U.S. Said to Turn Back North Korea Missile Shipment

[alp227]

Source: The New York Times

SEOUL, South Korea — The United States Navy intercepted a North Korean ship it suspected of carrying missile technology to Myanmar two weeks ago and, after a standoff at sea and several days of diplomatic pressure from Washington and Asia nations, forced the vessel to return home, according to several senior American officials.

Washington made no announcement about the operation, which paralleled a similar, far more public confrontation with North Korea two years ago. But in response to questions about what appears to be a growing trade in missiles and missile parts between North Korea and Myanmar — two of the world’s most isolated governments — American officials have described the episode as an example of how they can use a combination of naval power and diplomatic pressure to enforce United Nations sanctions imposed after the North’s last nuclear test, in 2009.

It was a rare victory: a similar shipment of suspected missile parts made it to Myanmar last year before American officials could act. Despite the Obama administration’s efforts to squeeze North Korea with both economic and trade sanctions, there are continuing reports of sophisticated missile technology exchanges, some of it by air, between North Korea and Iran, among other nations.

North Korea, aware that shipments leaving the country are under increased scrutiny, has found a profitable trading partner in the authoritarian government in Myanmar.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/world/asia/13missile.html

[Hoopla Phil]

1. Myanmar?! Weren't they the bad guys in the last Rambo movie?

Yeah I know, I was just trying to give a cute "kick" to the thread.

[Lasher]

2. Why not seize the vessel instead of just turning it back?

Looks like the same ship tried to make a run just two weeks ago.

[TheWraith]

4. I don't believe that that would be legal.

There are very few scenarios under which it's legal to seize a ship.

[Lasher]

6. Under what scenario is it legal to block a ship's passage

when that same scenario would not justify seizing the vessel? Seems to me, it would be illegal to stop it and force it back to port if it were illegal to capture it.

[TheWraith]

7. Not really, because inspection is a much lower step than seizure of property.

Naval law.

[Lasher]

8. Well I guess I could salute that.

It doesn't seem to make sense, doing nothing more than sending them back when you know they're going to try again. But the law doesn't have to make sense. It just has to be the law.

Thanks for the education.

[Nihil]

9. They didn't actually inspect - the US were refused permission - so the ship "voluntarily" retreated

The US interceptor had obtained permission from the Belize authorities
(where the ship was registered) and requested access to inspect the
cargo four times but each time the request was refused.

Obama took the sensible choice of not boarding forcibly - an act of
piracy unless the contraband was 100% certain to be on board - so after
diplomatic discussions, the ship turned around and went back to port.

It wasn't "forced back to port" by the US per se but the interdiction
was effective - without a shot being fired.

Obama (or whoever in his team took the calls) made exactly the right decisions
on this occasion and should be praised for neither allowing the potential
missiles to get through nor falling into a possible baited trap by NV.

:applause:

[TheMadMonk]

5. Because that's PIRACY. /nt

[cosmicone]

3. NK is a stooge of China

and China uses it as a shield from accusations of proliferation.

China's goal is to surround India by establishing bases in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Myanmar while creating unrest in Nepal to grab that small nation.

NK won't do anything without China's tacit assistance and supplies missile technology to Pakistan as well. When will the US intercept such shipments to Pakistan?

[rug]

10. Progress.