다음은 조선닷컴 http://www.chosun.com 에 있는 기사임. 유엔 안보리 대북 제재결의 가결 유엔헌장 7장에 의거 외교적.경제적 제재...군사적 제재는 배제 유엔 안보리는 14일(이하 현지시각) 오후 북한의 핵실험 주장과 관련, 북한에 군사적 제재를 제외한 외교적, 경제적 제재를 가하는 것을 골자로 한 대북결의를 만장일치로 채택했다. 유엔 안보리의 대북결의는 지난 1991년 북한의 유엔 가입 이후 지난 7월 16일 미사일 발사 관련 결의에 이어 두번째로 지난 9일 북한이 핵실험을 발표한 뒤 6일만에 전격적으로 이뤄졌다. 안보리는 이날 오전 미국, 영국, 프랑스, 중국, 러시아 등 5개 상임이사국과 의장국인 일본이 참석한 가운데 비공개회의를 열어 막판 이견을 조율한 뒤 오후 전체회의를 열어 만장일치로 결의안을 가결했다. 이날 채택된 결의는 북한에 모든 핵무기와 핵프로그램을 폐기할 것과 탄도미사일 프로그램 중지 및 미사일 발사유예 공약 복귀 등을 요구했으나 북한에 대한 군사적 제재는 제외토록 했다. 결의는 회원국들에게 ▲WMD 및 탄도미사일 프로그램 관련 북한 관리들의 여행을 금지토록 하고 ▲전차.전투기.공격용헬기.미사일 및 미사일 시스템 일체 관련 물품에 대한 북한과의 거래금지를 요구했다. 또 결의는 북한의 불법적인 거래를 막기 위해 북한으로 드나드는 화물을 검색할 수 있도록 했으며 북한의 핵.WMD.탄도미사일 프로그램을 지원하는 자금과 금융자산.경제적 자원들을 동결하고 이들 금융자산을 사용하지 못하도록 금지했다. 이와함께 결의는 북한에 대해 아무런 조건없이 교착상태에 빠져 있는 북핵6자회담에 복귀할 것과 작년 9월 합의한 6자회담 공동성명의 이행을 촉구했다. 결의를 주도한 미국의 존 볼턴 유엔대사는 안보리 연설을 통해 “오늘 우리는 북한과 확산예상자들에게 대량살상무기를 추구할 경우 심각한 대응이 있을것이라는 강력하고 명백한 메시지를 보낸다”고 말했다. 그러나 중국의 왕광야 대사는 중국은 아직도 선박검색에 반대한다면서 회원국들에게 ’도발적 조치’들을 취하지 말것을 촉구했다. 입력 : 2006.10.15 02:59 46' / 수정 : 2006.10.15 03:19 40' -------------------------------------------------------------------- 다음은 뉴욕타임스 http://www.nytimes.com 에 있는 기사임. October 14, 2006 U.N. Security Council Adopts North Korea Resolution By WARREN HOGE UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 14 --­ The U.N. Security Council agreed today on a resolution that would impose sanctions on North Korea for its reported nuclear test. Until this morning questions from China and Russia had cast the timing of the document into doubt. “I think we have some concern about what this resolution might lead to, especially peace and stability in the region,” Wang Guangya, the Chinese ambassador, said before entering a Saturday morning meeting of Japan and the five permanent Council members, Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. He said that China was insisting on terms that were “firm” but also “appropriate,” a reference to Beijing’s worry that punishing steps could produce a backlash from North Korea. He said that Beijing was particularly concerned about the resolution’s authorizing the international inspections of cargo going into and out of North Korea. “Once it comes into operation, it could easily lead, by one side or the other, to a provocation of conflict, which could have serious implications for the region, for the countries,” he said. Both China and Russia border on North Korea and fear that many of the interdictions would be conducted close to their territory and coasts. The Russian complaints center on lists and descriptions of the kinds of cargo that would be suspect, objections that John R. Bolton, the American ambassador, characterized Friday evening as “technical” rather than “substantive.” The terms of the resolution have already been softened three times this week to meet demands from China and Russia, and early Friday Mr. Bolton announced agreement on a decision to hold a vote Saturday morning. Instead, the five permanent members and Japan met to see if they could settle the remaining disputes and move to an afternoon vote. Vitaly I. Churkin, the Russian ambassador, arrived at the meeting with new instructions from Moscow, but he made no comment on what they were. While the wording of the resolution was still being worked out, American intelligence officials said on Friday evening that they had found radioactive material in air samples taken over the region, providing more evidence that North Korea did indeed detonate a nuclear bomb. The new draft resolution dropped or softened several provisions to placate China and Russia. It eliminated explicit mention of military enforcement of the sanctions; placed more limits on the kinds of cargo that could be inspected going in and out of North Korea; and dropped a blanket embargo on conventional weapons. Mr. Bolton indicated that one area of dispute remained the methods and legalities of how to inspect cargo. The new draft resolution limits the weapons ban to large-size arms, military systems and unconventional weapons. The measure, drafted by the United States, still requires all countries to prevent the sale or transfer of material related to North Korea’s nuclear, ballistic missile and unconventional weapons programs, and maintains a ban on travel by persons associated with those programs. It also bars North Korea from exporting such weapons, a provision aimed at the international concern over the possibility of unconventional arms from North Korea ending up with terrorist groups or rogue states. “An overwhelming majority of the Council members want to vote as soon as possible,” Mr. Bolton said Friday. “They still think it is important to send a swift and strong signal, and I’m confident we’re going to be able to do that.” Wang Guangya, the Chinese ambassador, said, “It all depends on the final text, because we are not at the final text yet.” The United States and Japan, the driving forces behind the resolution, had earlier thought they had surmounted the Chinese and Russian objections to the resolution when they submitted a revision Thursday night that softened some of the earlier provisions. Mr. Bolton said the United States was “very satisfied” with the document as it stood Friday morning and was prepared to vote for it immediately. But Mr. Wang, while asserting his country was happy with the progress that had been made, said his country was still studying the text before officially pronouncing on it. “With progress we are always satisfied, but if we work harder, we might make more progress,” he said. Mr. Churkin, the Russian ambassador, said, “I think we are on the right track, but we are not there yet.” In Washington, officials, apparently confident of the imminent passage of the measure, announced that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would travel to Asia next week to discuss how to implement the resolution, as well as to discuss other efforts to deter North Korean proliferation of a nuclear bomb or bomb-making materials. Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman, said Ms. Rice would travel to Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing. The trip, he said, is “an opportunity for her in the region to reaffirm and talk about the strength of our existing alliances there, and also to have a bit more of a wider conversation with others in the region about the current situation, about the security situation, and also to talk broadly about nonproliferation efforts.” Senior State Department officials portrayed the United Nations momentum toward a resolution as evidence of a united, multilateral front agreeing to punish North Korea. “So the first issue we need to do is to make clear that the sense of outrage and condemnation by the international community to have a resolution in the Security Council, which will not only be a resolution condemning North Korea, but actually a resolution with some teeth to it,” said Christopher Hill, the assistant secretary of state for east Asian and Pacific affairs. “North Korea needs to understand that this is indeed a very, very costly decision that will leave North Korea far worse off and far more isolated than ever before,” said Mr. Hill, speaking at a conference in Washington. “We need to give that message very clearly and make sure that North Korea cannot find any differences in our views. So I think so far, so good.” The resolution condemns the test on Oct. 9 as a “flagrant disregard” of Security Council warnings, orders it not to conduct nuclear or missile tests, and urges the North to return to six-nation talks with