by threatening to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against both South Korea and the United States.

Ahn Young-joon/AP

Enlarge

The war of words between North and South Korea, brought on by United Nations sanctions meant to punish Pyongyang for its latest nuclear test, reached a new height on Friday, with Seoul officials responding to North Korean threats with harsh words of their own.

Skip to next paragraph

' + google_ads[0].line2 + '
' + google_ads[0].line3 + '

'; } else if (google_ads.length > 1) { ad_unit += ''; } } document.getElementById("ad_unit").innerHTML += ad_unit; google_adnum += google_ads.length; return; } var google_adnum = 0; google_ad_client = "pub-6743622525202572"; google_ad_output = 'js'; google_max_num_ads = '1'; google_feedback = "on"; google_ad_type = "text"; google_adtest = "on"; google_image_size = '230x105'; google_skip = '0'; // -->

"If North Korea attacks South Korea with a nuclear weapon, Kim Jong-un's regime will perish from the earth," said a South Korean Defense Ministry spokesperson today.

North Korea then stepped up its typically fiery rhetoric even further, saying it will soon nullify all non-aggression pacts with South Korea and cut off some of the few lines of contact the two countries still have, causing international observers to ask just how far it will go.

Still, all this bluster may just be North Korea's attempt at being seriously acknowledged as a nuclear-armed, independent country.

"These threats are North Korea's way of expressing their discontent," says Dong Yong-seung, a North Korea specialist at the Samsung Economic Research Institute in Seoul. "They're also sending a warning message to [South Korea's newly elected] President Park. North Korea wants other countries to acknowledge them as a nuclear power and to start negotiations based on the fact."

North Korea grabbed international headlines yesterday by threatening to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against both South Korea and the United States. Shortly before the Security Council meeting where the sanctions were to be voted on, North Korea's Foreign Ministry called the measures an "act of war" and threatened to turn Seoul and Washington into "seas of fire."

Bombastic threats by North Korea about turning Seoul into a "sea of fire" are nothing new, and neither are threats to pull further away from South Korea, but they are clearer and more specific than typically seen. And while the North does not have the capability to launch a nuclear strike against the US, and few experts believe it would actually get into a nuclear war, analysts say they are paying attention to these new threats.

"I am taking this more seriously [than previous threats]", says Daniel Snieder, a Korea expert at Stanford University. "This is a notch up from anything we have seen before, really explicit threats that go beyond their normal overheated rhetoric."

Severing ties

The most important such agreement that could be nullified is the 1953 Armistice Agreement that ended the combat phase of the Korean War. A peace treaty was never signed and the two countries have remained technically at war ever since. North Korea has also said it will close the "truce village" of Panmunjomon the border between the two Koreas, where the armistice was signed. Panmunjom is home to several buildings meant for negotiation between the two Koreas, outside of which soldiers from both sides stand face to face.

The North announced it was cutting off a military hotline between the two countries. This is not the first time the North has pulled the plug on the hotline, which the American-led UN Command in South Korea maintained with the North through the village. Though not an official diplomatic channel, it is mostly used to communicate the times and locations of military activities in order to prevent unintended clashes like the one that happened in 2010. When North Korea determined that South Korean soldiers had fired into their waters during a military exercise, they returned fire, causing widespread damage on Yeonpyeong Island, and killing four South Koreans.

Shutting down the hotline as the US and South Korea conduct their annual field training exercises, which have contributed to the general uptick in regional tensions, does not bode well, say analysts.

And South Korea reported it detected signs that the North was carrying out its own exercises off the country's east coast earlier this week. Then on Friday, Kim Jong-un reportedly paid a visit to North Korean military units guarding the border with South Korea, raising questions about whether the military exercises on both sides could lead to an actual confrontation.

However, according to at least one analyst, the military exercises could actually make it less likely that North Korea will initiate any conflict, and that this current patch of discord could pass without any direct clash.

"I don't think North Korea will do anything during the US and South Korea's exercises because at that time there are a lot of high-tech weapons and elite forces in the area," says Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korean studies in Seoul.

How people in Seoul see this

While news about the North dominated the day's media coverage in South Korea, on the busy streets of Seoul, most citizens are more concerned with getting through the day than they are with what North Korea might do next.

"I'm don't have much interest in North Korea's crazy behavior," says Lee Byung-ok, a key cutter in central Seoul. "The governments need to deal with that. They should just talk to each other and take care of any problems."

