7 May 2025
Mr. President,
We welcome the participation in this meeting of Permanent Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Kim Song.
Today, the Council is involved in yet another discussion initiated by a group of Western countries – today we are to discuss the situation on the Korean peninsula. However, this does not bring us any closer to the long-awaited stabilization in the region but rather takes us further away from it. However, there is a difference with previous requests for such meetings: such meetings used to be convened whenever the DPRK took feasible measures to respond to military provocations by the US and its allies, but today what we have on the agenda is the issue of one year mark since the Panel of Experts assisting the 1718 DPRK Sanctions Committee stopped working (the group discredited itself completely since the experts were involved in collecting biased information from the Western media and were looking to purchase expensive handbags from boutiques). In other words, what we have on the agenda is an issue having to do with purely organizational aspects of the work of a subsidiary body, rather than a subject related to the maintenance of peace and security. We do no recollect that the authors of today’s meeting organized such a “memorial service” for similar panels of experts dealing with other countries, they did not even simply propose discussing the work of such groups. Thus, there is a blatant abuse of the Council’s resources so as to divert its attention from the real root causes of the escalation on the Korean peninsula.
Instead of listening to new speculations of pseudo-independent experts who explicitly declare on their website that their activities are aimed at promoting the UK’s security interests, the Council should turn to the immediate factors destabilizing the situation in the region. The main factor here is the growing military presence of NATO countries in the Asia-Pacific region, which is consistently disrupting the prospects for building a non-aligned collective security architecture there.
On February 24, the United States and Republic of Korea concluded a three-week full-scale CALFEX exercise involving about 2,000 troops and 150 units of military equipment, including a nuclear submarine. Some maneuvers took place 25 kilometers from the demilitarized zone, which could well have been regarded by Pyongyang as an armed provocation.
In recent months, Washington’s appetite for military build-up in the region has been increasingly growing. According to leaks in the media, the US Department of Defense is considering the option of permanently deploying 20 nuclear-capable F-35A Lightning II fighter jets to South Korea’s Kunsan air base. Let me remind you that these jets were used only on a temporary basis in the course of joint exercises. In case this decision is made, the allies will have far greater operational capabilities given that Seoul already has 40 units of F-35A. At the same time, there are plans to increase the number of F-16 Fighting Falcons, which are used for deterrence and potentially may provide for critical air superiority in the first hours of a hypothetical conflict by striking deep inside the opponent’s territory against well-defended targets.
I would like to stress that the three countries I’m referring to – the United States, Japan and the Republic of Korea – are among the top ten countries with the world’s largest military budgets and the most modern and destructive military equipment ready for action. This very well armed and well-coordinated alliance is trying to literally corner one independent sovereign state, which then has to find solutions to ensure its own security.
Pyongyang’s opponents can speechify a lot asserting that their actions are not prohibited by Security Council resolutions. However, such cynical assertions are inconsistent with the Security Council’s requirement to resolve the problems of the Korean peninsula exclusively through dialogue and diplomacy. In fact, we are witnessing direct and consistent violations by a group of countries of their international obligations.
On a separate note, I would like to mention the decision by eleven countries to establish the so-called Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team (MSMT), which is presented as a replacement for the Panel of Experts assisting the 1718 DPRK Sanctions Committee – this directly contradicts the UN Charter. We would like to underscore here that this mechanism was created in circumvention of the Security Council and therefore has no legitimate international mandate. Everybody knows that those who pay the piper call the tune. Thus, any products that would come out of this of this format will have no legitimacy and – we don’t doubt – will be fraud and disinformation.
Russia, for its part, has repeatedly proposed initiatives geared towards de-escalating tension and strengthening mutual trust with due regard for legitimate security interests of all parties involved. Furthermore, last April, the Security Council had on the table a Russian draft resolution to extend the mandate of the Panel of Experts, which Western countries are now shedding crocodile tears over. Besides this provision, we proposed launching a frank dialogue that would imply a regular review of the restrictions and the search for political solutions, which is an inalienable part and parcel of the UNSC’s resolution on the DPRK. As a result, the United States and its allies essentially rejected this initiative and, in fact, aborted the mandate of the sanctions experts themselves. But what’s done is done – and they only have themselves to blame.
As for Russia’s cooperation with Pyongyang, well, we have voiced our position on many previous occasions. The DPRK is our close neighbor and partner, and we are developing relations in all areas. This is our sovereign right. Russian interaction with the DPRK is in line with international law and is not against third countries, nor does it pose any threat to states in the region or the international community. Russia will certainly continue developing this cooperation.
DPRK units took an active part in the liberation of Russian territory, with Moscow and Pyongyang acting fully in line with international law, in particular with article 4 of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty of June 19, 2024, which provides for immediate military assistance in the event of an armed attack on either party to the treaty. We are extremely grateful to our Korean brothers; their heroism and bravery will be etched in the memory of our people.
The Security Council should drastically reconsider its approaches so that we could break the dangerous stalemate, rather than exacerbate it further. We have stated many times where we could start moving towards normalization. But for this to happen, Western capitals must change their mindset, which is still framed by the Cold War paradigm. The sooner the West abandons this outdated worldview, the sooner the Council will be able to exert a positive influence on the situation in the region.
Thank you.