South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States. It freezes funds overseas of people or businesses connected to the unconventional weapons programs and bans the sale of luxury goods to North Korea. “I think the North Korean population has been losing height and weight over the years,” Mr. Bolton said. “Maybe this will be a little diet for Kim Jong-il,” he said, referring to the North Korean dictator. Under the resolution, member states are to report to the Security Council within 30 days on steps they have taken to comply with the its demands. The resolution still invokes Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which makes mandatory economic and diplomatic sanctions. China and Russia customarily resist the Chapter VII provision on the grounds that it sets a pretext for the use of military force, as many countries believe it did in Iraq. But in a formulation used in July to obtain a unanimous vote on the resolution condemning the North Korean missile launches, the text added a reference to Article 41 of the chapter, which permits only “means not involving the use of military force.” In another change designed to gain Chinese and Russian support, the resolution now says the inspection process will be “cooperative” with local authorities. Both countries were sensitive to such interdiction being done near their coasts and borders, but Mr. Bolton said that though the inspections covered air, sea and land shipments, he expected most actions would be performed in port. As for the agreement struck to limit the arms embargo to specific weapons like missiles, tanks, attack helicopters, artillery systems, warships and combat aircraft, Mr. Bolton said, “That would place under embargo the most dangerous, most sophisticated, most lethal weapons, so that’s a substantial step forward, and, as I say, we’re happy to accept that as a compromise.” --------------------------------------------------------------- 다음은 asahi 신문 http://www.asahi.com 에 있는 기사임. 北朝鮮制裁決議を全会一致で採択　安保理 2006年10月15日02時58分 　国連安全保障理事会は１４日午後（日本時間１５日未明）、核実験を発表した北朝鮮に対する制裁決議案を理事国全１５カ国による全会一致で採択した。 　決議は、北朝鮮による核実験を非難し、核不拡散条約（ＮＰＴ）からの脱退宣言の撤回などを求めている。強制措置を認める国連憲章７章に基づいて行動することを明記すると同時に、経済制裁など非軍事的措置を定めた同章４１条も併記。北朝鮮の核・弾道ミサイル計画に従事していると認められた個人や団体の金融資産凍結などの制裁措置を定めている。 　常任理事国と日本の６カ国はいったん米国案をもとに基本合意。これを受けて米国は１３日、安保理の理事国８カ国と議決権のない韓国の計９カ国を提案国として同案を公式文書にしたが、その後、中国、ロシアが一部の表現について再修正を求め、交渉を続けていた。 　関係者によると、中国は協議の大詰めの段階で、強制的な措置を伴う船舶などの貨物検査について、各国の判断がより尊重される形で決議案を修正するよう求めた。ロシアも、禁輸の対象となる大量破壊兵器関連品目の定義を狭めることなどを要求していた。 ------------------------------------------------------------- 다음은 워싱턴포스트 http://www.washingtonpost.com 에 있는 기사임. Reuters의 기사라고 함. U.N. Council Imposes Tough Sanctions on N. Korea Saturday, October 14, 2006; 1:58 PM UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council voted Saturday to impose financial and arms sanctions on North Korea to punish the reclusive Communist nation for its nuclear weapon test. The vote was 15-0. The U.S.-drafted resolution allows nations to stop cargo going to and from North Korea to check for weapons of mass destruction or related supplies. But the measure specifically excludes military force. It requires all countries to prevent the sale or transfer of materials related to Pyongyang's unconventional weapons programs. And the resolution demands nations freezes funds overseas of people or businesses connected with North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Reut13:46 10-14-06 [ 2006-10-15, 03:19 ] 조회수 : 1 출처 : 워싱턴포스트 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Security Council imposes sanctions on DPR Korea after its claimed nuclear test 다음은 국제연합(UN)의 홈페이지 http://www.un.org 에 있는 것인데 자세히는 http://www.un.org/sc/unsc_news.shtml 에 있는 기사임. Security Council imposes sanctions on DPR Korea after its claimed nuclear test 14 October 2006 – Following intensive negotiations triggered earlier this month when the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) claimed to have conducted a nuclear test, the United Nations Security Council today imposed sanctions against the country as well as individuals supporting its military programme and demanded that Pyongyang cease its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. By a unanimously adopted resolution invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which allows for enforcement measures, the Council also established a committee to track the sanctions and take action against violations. The resolution condemned the 9 October test and demanded that DPRK “not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile.” It demanded that Pyongyang immediately retract its announced withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), return to that pact, and accept safeguards through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). According to the binding resolution, “DPRK shall suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme and in this context re-establish its pre-existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launching.” The country also must “abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner.” Pyongyang must further abide by the NPT and IAEA Safeguards Agreements and provide the Agency “transparency measures extending beyond these requirements, including such access to individuals, documentation, equipments and facilities.” DPRK must “abandon all other existing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programme in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner.” By the resolution, the Council decided that all Member States shall prevent the import from or export to the DPRK of “any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems” as well as “related materiel including spare parts” and other items determined by the sanctions committee. Other items to be set out in separate lists were also banned, including those “which could contribute to DPRK's nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes.” Also prohibited from export to the DPRK are luxury goods. In addition, the resolution banned the import from or export to the country of technical training, advice, services or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the banned military items. By other provisions of the text, the Council decided that all States must freeze immediately the funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are on their territories that are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the persons or entities designated by the committee or by the Security Council as being engaged in or providing support for DPRK's nuclear-related, other weapons of mass destruction-related and ballistic missile-related programmes or by persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction. Persons designated by the committee “as being responsible for, including through supporting or promoting, DPRK policies in relation to the DPRK's nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related and other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes” are also subject to a travel ban, as are members of their families. Aiming to prevent illicit trafficking in nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the Council called on all Member States to cooperate including through inspection of cargo to and from the DPRK. With respect to the financial sanctions, the Council allowed for some exemptions, deciding that the freeze should not apply to funds necessary for basic expenses, including payment for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges, “or exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services.” With a notification, the committee can also approve