South Koreans work longer hours than citizens of any other OECD country and are generally too caught up in life in a highly competitive society to pay much attention to North Korea. With so many cycles of threats from Pyongyang in the past having already passed without major incident, few feel the need to be too concerned.

Last point of contact

If the threatened nullifications do go ahead, that would leave the Kaesong Industrial complex as the only major point of contact still functioning between the two Koreas.

Kaesong has managed to continue operating despite the recent rounds of sanctions and generally cold relations between Seoul and Pyongyang, though the North appeared to be on the verge of cutting the ties there in 2010.

North Korea more recently threatened to close the economic complex in February, after South Korea sanctioned the North for its April 2012 long-range rocket launch. South Koreans work as technicians and managers at some 100 factories and around 50,000 North Koreans work in the complex, special administrative region, providing inexpensive labor for South Korean companies and earning sorely needed funds for North Korea.

North Korea vows end to nonaggression pacts after UN vote - CNN

Soldiers in the North Korean army train at an undisclosed location on Wednesday, March 6, in a photo from the state-run Korean Central News Agency. North Korea has escalated its bellicose rhetoric, threatening nuclear strikes, just before the U.N. Security Council passed tougher sanctions against the secretive nation on Thursday, March 7.

HIDE CAPTION

Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

NEW: South Korean president vows to respond strongly to any provocation
The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to approve new measures
North Korea responds with a fresh statement of angry threats
Analysts and officials warn that the spike in rhetoric is dangerous

(CNN) -- North Korea on Friday responded to tougher sanctions from the U.N. Security Council with another barrage of vitriol, repeating a vow to ditch all nonaggression pacts with the South.

A day after the isolated regime in Pyongyang had threatened a possible "preemptive nuclear attack" -- something analysts say they think it is unlikely and currently unable to do -- its official news agency reeled off a number of agreements with South Korea that it said would no longer apply.

It's the latest installment in a week of furious rhetoric from the North, fueled by its anger over the U.N. vote on the new sanctions, a response to the Pyongyang's recent nuclear test, and joint military drills by the United States and South Korea, which take place in the region each year.

North Korea watchers and U.S. officials say that the recent frenzy of ominous language from North Korea under its young leader Kim Jong Un makes the situation on the Korean Peninsula more worrying and unpredictable.

South Korea has warned the North that it will retaliate strongly and sternly if its citizens are threatened.

"This surge in provocative rhetoric is particularly dangerous," said Michael Auslin of the American Enterprise Institute. "South Korea's new president (Park Geun Hye) can't be seen to back down in the face of the North's threats, while Kim Jong Un may feel that his successful missile and nuclear tests give him the ability to keep pressuring Seoul. The two may wind up talking themselves into conflict."

South Korean President Park Geun-hye, who took office late last month, said Friday that Seoul would respond strongly to any provocation from Pyongyang, the semiofficial news agency Yonhap reported.

The possibility of flare up was highlighted by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, which predicted provocative move from the North "in the coming weeks."

The center said that according to its research, Pyongyang has carried out "a military provocation of some form within weeks of every South Korean presidential inauguration dating back to 1992."

A military clash could risk drawing in the United States, which has about 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea as part of the security alliance between the two countries.

The most recent skirmish between the two Koreas took place in November 2010, when the North shelled an island on the South's side of the border, killing several people. Pyongyang claimed Seoul had provoked it by carrying out training exercises off their shared coast.

A week of strong threats

The North's comments Friday doubled down on statements it had made earlier this week, promising to abolish the armistice agreement that stopped the Korean War in 1953, and threatening strikes on the United States and South Korea.

Claiming its enemies are "hell bent on confrontation and war fever," Pyongyang said it was now revoking "all agreements on nonaggression reached between the north and the south," a declaration it has made in previous years

It also said it was nullifying the joint declaration on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The North, which conducted its third underground nuclear test last month, had said recently that denuclearization of the region was "impossible" because of what it described as the United States' hostile policy toward it.

And it stated that it was immediately cutting off the "north-south hotline," three days after it had already said it planned to terminate its military telephone line with the United States.

The phone line is meant to serve as a tool to defuse potential flash points along the heavily militarized border between the two Koreas.

But Andre Kok, deputy public affairs officer for U.S. Forces in Korea, said that reports of the North's Korean People's Army (KPA) cutting off communication often arise when military training exercises are taking place, as they are at the moment.

