North Korea considering suspending nuclear talks with US

Trump told a post-summit press conference in Hanoi that the North Korean leader had promised he would maintain his moratorium on missile and nuclear tests. (File/AFP)
Updated 15 March 2019
0

North Korea considering suspending nuclear talks with US

  • Kim would soon make an official statement on the actions his country would take
  • The warning came amid concerns over the North’s satellite rocket launch site, where some rebuilding activity has been observed in recent weeks

SEOUL: North Korea is considering suspending denuclearization talks with Washington after the Hanoi summit between leader Kim Jong Un and US President Donald Trump ended without agreement, one of its top diplomats said Friday.
The warning came amid concerns over the North’s satellite rocket launch site, where some rebuilding activity has been observed in recent weeks, triggering international alarm that Pyongyang might be preparing a long-range missile or space launch.
“We have no intention to yield to the US demands in any form, nor are we willing to engage in negotiations of this kind,” the Russian news agency TASS cited vice foreign minister Choe Son Hui as saying.
Kim would soon make an official statement on the actions his country would take, Choe told reporters and foreign diplomats in Pyongyang.
Trump told a post-summit press conference in Hanoi that the North Korean leader had promised he would maintain his moratorium on missile and nuclear tests.
Any launch would send the denuclearization talks into complete disarray, after they were left stuttering when the summit ended without agreement two weeks ago.
Choe — who was present in Vietnam — blamed the US for the failure, saying Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton “created the atmosphere of hostility and mistrust” and “obstructed” Kim and Trump’s “constructive effort.”
“As a result, the summit ended with no significant result,” she added.
It is a change of tone from Pyongyang, after both sides expressed their willingness to carry on the discussion process in Hanoi.
Ankit Panda, of the Federation of American Scientists, said Kim’s unilateral declaration of the ICBM testing moratorium was “now in question.”
It could mean a decision had already been made, he tweeted, but added that it did not mean a launch was imminent.
“One play is for Kim to reaffirm the moratorium. Kim looks big,” he said. “That also keeps China happy for now.
“Another play is to renounce the moratorium, which would be risky,” as it would upset China, be “disappointing” to Trump, and “squanders the inter-Korean process.”
Seoul’s presidential office sought to play down the vice-minister’s comments, saying it was “premature to assess the current situation only with Choe’s remarks.”
South Korea will continue to work for the resumption of talks, it added.
Washington wants what administration officials have called a “big deal,” with the complete elimination of weapons of mass destruction in return for the dropping of sanctions that have hit the isolated North’s economy.
“Nobody in the administration advocates a step-by-step approach,” a senior State Department official told reporters last week.
The North says it only called for the partial lifting of UN sanctions imposed 2016-17 that affect people’s livelihoods.
But Washington sees these measures as the bulk of economic sanctions that brought Kim to the table, and believes without them it would lose leverage in future talks.
Pyongyang favors a more incremental approach, with Kim proposing dismantling facilities at its Yongbyon nuclear complex in exchange for lifting the main sanctions — an offer Trump refused in Hanoi despite the vaunted “chemistry” between the pair.
In his New Year’s speech — a key political event in the North — Kim said he would be “compelled to find a new way for defending the sovereignty” of the state if Washington “persists in imposing sanctions and pressure.”


Swiss parliament backs expelling militants to states that use torture

Updated 57 min 45 sec ago
0

Swiss parliament backs expelling militants to states that use torture

  • Justice Minister Karin Keller-Sutter told a debate in parliament that the government sympathized with proponents of the measure but its hands were tied
  • One of the convicted militants is a wheelchair-bound man found guilty in 2016 of planning terrorist attacks and helping Daesh operatives enter Switzerland

ZURICH: Switzerland’s parliament approved allowing convicted militants to be sent home to countries where they could face torture, leaving the government to decide how to implement the motion without breaking international law.
The Swiss constitution bans expelling people to countries where they might be subject to torture. But parlimament’s upper house on Tuesday narrowly adopted a motion allowing exceptions for foreign militants, as the Swiss lower house had done.
The motion stems from discontent among lawmakers over the ability of Iraqi militants convicted in Swiss courts of aiding Daesh to avoid being sent home because of the ban on exposing people to torture or other inhumane treatment.
Conservative critics say the ban has cost taxpayer money to care for convicted militants and angered citizens who say Switzerland should not have to host such people on its soil.
Justice Minister Karin Keller-Sutter told a debate in parliament that the government sympathized with proponents of the measure but its hands were tied.
“The security of the Swiss population has top priority but we also have to adhere to the limits of the rule of law.”
One of the convicted militants is a wheelchair-bound man found guilty in 2016 of planning terrorist attacks and helping Daesh operatives enter Switzerland. Freed from prison, he now lives in a transit center for asylum seekers and is fighting extradition.
Switzerland said this month it would not help bring home its own stranded citizens who had joined extremist forces in Syria and Iraq, insisting national security was paramount.
Switzerland is a signatory to the United Nations’ 1984 Convention against Torture, which bars expulsions of people to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing they would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
Iraq is also a party to the convention, but lacks laws or guidelines providing for judicial action when defendants allege torture or mistreatment, Human Rights Watch said in a report last year. It said torture was rampant in Iraq’s justice system.