exceptions for “extraordinary expenses.” The committee can also, on a case-by-case basis, approve humanitarian exceptions to the travel ban, including for religious obligations. All States are required to report to the Security Council within 30 days on measures they have taken to comply with the resolution. Among other tasks, the committee, consisting of the same members as the Security Council, will examine and take action on information regarding alleged violations. It will report to the Council at least every 90 days. The DPRK was called upon “to return immediately to the Six-Party Talks without precondition.” Those negotiations involve the two Koreas, Japan, China, the Russian Federation and the United States. A representative of Pyongyang addressing the Council today said his country “totally rejects” the resolution. “It is gangster-like of the Security Council to have adopted today a coercive resolution while neglecting the nuclear threat and moves for sanctions and pressure of the United States against the DPRK,” he said. “This clearly testifies that the Security Council has completely lost its impartiality and still persists in applying double standards in its work.” The 9 October underground nuclear test was conducted as a deterrent measure, he said, asserting that the initiative was “entirely activated by the United States nuclear threat, sanctions and pressure.” He said the DPRK is ready for both dialogue and confrontation. “If the US increases its pressure upon the Democratic People's Republic of Korea persistently, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea will continue to take physical countermeasures, considering it as a declaration of war.” ----------------------------------------------------------- 다음은 동아닷컴 http://www.donga.com 에 있는 기사임. 　　2006.10.15(일) 13:30 편집 안보리 대북 제재결의 1718호 요약 안전보장이사회는 결의 825(1993년)와 1540(2004년), 그리고 특히 1695(2006년)롤 포함한 이전의 관련 결의들과 2006년 10월6일의 의장성명을 상기하면서, 핵,화학,생물무기들과 이들의 운반수단의 확산이 국제평화와 안전에 위협을 구성하는 것임을 재확인하면서, 조선민주주의인민공화국(DPRK,이하 북한)의 2006년10월 핵무기 실험 주장과 ,이러한 실험이 핵비확산조약(NPT)과 세계적인 핵무기비확산 체제를 강화하기 위한 국제적인 노력에 제기하는 도전 및, 지역내외에 제기하는 평화와 안정에 대한 위험에 극도의 우려를 표명한다. 국제적인 핵비확산체제는 유지돼야 한다는 확고한 신념을 표명하며,북한은 NPT에 따라 핵무기 보유국 지위를 가질수 없음을 상기한다. 북한의 NPT탈퇴선언과 핵무기 추구를 규탄하며 나아가 북한의 조건 없는 6자회담 복귀 거부를 규탄하며 2005년 9월19일 6개국(6자회담)이 발표한 공동성명을 지지하며 국제사회의 안전 및 인도주의적 우려에 대한 북한의 반응의 중요성을 강조하며 북한이 주장하는 핵실험이 지역 내외에 증가된 긴장을 야기한데 깊은 우려를 표명하고 따라서 국제평화와 안전에 명백한 위협이 됨을 결정한다. 유엔헌장 7장에 따라 행동하고 산하 41조 규정에 따라 조치들을 취한다. 1. 북한이 결의 1695와 의장성명(2006년10월6일)등 관련 결의와 성명 등을 무시하고 2006년10월9일 핵실험을 선언한 것을 비난한다. 2. 북한에 대해 추가핵실험을 실시하거나 탄도미사일을 발사하지 말 것을 요구한다. 3. 북한에 대해 NPT 탈퇴선언을 즉각 철회할 것을 요구한다. 4. 나아가 북한에 대해 NPT와 국제원자력기구(IAEA) 안전규정에 복귀할 것을 요구하며 NPT의 모든 조약 당사국들은 조약상의 의무를 계속 준수할 필요성을 강조한다. 5. 북한은 탄도미사일 프로그램과 관련된 모든 활동들을 중지하고 기존의 미사일발사 유예 공약을 재확인할 것을 결의한다. 6. 북한은 모든 핵무기들과 핵프로그램들을 완전하고 검증가능하며 돌이킬수 없는 방법으로 제거할 것을 결의하며 NPT와 IAEA 안전규정상의 의무를 엄격히 준수할 것을 결의한다. IAEA에 개인들과 문서,장비 및 시설들에 대한 접근 등 IAEA가 요구하거나 필요하다고 간주한 것들을 포함한 투명한 조치들을 제공할 것을 결의한다. 7. 북한은 다른 대량살상무기와 탄도미사일 프로그램들을 완전하고 검증가능하며돌이킬수 없는 방법으로 폐기할 것을 결의한다. 8. (a) 모든 회원국들은 (i) 전차, 장갑차량, 중화기, 전투기, 공격용 헬기, 전함, 미사일이나 미사일 시스템 일체와 관련 물품,부품등 관련 물자및 안보리나 안보리위원회가 결정하는 품목들 (ii) 북한의 핵이나 탄도미사일, 기타 대량살상 프로그램에 도움이 될 수 있는모든 품목과 물질, 장비, 상품, 기술 등과 각국의 통제 리스트나 공동 리스트에 입각한 모든 국내 조치들 (iii) 사치품들이 그 원산지를 불문하고 각국의 영토나 국민, 국적선, 항공기 등을 이용해 북한으로 직간접적으로 제공되거나, 판매.이전되지 못하도록 막는다. (b) 북한은 위에 명시한 모든 품목들의 수출을 중단해야 하며, 모든 회원국들은자국민이나 국적선, 항공기 등이 북한으로부터 위와 같은 물품들을 획득하지 못하도록 금지한다. (c) 모든 회원국들은 위에 명시된 품목들의 비축, 제조, 유지, 사용 등에 도움이 될 수 있는 기술훈련, 자문, 서비스, 지원이 자국민에 의해서 북한에 제공되거나그들의 영토로부터 북한에 이전되지 못하도록 금지한다. 북한으로부터 이같은 훈련이나 자문, 서비스, 지원 등이 자국민이나 영토로 이전되는 것도 금지한다. (d) 모든 회원국들은 각국의 법절차에 따라 북한의 핵, 대량살상무기, 탄도미사일 관련 프로그램을 지원하는 자국내 자금과 기타 금융자산, 경제적 자원들을 결의안 채택일부터 즉각 동결하며, 북한의 지시에 따라 움직이는 개인이나 단체들도 자국내 자금이나 금융자산, 경제적 자원들을 사용하지 못하도록 조치한다. (e) 모든 회원국들은 각국의 재량에 따라 북한의 핵, 탄도 미사일, 대량살상무기와 연루된 것으로 지정된 자와 그 가족들이 자국에 입국하거나 경유하지 못하도록적절한 조치를 취한다. (f) 모든 회원국들은 국내법과 국제법에 따라, 특히 핵 및 화생방무기의 밀거래와 이의 전달수단 및 물질을 막기 위해 안보리 결의가 이행될 수 있도록 북한으로부터의 화물 검색 등 필요한 협력조치를 취하도록 요구한다. 9. 위에 명시된 금융자산이나 자원들 중 (a) 식료품비, 임대료나 모기지, 의료비, 세금, 보험료, 공과금 등의 기본적 지출에 필요한 경비 (b) 관련국이나 안보리 위원회에 통지돼 승인받은 특별 경비 (c) 이 결의 채택 이전에 이뤄진 행정적 또는 사법적 결정의 대상이 되는 자금이나 자원 중 특별한 경우는 예외로 한다. 10. 위의 여행제한 규정 중 인도적인 필요나 종교 의무 등으로 위원회가 개별적으로 결정한 경우는 예외로 한다. 11. 이 결의 채택 30일 이내에 모든 회원국들은 상기 8항의 규정들을 효과적으로이행하기 위해 취한 조치들을 안보리에 보고할 것을 촉구한다. 12. 임시 의사절차법 28조에 따라 다음 임무를 수행하기 위해 모든 안보리 이사국들로 구성되는 위원회를 구성하기로 결의한다. a)8(a)항에 언급된 품목과 물자,장비,상품기술들을 생산,보유중인 국가들에,그들이 8항에 의해 부과된 조치들을 효과적으로 이행하기위해 취한 행동들에 대한 정보 및 유용하다고 간주되는 추가정보들을 요청한다. b)8항 조치 위반 의심사항들에 관련된 정보에 대해 조사 및 적절한 조치를 취한다. c)상기 9,10항에 언급된 예외요청을 고려, 결정한다. d)상기 8(a ii)항 목적에 부합되는 추가적인 품목과 물자,장비,상품 및 기술들을 결정한다. e)8(d)및 8(e)항에 부과된 조치들에 적용될 추가적인 개인이나 단체들을 지명한다. f)이 결의의 조치들의 이행을 촉진시키는데 필요한 지침들을 공표한다. g)최소한 매90일마다 관찰과 건의 등과 함께 업무를 안보리에 보고하며 특히 8항 조치들의 효율성을 강화하기 위한 방안들을 보고토록 한다. 13. 6자회담 조기재개를 촉진하고, 긴장악화 행동을 자제하며, 외교적 노력을 강화하려는 모든 당사국들의 노력을 환영하고 고무한다. 14. 북한에 대해 조건없이 즉각 6자회담에 복귀할 것과 2005년9월19일 공동성명의 신속한 이행을 위해 노력할 것을 촉구한다. 15. 북한의 행동들을 지속적으로 평가할 것이며,북한의 결의규정 준수에 비춰 필요할 경우, 강화,수정,중지 또는 조치의 해제 등을 포함한 8항 조치들의 적절성에 대한 평가 준비도 갖춘다. 16. 추가결정들과 추가조치들의 요청 및 필요성을 강조한다. 17. 적극적으로 사안에 전념할 것을 결정한다 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 다음은 UN의 홈페이지 http://www.un.org 의 press release 편에 있는 것임. 14 October 2006 Security Council SC/8853 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York Security Council 5551st Meeting (PM) SECURITY COUNCIL CONDEMNS NUCLEAR TEST BY DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1718 (2006) Action Prevents Provision of Nuclear Technology, Large-Scale Weapons, Luxury Goods to Country; Permits Inspection of Cargo to Ensure Compliance Expressing the gravest concern over the claim by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) that it had conducted a nuclear weapon test, the Security Council this afternoon condemned that test and imposed sanctions on the DPRK, calling for it to return immediately to multilateral talks on the issue. Acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, but barring automatic military enforcement of its demands under the Charter’s Article 41, the Council unanimously adopted resolution 1718 (2006), which prevents a range of goods from entering or leaving the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and imposes an asset freeze and travel ban on persons related to the nuclear-weapon programme. Through its decision, the Council prohibited the provision of large-scale arms, nuclear technology and related training to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, as well as luxury goods, calling upon all States to take cooperative action, including through inspection of cargo, in accordance with their respective national laws. The Council stressed that such inspections should aim to prevent illicit trafficking in nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery and related materials. Regarding the freezing of assets, the Council provided specific exemptions for the transfer of monies to meet various financial obligations and humanitarian needs, specifying humanitarian exemptions for the travel ban, as well. To monitor and adjust the sanctions imposed on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Council decided to establish a committee consisting of all 15 members of the body, which would provide a report every 90 days, beginning with the passage of the resolution. Following the vote, several members of the Council condemned what many called an irresponsible step by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, stressing the importance of the Council’s swift and decisive action and emphasizing that, should