"When we place a call on the direct phone line and the KPA does not answer, we have no way of knowing if the KPA has actually disconnected the phone lines or are just not answering the phone," he said.

New U.N. measures

Tensions are particularly high at the moment because of the new measures against the North adopted unanimously Thursday by the U.N. Security Council.

"These sanctions will bite, and bite hard," U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said after the vote.

China, North Korea's key ally, could have used its veto power to block the sanctions. Instead, after weeks of negotiating, it signed on to the final draft.

"China is a country of principle," China's U.N. Ambassador Li Baodong said. "We are firmly committed to safeguarding peace and stability on the Korean peninsula."

The goal of the new sanctions is to stymie the activities of North Korean banks and cash couriers who might be funneling money to the secretive regime's nuclear and missile programs.

It will be tougher for the regime to move large sums of cash stuffed into suitcases, Rice said.

The U.N. resolution also outlines measures to step up scrutiny of suspicious sea shipments and air cargo. And it expands restrictions to encompass several institutions and senior officials in the North's weapons industry, as well as a range of materials and technology known to be used in uranium enrichment.

It also blocks the sale of luxury goods -- such as yachts and certain high-end jewelry -- to North Korea.

"As a result, North Korea's ruling elite, who have been living large while impoverishing their people, will pay a price" for the ongoing nuclear activities, Rice said.

Questions over sanctions' effectiveness

Some doubt whether the new measures will make much difference.

Sanctions imposed after previous nuclear tests and rocket launches have failed to deter Pyongyang.

China will go a long way toward determining whether the new sanctions really do have "bite," analysts say.

"As long as China allows North Korea to operate, as long as China provides food, energy assistance, and investment, the sanctions really don't matter," said Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute.

North Korea notoriously allows many of its people to live in malnutrition and starvation. Still, the country needs a functioning economy, partly to finance its military, Bandow explained.

CNN's Josh Levs, Tim Schwarz, Elise Labott and Richard Roth contributed to this report.

Comments »

Print
Email
More sharing

New Sanctions on North Korea Pass in Unified UN Vote - New York Times

By RICK GLADSTONE and DAVID E. SANGER

Published: March 7, 2013

Ignoring threats of retaliation, the United Nations Security Council ordered new economic sanctions against North Korea on Thursday for its third nuclear test last month, unanimously approving a resolution that the United States negotiated with China, the North's greatest protector.

In an angry response, North Korea said Friday that it was nullifying all agreements of nonaggression and denuclearization with South Korea and was cutting off the North-South hot line. But beyond those steps, it was unclear how, if at all, North Korea's young and untested leader, Kim Jong-un, would react to the rebuke. His government has threatened to terminate the 60-year-old armistice that brought a halt to the Korean War and that has kept a cold peace on the peninsula since, and South Korean officials said they were on the alert for any possible attack by the North.

Any military action, or response, could end up involving the American forces that have remained in South Korea as it has turned from war-ravaged ruin into one of the most advanced industrialized powerhouses.

The 15-to-0 Security Council vote places potentially painful new constraints on North Korean banking, trade and travel, pressures countries to search suspect North Korean cargo and includes new enforcement language absent from previous measures. But the provisions are in some ways less important than China's participation in writing them, suggesting that the country has lost patience with the neighbor it supported in the Korean War. While China's enforcement of sanctions on North Korea remains to be seen, it may now be more assertive.

"This is not about the words, it is about the music," said Christopher R. Hill, the former American diplomat who negotiated a deal with the North during the George W. Bush administration to dismantle its nuclear facilities — an accord that quickly collapsed. China's co-sponsorship of the resolution "suggests that after many years, the screws are beginning to turn," said Mr. Hill, now the dean of the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver.

The United Nations vote came hours after North Korea, infuriated by the combination of the proposed resolution and annual joint military exercises by South Korea and the United States, threatened for the first time to carry out "a pre-emptive nuclear strike" on its enemies, of which the United States ranks first.

Military experts regarded that threat as bluster: While the North has conducted three underground nuclear tests, it is far from clear it knows how to deploy a nuclear weapon or make one small enough to fit atop a missile. But the threat still prompted the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, to respond that the United States was "fully capable" of defending itself.