the country implement the provisions of the new resolution, the sanctions could be lifted. The United States representative said the test posed “one of the gravest threats to international peace and security that this Council has ever had to confront”. The resolution adopted today would send a strong and clear message to North Korea and other would-be proliferators that they would meet with serious repercussions should they choose to pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction. Further, it would send an unequivocal and unambiguous message for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to stop its procurement programmes and to verifiably dismantle existing weapons of mass destruction programmes. “All of us find ourselves in an extraordinary situation, which requires the adoption of extraordinary measures”, the representative of the Russian Federation said. Today’s text contained a set of carefully considered and targeted measures, aimed at resolving the main issue: to make the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea reconsider its dangerous course, come back to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and resume, without preconditions, its participation in the six-party talks. That could be done only through political and diplomatic means. He insisted on the Council’s strong control over the measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and noted that the resolution reflected concern over the humanitarian consequences of strict measures. China’s representative agreed that the Council’s actions should both indicate the international community’s firm position and help create conditions for the peaceful solution to the DPRK nuclear issue through dialogue. As the resolution adopted today basically reflected that spirit, his delegation had voted in favour of the text. However, sanctions were not the end in themselves. China did not approve of the practice of inspecting cargo to and from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and urged the countries concerned to adopt a responsible attitude in that regard, refraining from taking any provocative steps that could intensify the tension. China still believed that the six-party talks were the realistic means of handling the issue. It also firmly opposed the use of force. Japan’s representative said that the combination of ballistic missile capability and, now, the claim of nuclear capability in the hands of a regime known for reckless irresponsible behaviour, created nothing less than a grave threat to peace and security. He not only supported the Council’s sanctions, but also outlined a set of national measures undertaken by his country, including closure of Japanese ports to DPRK vessels; denial of imports from the DPRK; and prohibition of entry for DPRK nationals into Japanese territory. The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, however, “totally rejected” the text, saying that it was “gangster-like” of the Security Council to adopt such a coercive resolution against his country, while neglecting the nuclear threat posed by the United States against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It was a clear testament that the Council had completely lost its impartiality and was persisting in applying double standards to its work. Also taking the floor today were representatives of France, the United Kingdom, Argentina and the Republic of Korea. The Council was called to order at 1:42 p.m. and adjourned at 2:25 p.m. Statements JOHN BOLTON ( United States) said that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) proclamation that it had conducted a nuclear test had posed the gravest threat to international peace and security that the Security Council had ever had to confront. The resolution just adopted would send a strong and clear message to the DPRK and other would-be proliferators that they would meet with serious repercussions should they choose to pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction. Further, it would send an unequivocal and unambiguous message for the DPRK to stop its procurement programmes and to verifiably dismantle existing weapons of mass destruction programmes. He said resolution 1695 (2006) had demonstrated to North Korea that the best way to promote the livelihood of its people and end its isolation was to stop playing games of brinksmanship, comply with Security Council demands, return to the six-party talks and implement the terms of the joint statement from the last round of those talks. But sadly, the regime in Pyongyang had chosen a different path, answering the Security Council’s demands with an announcement that it had conducted a successful nuclear test. North Korea had thus broken its word, provoking a crisis and denying its people a better life. He said that, three months ago, the United States had counselled other Member States to prepare for further action in the event that the DPRK failed to comply with resolution 1695. His country was pleased, therefore, that the Security Council was united in its condemnation today, proving that it was indeed prepared to meet threats to international security with resolve. Acting under Chapter VII, the Council would impose punitive sanctions on Kim Jong Il’s regime. By today’s resolution, Member States would also agree not to trade in materials that would contribute to nuclear weapons -- and other weapons of mass destruction -- programmes, as well as to ban the trade in high-end military equipment. In doing its part to implement that provision of the resolution, the United States would rely on a number of control lists already in place, as published by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Australia Group. He said the resolution would prevent the travel of officials known to be involved in weapons of mass destruction efforts, as well as target the way Kim Jong Il financed his related weapons programmes, including through money-laundering, counterfeiting and selling narcotics. By the resolution, Member States were bound to take action against those activities and freeze the assets of involved entities and individuals of the DPRK. It would provide for an inspections regime to ensure compliance with its provisions, building on the existing work of the Proliferation Security Initiative. It would impose strict demands on the DPRK not to conduct further nuclear tests or launch ballistic missiles, he said, as well as to abandon all weapons of mass destruction programmes, whether nuclear, chemical or biological, in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner. The Council would lift the measures imposed by the resolution if the DPRK complied fully with all its provisions and resumed the six-party talks. However, Member States must be prepared if the country again ignored Security Council demands; in that event, measures must be strengthened and Member States must return to the Council for further action. As the United States pursued a diplomatic solution, it was also reassuring its allies of its commitment to security, he said. It would seek to increase its defence cooperation with allies, including on ballistic missile defence and cooperation to prevent the DPRK from importing or exporting nuclear missile technology. The goals were clear: a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, and to work with other countries to ensure that the DPRK faced serious consequences if it continued down its current path. The resolution provided a carve-out for humanitarian relief efforts in the country, however, because the concern was with the regime and not the starving and suffering people of the DPRK. Hopefully, the country would implement the resolution so its people could enjoy a brighter future. JEAN-MARC DE LA SABLIÈRE ( France) said that the Council, by adopting resolution 1718 today, had provided a firm reply to the announcement last Monday of a nuclear test by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. That reply voiced the international community’s unanimous condemnation of that extremely grave act, and unanimous determination in the face of Pyongyang’s behaviour. Adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter, the resolution contained a number of strong measures, in particular regarding missile and weapons of mass destruction programmes. It also contained provisions to prevent exporting and importing of products associated with those programmes by the DPRK. It was necessary to ensure the effectiveness of those measures by proceeding under international law with inspections of cargo to and from the DPRK, he said. Given the challenge posed by North Korea, it was essential for the international community to be united and extremely firm. The Council had clearly demonstrated that the behaviour of North Korea would not be tolerated. His delegation also understood that full compliance with the resolution by the DPRK and successful resumption of six-party talks would prompt the Council to lift the sanctions imposed by the resolution. WANG GUANGYA ( China) said that, on 9 October, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had flagrantly conducted a nuclear test in disregard of the common opposition of the international community. China’s Foreign Ministry had issued a statement on the same day, expressing firm opposition to that act. Proceeding from the overall interests of brining about denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and maintaining peace and stability there and in North-East Asia, China supported the Council in making a firm and appropriate response. The action of the Security Council should both indicate the firm position of the international community and help create enabling conditions for the final peaceful solution to the DPRK nuclear issue through dialogue. As the resolution adopted today basically reflected that spirit, his delegation had voted in favour of the text. He reiterated that sanctions were not the end in themselves. As stipulated in the resolution, if the DPRK complied with its requests, the Council would suspend or lift sanctions against the country. At the same time, China did not approve of the practice of inspecting cargo to and from the DPRK, and he had reservations about related provisions of the resolution. China strongly urged the countries concerned to adopt a prudent and responsible attitude in that regard, and refrain from taking any provocative steps that could intensify the tension. China’s Government had committed itself to brining about denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and to maintaining peace and stability both on the peninsula and in North-East Asia, he said. It had always advocated seeking a peaceful solution to the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula through diplomatic means. China had made enormous and unremitting efforts towards that end, initiated the six-party talks and pushed parties concerned to implement the Joint Statement of September 2005. Though there had been the negative development of the DPRK’s nuclear test, those policies remained unchanged. China still believed that the six-party talks were the realistic means of handling the issue. He also firmly opposed the use of force. China noted with satisfaction that, in condemning the DPRK nuclear test, the parties concerned had all indicated the importance of adhering to diplomatic efforts. Under the current circumstances, it was necessary to “unswervingly stick” to the objective of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, oppose nuclear proliferation, adhere to the general direction of resolving the issue through peaceful dialogue and negotiations, avoid any acts that might cause escalation of tension and maintain peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in North-East Asia. That was in the common interest of all the parties concerned. All the parties should take vigorous and positive action towards that end. China was ready and willing to strengthen consultations and cooperation with other parties concerned, so as to ensure a cool-headed response, push forward the six-party talks and continue to play a constructive role in realizing denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and North-East Asia. EMYR JONES PARRY ( United Kingdom) welcomed the strong signal sent to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, saying the Council had acted decisively and quickly under Chapter VII to ask for an end to that country’s provocative and irresponsible act. The resolution was important because it reiterated the international community’s condemnation of such actions, and made clear to the DPRK and all States concerned that they had a legal obligation to carry out its provisions. He said the United Kingdom condemned the 9 October test as an irresponsible act, because it had raised tensions both regionally and internationally. Despite the repeated urging of its neighbours, the DPRK had contravened its commitments under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and had ignored resolution 1695 (2006). Indeed, the test had been a direct provocation to the international community and constituted a threat to peace and security. As such, the Council had duty to condemn the act, and had done so by sending a strong message to Pyongyang. The resolution contained robust terms, he said, but its purpose was to bring about a stop to the DPRK’s weapons of mass destruction and missile programmes and to change the behaviour of the leaders in Pyongyang, not to hamper the lives of people who were already suffering. The United Kingdom would lift the measures imposed today if the DPRK returned to the six-party talks. It was that country’s choice to flout or accept the obligations contained in it. VITALY I. CHURKIN (Russian Federation) said that, even before the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s statement of its intention to conduct a nuclear test and then following that irresponsible step, his country had emphasized that such actions could complicate the settlement of the nuclear problem on the Korean peninsula, pose a threat to international peace and security and undermine the non-proliferation regime. His country had always advocated a strong, but carefully vetted, response from the Council, aimed at preventing further escalation of tension. He could only regret that North Korean authorities had ignored the warnings contained in the Council’s presidential statement of 6 October about the negative consequences that would flow from a nuclear test, primarily for the DPRK itself. “All of us find ourselves in an extraordinary situation, which required adoption of extraordinary measures,” he said. Having supported the text -– a result of tense negotiations, in which all members of the Council had participated –- he noted that the resolution reflected concern over the humanitarian consequences of strict measures. At the same time, as a matter of principle, it was necessary –- as envisioned by relevant decisions of the United Nations –- to carefully weigh such consequences on a case-by-case basis. Any sanctions introduced by the Council should not go on indefinitely and should be lifted upon implementation