Another nuclear test is possible, as is another ballistic missile launching or perhaps an armed provocation aimed at South Korea, where a new president, Park Geun-hye, the daughter of a former South Korean dictator who was known for taking a hard stand with the North, could be forced to respond. Some regarded the North's dire warnings as a signal that some military response was looming.

"The higher decibel of invective is a bit worrisome," said Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico and presidential candidate, who has traveled to North Korea eight times, most recently in January. "It's the highest negative level I've ever seen, and it probably means that the hard-line elements, particularly the military and not the Foreign Ministry, are in control."

On the other hand, Mr. Richardson said, "China is part of a significant sanctions effort, and this may cool the North Koreans down, may temper their response."

It is also possible that the new and isolated North Korean government may have misjudged the reaction to talk of a pre-emptive nuclear attack, wording rarely heard since the cold war ended. It could be another way in which the North is demanding talks with President Obama — only last week Mr. Kim told Dennis Rodman, the visiting former basketball star, that he wanted Mr. Obama to call him. But it could also be a way of saying that North Korea now expected to be treated the way Pakistan is: as an established, if formally unrecognized, nuclear power.

"This is a tactic they have employed when they don't get their way, when the international community brings more sanctions to bear," said Suzanne DiMaggio, vice president of global policy programs at the Asia Society in New York. "Whether that will happen this time is unclear, given the level of hostile rhetoric," she said. "I'm not sure Pyongyang recognizes that fact."

The United Nations vote and North Korea's threat come at a time when, internally, the Obama administration is debating the wisdom of its policy of essentially ignoring the North for the past four years, and responding to any provocations with new sanctions.

According to current and former administration officials, there is a growing discussion within the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon over whether Mr. Kim is using each new test of rockets and nuclear devices to solidify his position with the military, his most important single constituency. "Under that theory," one official who has dealt with North Korea often said recently, "even a firefight with the South Koreans might help him, as long as it doesn't escalate into something that threatens the regime."

In testimony on Thursday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Glyn T. Davies, the administration's special representative for North Korea policy, argued that the best course was to continue with Mr. Obama's current policy of using tests and provocations to tighten sanctions, and try to starve development of the North's long-range missiles and its effort to design nuclear weapons small enough for those missiles.

Mr. Davies insisted that "it is still the goal of U.S. policy to achieve a Korean Peninsula that is free of nuclear weapons."

Rick Gladstone reported from New York, and David E. Sanger from Washington. Choe Sang-hun contributed reporting from Seoul, South Korea.

Kamis, 07 Maret 2013

North Korea vows nuclear strike against US - CBS News

Updated 11:40 a.m. ET

SEOUL, South Korea North Korea on Thursday vowed to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the United States, amplifying its threatening rhetoric hours ahead of a scheduled vote by U.N. diplomats on whether to level new sanctions against Pyongyang for its recent nuclear test.

An unidentified spokesman for Pyongyang's Foreign Ministry said the North will exercise its right for "a preemptive nuclear attack to destroy the strongholds of the aggressors" because Washington is pushing to start a nuclear war against the North.

Although North Korea boasts of nuclear bombs and preemptive strikes, it is not thought to have mastered the ability to produce a warhead small enough to put on a missile capable of reaching the U.S. It is believed to have enough nuclear fuel, however, for several crude nuclear devices.

Such inflammatory rhetoric is common from North Korea, and especially so in recent days. North Korea is angry over the possible sanctions and over upcoming U.S.-South Korean military drills. At a mass rally in Pyongyang on Thursday, tens of thousands of North Koreans protested the U.S.-South Korean war drills and sanctions.

All 15 of the U.N. Security Council's members voted to impose a fourth round of sanctions against Pyongyang in a fresh attempt to rein in its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

Play Video

How long will China back a defiant N. Korea?

Play Video

Panetta: North Korean nuclear test "a serious threat" to U.S.

The resolution was drafted by the United States and China, North Korea's closest ally.

The statement by the North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman was carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency.

It accused the U.S. of leading efforts to slap sanctions on North Korea. The statement said the new sanctions would only advance the timing for North Korea to fulfill previous vows to take "powerful second and third countermeasures" against its enemies. It hasn't elaborated on those measures.

The statement said North Korea "strongly warns the U.N. Security Council not to make another big blunder like the one in the past when it earned the inveterate grudge of the Korean nation by acting as a war servant for the U.S. in 1950."