of the Council’s demands. In that connection, he also emphasized that sanctions unilaterally adopted by States did not facilitate resolution of such problems, when the Council was working on joint approaches, with the participation of all relevant parties. He added that today’s text contained a set of carefully considered and targeted measured, aimed at resolving the main issue: to make the DPRK immediately review its dangerous course, come back to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and resume, without preconditions, its participation in the six-party talks. That could be done only through political and diplomatic means. The measures against the DPRK must be implemented under strict control of the Council and its Sanctions Committee set up by today’s resolution. It was very important that, under the text, full implementation of its provisions by the DPRK would lead to the lifting of the sanctions. He hoped Pyongyang would adequately understand the collective position of the international community and take practical steps to achieve denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, as well as peace and stability in North-Eastern Asia. CESAR MAYORAL ( Argentina) supported resolution 1718 (2006), which condemned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea following its proclamation of having held a nuclear test. That act had shown that the country possessed nuclear devices and had withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in addition to having launched ballistic missiles. Such acts had endangered international peace and security. He said the Security Council’s unanimous, firm and rapid message, under the Japanese presidency, clearly demonstrated the international community’s position towards the Government of the DPRK. Argentina hoped the DPRK authorities would hear that message, and that it would prompt their return to the six-party talks so that a solution could be found for all parties involved. Indeed, it was an issue that affected not just in the Asia-Pacific, but the rest of the world, as well. Argentina had agreed to implement all the provisions of the resolution, he said. However, with regard to the list of items, materials, equipment, goods and technology to be banned from the DPRK as stipulated in paragraph 8, Argentina did not intend to legislate the control of material for dual use. The Council’s President, KENZO OSHIMA ( Japan), speaking in his national capacity, welcomed the resolution adopted today as one of the most important decisions the Council had taken in recent times. It was essential that such an important decision be taken by a unanimous vote, and that was a welcome outcome. The resolution strongly condemned the irresponsible act on the part of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which had proceeded to conduct a nuclear test in total defiance of the calls to refrain from doing so by all its immediate neighbours and, indeed, by the entire world. That was unacceptable behaviour, which deserved to be met not only with a strong admonishment, but also with necessary measures prescribed in Chapter VII of the Charter. Under the circumstances, the Council had acted in the discharge of its responsibilities by responding to the grave situation created by the DPRK, swiftly and in unity. The situation created by the DPRK had caused widespread and deep concern in East Asia and beyond, he continued. The danger presented by Pyongyang’s total disregard of the non-proliferation regime was clear and present. Last July, when the DPRK had resorted to the launching of ballistic missiles, the Council had unanimously adopted resolution 1695, condemning that action. It had also unequivocally urged the DPRK not to go forward with the test, through a strong presidential statement. Only two days after the Council’s call, however, the DPRK had claimed that it had conducted a nuclear test. The combination of ballistic missile capability and, now, the claim of nuclear capability in the hands of a regime with a record of known and reckless irresponsible behaviour, created a situation that was nothing less than a grave threat to peace and security. Japan also regretted that the DPRK’s actions were in contravention of the Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration, the Joint Statement of the six-party talks and several other agreements. Along with other concerned countries in the region, Japan expected that the DPRK would act as a responsible Member of the United Nations, by implementing this and other Security Council resolutions and decisions, including resolution 1695, in good faith. At the same time, the security issue was not the only point of contention between the DPRK and the international community. The resolution underlined the importance for the DPRK to responding to the humanitarian concerns of the international community, which included the abduction issue. He demanded that the issue be resolved as soon as possible. He said that, on 11 October, his Government had announced that it would take a set of national measures in strong protest against the claimed nuclear test, recognizing the need to take firm measures in response. Those measures included denial of permission to enter Japanese ports to all DPRK vessels; denial of import of all items from the DPRK; and denial, in principle, of entry by DPRK nationals into Japanese territory. Japan would also implement in good faith the measures under the resolution. The resolution contained strong measures, he added, but sanctions were not invoked for the sake of sanctions. The goal of the resolution was to remove the threat to international peace and security, by ensuring discontinuation of the DPRK’s nuclear testing and ballistic missile launchings, as well as the abandonment of its nuclear and missile programmes. It was up to the DPRK whether that opportunity would be utilized. That country’s compliance with the resolution and addressing the concerns of the international community would open the way for the international community to consider actions for the benefit of the DPRK as made clear in paragraph 15 of the resolution. Japan had not closed the door on dialogue and urged the DPRK to respond sincerely for a diplomatic solution to the issues between the two countries. PAK GIL YON (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that his country totally rejected resolution 1718 and found it unjustifiable. It was “gangster-like” for the Security Council to adopt such a coercive resolution against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, while neglecting the nuclear threat posed by the United States against his country. It was a clear testament that the Council had completely lost its impartiality and was persisting in applying double standards to its work. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was disappointed that the Council was incapable of offering a single word of concern when the United States threatened to launch nuclear pre-emptive attacks, reinforced its armed forces and conducted large-scale military exercises near the Korean peninsula. He said that, on 9 October, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had successfully conducted underground nuclear tests under secure conditions, as a way of bolstering the country’s self-defence. His country’s nuclear test was entirely attributable to United States threats, sanctions and pressure, and every possible effort had been expanded to settle the nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiation. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea indeed wished to denuclearize the Korean peninsula, he said; yet, the Bush Administration had responded to his country’s patient and sincere efforts with sanctions and blockades. His country had, therefore, felt compelled to prove its possession of nuclear weapons to protect itself from the danger of war from the United States. Also, although his country had conducted a nuclear test -- due to American provocation -- it still remained unchanged in its will to denuclearize the Korean peninsula through dialogue and negotiation, as that had been President Kim Il Sung’s last instruction. He said the test did not contradict the Joint Statement of the six-party talks to dismantle nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes. Rather, it constituted a positive measure for its implementation. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had clarified more than once that it would have no need for even a single nuclear weapon as long as the United States dropped its hostile policies towards his country, and as long as confidence was built between the two countries. Instead, the United States had manipulated the Security Council into adopting a resolution pressurizing Pyongyang. He said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was ready for both dialogue and confrontation. If the United States persisted in increasing pressure upon his country, it would continue to take physical countermeasures, considering it as a declaration of war. CHOI YOUNG-JIN ( Republic of Korea) said that, last Monday, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had announced that it had conducted a nuclear test, which his Government had warned it about. That act posed a grave threat to the situation on the Korean peninsula and the whole of North-East Asia. North Korea’s conduct constituted a failure to implement the Joint Statement of September 2005. It also represented outright defiance of the Security Council resolution adopted in July 2006 and a breach of the Joint Declaration that the DPRK had signed with his country in 1991. Such acts should never be condoned, he said. His Government appreciated the Council’s efforts to address that common challenge and supported the resolution just adopted. He urged North Korea to heed the voice of the international community and refrain from any actions that would further aggravate the situation. It should return to six-party talks and abandon its nuclear programmes once and for all. His Government would continue its endeavours to achieve those goals. Mr. BOLTON ( United States) said it was the second time in three months that the DPRK, having asked to participate in Security Council meetings, had rejected its resolutions and walked out of the Chamber. It was akin to Nikita Khrushchev pounding his shoe on the podium, and raised questions about the DPRK’s adherence to Chapter II of the United Nations Charter -- an issue the Council should consider in due course. Mr. CHURKIN ( Russian Federation) asked the President to call on members of the Council to, even in the heat of emotion, refrain from using inappropriate analogies. Resolution The full text of resolution 1718 (2006) reads as follows: “The Security Council, “Recalling its previous relevant resolutions, including resolution 825 (1993), resolution 1540 (2004) and, in particular, resolution 1695 (2006), as well as the statement of its President of 6 October 2006 (S/PRST/2006/41), “Reaffirming that proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international peace and security, “Expressing the gravest concern at the claim by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) that it has conducted a test of a nuclear weapon on 9 October 2006, and at the challenge such a test constitutes to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to international efforts aimed at strengthening the global regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the danger it poses to peace and stability in the region and beyond, “Expressing its firm conviction that the international regime on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons should be maintained and recalling that the DPRK cannot have the status of a nuclear-weapon state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, “Deploring the DPRK’s announcement of withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, “Deploring further that the DPRK has refused to return to the six-party talks without precondition, “Endorsing the Joint Statement issued on 19 September 2005 by China, the DPRK, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States, “Underlining the importance that the DPRK respond to other security and humanitarian concerns of the international community, “Expressing profound concern that the test claimed by the DPRK has generated increased tension in the region and beyond, and determining therefore that there is a clear threat to international peace and security, “Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and taking measures under its Article 41, “1. Condemns the nuclear test proclaimed by the DPRK on 9 October 2006 in flagrant disregard of its relevant resolutions, in particular resolution 1695 (2006), as well as of the statement of its President of 6 October 2006 (S/PRST/2006/41), including that such a test would bring universal condemnation of the international community and would represent a clear threat to international peace and security; “2. Demands that the DPRK not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile; “3. Demands that the DPRK immediately retract its announcement of withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; “4. Demands further that the DPRK return to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, and underlines the need for all States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to continue to comply with their Treaty obligations; “5. Decides that the DPRK shall suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme and in this context re-establish its pre-existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launching; “6. Decides that the DPRK shall abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner, shall act strictly in accordance with the obligations applicable to parties under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the terms and conditions of its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safeguards Agreement (IAEA INFCIRC/403) and shall provide the IAEA transparency measures extending beyond these requirements, including such access to individuals, documentation, equipments and facilities as may be required and deemed necessary by the IAEA; “7. Decides also that the DPRK shall abandon all other existing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programme in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner; “8. Decides that: (a) all Member States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK, through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, of: (i) any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems as defined for the purpose of the United Nations Register on Conventional Arms, or related materiel including spare parts, or items as determined by the Security Council or the Committee established by paragraph 12 below (the Committee); (ii) all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology as set out in the lists in documents S/2006/814 and S/2006/815, unless within 14 days of adoption of this resolution the Committee has amended or completed their provisions also taking into account the list in document S/2006/816, as well as other