North Korea demanded the U.N. Security Council immediately dismantle the American-led U.N. Command that's based in Seoul and move to end the state of war that exists on the Korean Peninsula, which continues six decades after fighting stopped because an armistice, not a peace treaty, ended the war.

In anticipation of the resolution's adoption, North Korea earlier in the week threatened to cancel the 1953 cease-fire that ended the Korean War.

North Korean threats have become more common as tensions have escalated following a rocket launch by Pyongyang in December and its third nuclear test on Feb. 12. Both acts defied three Security Council resolutions that bar North Korea from testing or using nuclear or ballistic missile technology and from importing or exporting material for these programs.

U.S. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said the resolution as proposed would impose some of the strongest sanctions ever ordered by the United Nations.

The final version of the draft resolution, released Wednesday, identified three individuals, one corporation and one organization that would be added to the U.N. sanctions list if the measure is approved.

The targets include top officials at a company that is the country's primary arms dealer and main exporter of ballistic missile-related equipment, and a national organization responsible for research and development of missiles and probably nuclear weapons.

The success of a new round of sanctions could depend on enforcement by China, where most of the companies and banks that North Korea is believed to work with are based.

The United States and other nations worry that North Korea's third nuclear test pushed it closer to its goal of gaining nuclear missiles that can reach the U.S. The international community has condemned the regime's nuclear and missile efforts as threats to regional security and a drain on the resources that could go to North Korea's largely destitute people.

The draft resolution condemns the latest nuclear test "in the strongest terms" for violating and flagrantly disregarding council resolutions, bans further ballistic missile launches, nuclear tests "or any other provocation," and demands that North Korea return to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It also condemns all of North Korea's ongoing nuclear activities, including its uranium enrichment.

But the proposed resolution stresses the council's commitment "to a peaceful, diplomatic and political solution" and urged a resumption of six-party talks with the aim of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula "in a peaceful manner."

The proposed resolution would make it significantly harder for North Korea to move around the funds it needs to carry out its illicit programs and strengthen existing sanctions and the inspection of suspect cargo bound to and from the country. It would also ban countries from exporting specific luxury goods to the North, including yachts, luxury automobiles, racing cars, and jewelry with semi-precious and precious stones and precious metals.

According to the draft, all countries would now be required to freeze financial transactions or services that could contribute to North Korea's nuclear or missile programs.

To get around financial sanctions, North Koreans have been carrying around large suitcases filled with cash to move illicit funds. The draft resolution expresses concern that these bulk cash transfers may be used to evade sanctions. It clarifies that the freeze on financial transactions and services that could violate sanctions applies to all cash transfers as well as the cash couriers.

The proposed resolution also bans all countries from providing public financial support for trade deals, such as granting export credits, guarantees or insurance, if the assistance could contribute to the North's nuclear or missile programs.

It includes what a senior diplomat called unprecedented new travel sanctions that would require countries to expel agents working for sanctioned North Korean companies.

The draft also requires states to inspect suspect cargo on their territory and prevent any vessel that refuses an inspection from entering their ports. And a new aviation measure calls on states to deny aircraft permission to take off, land or fly over their territory if illicit cargo is suspected to be aboard.

Q&A: Rand Paul, Drones and Brennan - Wall Street Journal (blog)

Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) staged a filibuster Wednesday to hold up a vote on confirming a new head of the Central Intelligence Agency, as he sought an administration promise to never use unmanned drones to kill Americans who aren't involved in combat.

What's Sen. Paul's main concern?

Mr. Paul is one of several lawmakers who have questioned the administration's use of drones and have pressed the administration on its policy covering targeted killings of American citizens who are terror suspects. Last month, Mr. Paul threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan to be the next Central Intelligence Agency chief until he addresses whether he believes the president is authorized to use lethal force, such as a drone strike, against an American citizen in the U.S.

What is the tie to the Brennan confirmation hearing?

The scope and scale of the U.S.'s drone policy and the administration's secrecy about the matter has emerged as a key issue in the confirmation of Mr. Brennan, who is currently the White House's counterterrorism chief and is considered the lead architect of the administration's drone campaign. In written answers to Senate intelligence committee questions about whether the president could order drone strikes in the U.S., he answered "This Administration has not carried out drone strikes inside the United States and has no intention of doing so."

What happened next?

Sen. Paul wrote letters three letters to Mr. Brennan (here are letters one, two and three as posted on Mr. Paul's website) that included dozens of questions concerning the powers of the executive branch to order the killing of American citizens, as well as related questions about the number of drone strikes and the number of people killed by drones.

He received a response from Mr. Brennan, who said he would defer to Attorney General Eric Holder on questions about the president's powers. He also said that the CIA, which he was nominated to lead, does not have the authority to conduct lethal operations within the U.S.

Mr. Holder, in his letter to Mr. Paul, wrote, that the government "has not carried out drone strikes in the U.S. and has no intention of doing so." He added: "It is possible…to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," citing crisis scenarios like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.

Did these responses satisfy Mr. Paul?

No. Mr. Paul is looking for a clear statement from the administration that the U.S. will not use drones in the U.S. against noncombatants. In a press release Tuesday, he said that Mr. Holder's "refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.

If the administration says it's not going to carry out drone strikes on Americans in the U.S., what's the issue?

The administration says there could be extraordinary circumstances, like 9/11, when the president needs to have that authority. But because the administration isn't ruling it out entirely, Mr. Paul and others are concerned that the administration isn't explicitly ruling out killing of Americans in more common circumstances that fall short of a crisis.

And that's what brought on the filibuster Wednesday?

Right. When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) moved to push the Senate to a final vote on the nomination Wednesday, Sen. Paul began his filibuster. He started shortly before noon, and promised to speak "for as long as I can hold up." Other senators joined the effort, including Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas, both Republicans, and Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, all of whom have concerns about the drone policy. The move is rare: Senate aides say the last time anyone used a so-called talking filibuster was Dec. 10, 2010, when Sen Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, protested a budget deal for 8 1/2 hours.

Republicans, Led by Rand Paul, Finally End Filibuster - New York Times (blog)

1:27 a.m. | Updated WASHINGTON — A small group of Republicans, led by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, stalled the Senate on Wednesday by waging a nearly 13-hour old-school, speak-until-you-can-speak-no-more filibuster over the government's use of lethal drone strikes — forcing the Senate to delay the expected confirmation of John O. Brennan to lead the Central Intelligence Agency.

Mr. Paul, who opposes Mr. Brennan's nomination, followed through on his plan to filibuster the confirmation of President Obama's nominee after receiving a letter this month from Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that refused to rule out the use of drone strikes within the United States in "extraordinary circumstances" like the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

On Wednesday, Mr. Paul did exactly as promised, taking to the Senate floor shortly before noon and holding forth for 12 hours and 52 minutes.

Mr. Paul finally wound down shortly before 1 a.m. on Thursday, surrounded by a group of Republican senators and House members who had joined him on the Senate floor in a show of solidarity.

"I would go for another 12 hours to try to break Strom Thurmond's record, but I've discovered that there are some limits to filibustering and I'm going to have to go take care of one of those in a few minutes here," Mr. Paul said to knowing laughter as he referred to the legendary South Carolina senator known for his 28-hour filibuster. (Mr. Paul could not leave the floor to use the bathroom, making his filibuster at a certain point seem less a standoff between the senator from Kentucky and the administration than a battle between Mr. Paul and his own bladder.)

After almost 13 hours, Mr. Paul offered his final words: "I thank you very much for the forbearance and I yield the floor," he said, to loud applause.

Earlier in the evening, as the filibuster moved into its 11th and 12th hours, the mood grew increasingly punchy, with Mr. Paul's Republican Senate colleagues — who had joined him on the Senate floor periodically throughout the event — making repeat appearances and quoting liberally from pop culture and literature.

Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, at one point seemed to stage a mini-filibuster of the filibuster, reading from Shakespeare ("Henry V") and quoting from "Patton."

Not to be outdone, Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, took to the floor for his second appearance of the filibuster, quoting the rapper Wiz Khalifa, as well as "that modern-day poet by the name of Jay-Z." Mr. Rubio also quoted from "The Godfather" three times — including, he said, a quote that never made it from the script into the movie. ("A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than 100 men with guns can steal.")

"I don't know how that's relevant to this," Mr. Rubio admitted, "but I thought I'd bring it up."

At a certain point, as the hour edged closer to midnight, participating in the filibuster seemed to become the gold standard among Senate Republicans, with a parade of Republican senators — Jeff Flake of Arizona; Ron Johnson of Wisconsin; Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader in the Senate; and Tim Scott of South Carolina — emerging for the first time to show their support for Mr. Paul's cause, not to mention the C-SPAN cameras.