items, materials, equipment, goods and technology, determined by the Security Council or the Committee, which could contribute to DPRK’s nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes; (iii)luxury goods; (b) the DPRK shall cease the export of all items covered in subparagraphs (a) (i) and (a) (ii) above and that all Member States shall prohibit the procurement of such items from the DPRK by their nationals, or using their flagged vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in the territory of the DPRK; I all Member States shall prevent any transfers to the DPRK by their nationals or from their territories, or from the DPRK by its nationals or from its territory, of technical training, advice, services or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items in subparagraphs (a) (i) and (a) (ii) above; (d) all Member States shall, in accordance with their respective legal processes, freeze immediately the funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are on their territories at the date of the adoption of this resolution or at any time thereafter, that are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the persons or entities designated by the Committee or by the Security Council as being engaged in or providing support for, including through other illicit means, DPRK’s nuclear-related, other weapons of mass destruction-related and ballistic missile-related programmes, or by persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, and ensure that any funds, financial assets or economic resources are prevented from being made available by their nationals or by any persons or entities within their territories, to or for the benefit of such persons or entities; (e) all Member States shall take the necessary steps to prevent the entry into or transit through their territories of the persons designated by the Committee or by the Security Council as being responsible for, including through supporting or promoting, DPRK policies in relation to the DPRK’s nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related and other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes, together with their family members, provided that nothing in this paragraph shall oblige a state to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory; (f) in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of this paragraph, and thereby preventing illicit trafficking in nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, their means of delivery and related materials, all Member States are called upon to take, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation, and consistent with international law, cooperative action including through inspection of cargo to and from the DPRK, as necessary; “9. Decides that the provisions of paragraph 8 (d) above do not apply to financial or other assets or resources that have been determined by relevant States: (a) to be necessary for basic expenses, including payment for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges, or exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services, or fees or service charges, in accordance with national laws, for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds, other financial assets and economic resources, after notification by the relevant States to the Committee of the intention to authorize, where appropriate, access to such funds, other financial assets and economic resources and in the absence of a negative decision by the Committee within five working days of such notification; (b) to be necessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that such determination has been notified by the relevant States to the Committee and has been approved by the Committee; or I to be subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien or judgement, in which case the funds, other financial assets and economic resources may be used to satisfy that lien or judgement provided that the lien or judgement was entered prior to the date of the present resolution, is not for the benefit of a person referred to in paragraph 8 (d) above or an individual or entity identified by the Security Council or the Committee, and has been notified by the relevant States to the Committee; “10. Decides that the measures imposed by paragraph 8 (e) above shall not apply where the Committee determines on a case-by-case basis that such travel is justified on the grounds of humanitarian need, including religious obligations, or where the Committee concludes that an exemption would otherwise further the objectives of the present resolution; “11. Calls upon all Member States to report to the Security Council within thirty days of the adoption of this resolution on the steps they have taken with a view to implementing effectively the provisions of paragraph 8 above; “12. Decides to establish, in accordance with rule 28 of its provisional rules of procedure, a Committee of the Security Council consisting of all the members of the Council, to undertake the following tasks: (a) to seek from all States, in particular those producing or possessing the items, materials, equipment, goods and technology referred to in paragraph 8 (a) above, information regarding the actions taken by them to implement effectively the measures imposed by paragraph 8 above of this resolution and whatever further information it may consider useful in this regard; (b) to examine and take appropriate action on information regarding alleged violations of measures imposed by paragraph 8 of this resolution; I to consider and decide upon requests for exemptions set out in paragraphs 9 and 10 above; (d) to determine additional items, materials, equipment, goods and technology to be specified for the purpose of paragraphs 8 (a) (i) and 8 (a) (ii) above; (e) to designate additional individuals and entities subject to the measures imposed by paragraphs 8 (d) and 8 (e) above; (f) to promulgate guidelines as may be necessary to facilitate the implementation of the measures imposed by this resolution; (g) to report at least every 90 days to the Security Council on its work, with its observations and recommendations, in particular on ways to strengthen the effectiveness of the measures imposed by paragraph 8 above; “13. Welcomes and encourages further the efforts by all States concerned to intensify their diplomatic efforts, to refrain from any actions that might aggravate tension and to facilitate the early resumption of the six-party talks, with a view to the expeditious implementation of the Joint Statement issued on 19 September 2005 by China, the DPRK, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States, to achieve the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and to maintain peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in North-East Asia; “14. Calls upon the DPRK to return immediately to the six-party talks without precondition and to work towards the expeditious implementation of the Joint Statement issued on 19 September 2005 by China, the DPRK, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States; “15. Affirms that it shall keep DPRK’s actions under continuous review and that it shall be prepared to review the appropriateness of the measures contained in paragraph 8 above, including the strengthening, modification, suspension or lifting of the measures, as may be needed at that time in light of the DPRK’s compliance with the provisions of the resolution; “16. Underlines that further decisions will be required, should additional measures be necessary; “17. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.”