Mr. McConnell even made some news of his own Wednesday night, when he stated on the Senate floor that he planned to oppose Mr. Brennan's nomination.

"At whatever point we get to a cloture vote to extend debate on the nomination of Brennan, it is my view that cloture should not be invoked," Mr. McConnell said. "This is a controversial nominee. Should cloture be invoked, I intend to oppose the nomination and congratulate my colleague from Kentucky for this extraordinary effort."

The filibuster started just before noon on Wednesday, with Mr. Paul ostensibly objecting to Mr. Brennan's nomination. But in fact, Mr. Paul's main concerns were those of the civil liberties and Constitutional rights, which he said are under attack by the administration's potential use of unmanned drone strikes on American citizens on United States soil. (By Mr. Paul's own admission, Mr. Brennan, who as the White House counterterrorism adviser was the chief architect of the largely clandestine drone program, served as a good proxy.)

"What will be the standard for how we kill Americans in America?" Mr. Paul asked at one point. "Could political dissent be part of the standard for drone strikes?"

Referring to Jane Fonda, who went to North Vietnam during the war there to publicly denounce the United States's presence in the country, Mr. Paul added: "Now, while I'm not a great fan of Jane Fonda, I'm really not so interested in putting her on a drone kill list either."

Repeatedly, Mr. Paul explained that his true goal was simply to get a response from the administration saying it would not use drone strikes to take out American citizens on United States soil.

Unlike some historic filibusters, in which senators have read from the phone book or recited the Declaration of Independence to kill time, Mr. Paul kept the focus squarely on drones, using most of his time to discuss questions of actual policy.

Still, as the filibuster dragged on, it began to resemble a Shakespearean drama, complete with cameos from other A-list actors (a group of more than a dozen senators who periodically joined Mr. Paul on the floor); a title all its own (the "filiblizzard," a nickname courtesy of Twitter users); and some willing extras (eager Senate pages, purposefully striding across the stage to deliver Mr. Paul fresh glasses of water.)

Although he never yielded the floor — a move that would have effectively ended his talkathon — Mr. Paul did, with some apparent relief, yield periodically to take questions from his Republican colleagues.

Mr. Cruz, who was a repeat guest at the Rand Paul filibuster show, began his first question by making the obvious allusion, referring to Mr. Paul as a "modern-day 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,' " joking that his effort would "surely be making Jimmy Stewart smile."

And, perhaps befitting of another public — but hopeless — stand, Mr. Cruz also took the opportunity to remind the chamber that Wednesday was the anniversary of the fall of the Alamo, noting with some pride that Mr. Paul "is originally from the great state of Texas."

Senator Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, stopped by earlier in the day to offer some bipartisan support.

He said that while he had voted in favor of Mr. Brennan's nomination on Tuesday at a Senate Intelligence Committee meeting and planned to vote for him again on the Senate floor, he believed that Mr. Paul "has made a number of important points" about the administration's lethal drone program.

"The executive branch should not be allowed to conduct such a serious and far-reaching program by themselves without any scrutiny, because that's not how American democracy works," he said.

Other members who made cameos throughout the day — and night — included the Republican senators John Barrasso of Wyoming; Saxby Chambliss of Georgia; John Cornyn of Texas; Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois; Mike Lee of Utah; Jerry Moran of Kansas; and John Thune of South Dakota.

Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, presided over much of the filibuster, and even engaged Mr. Paul in a late-night debate over the Sept. 11 attacks.

The filibuster, which by its end had become must-watch reality television for much of the inside-the-Beltway crowd, offered its fair share of quirky moments. Mr. Paul, for instance, ate a "dinner" of a mystery candy bar, continuing his speech through mouthfuls of chocolate. And later, Mr. Kirk, who walks with considerable effort after a stroke in 2012, slowly made his way onto the floor with the help of a walker to place a thermos of green tea and an apple next to Mr. Paul's desk.

Mr. Cruz also read from a list of Twitter messages in support of Mr. Paul's filibuster. Though electronic devices are not allowed on the Senate floor, Mr. Cruz informed his friend that Twitter was "blowing up" over the day's events. ("I was getting kind of tired," Mr. Paul said, thanking Mr. Cruz for "cheering me up.")

Finally, just shortly before 1 a.m., Mr. Paul was finally ready to yield the floor. The entire chamber erupted in applause — and Mr. Paul, presumably, headed off to find the nearest bathroom.