Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718

Continuity?

Would it be possible to switch all uses of "North Korea" to "DPRK" or vice-versa. Switching between the two alsmost seems like talking about two different countries.

While in part I see your point, I also somewhat disagree; when the same concept needs to be mentioned numerous times, it is a recurrent technique to use different words to refer to it, so as not to make the prose too repetitive... Our two point of views might be reconciled if early on in the text it is explained that both terms mean the same.(talk) user:Al83tito 17:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Reaction

• DPRK ambassador to the U.N. walked out in protest

Sabar 20:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you got a source for that? Hut 8.5 20:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Was breaking news at the time I mentioned it. It's now on all major news network websites and soucred in the article. John Bolton had an interesting quote regarding the DPRK ambassador's actions, which I don't have on hand. Sabar 21:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Economic sanctions?

With the exception of the part about luxury goods, this is all about nonproliferation. Are economic sanctions being contemplated as well?--24.52.254.62 21:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that the council really considered broader economic sanctions. It's a matter of common knowledge that the DPRK imports and exports almost nothing except for a lot of food and energy aid from China. The experience with Iraq in the 1990s also is borne in mind by the members, in that broad sanctions hurt the people under the heel of the regime rather than the regime itself. --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

All aids to North Korea were distributed by North Korean officials meaning the regime was the sole benefactor of aids. Since mid 1990s, people (meaning except for Pyonyang, army, and party officials) were already on their own and cut off from distribution. Cutting off aids is already an economic sanction targeting regime itself and no further economic sanction is meaningful. --Revth 05:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So what is being stopped?

I was under the impression that de facto sanctions were already in place. What exactly will the world stop trading with North Korea that they weren't already not trading with North Korea? A little context woudl be helpful here. Rhialto 21:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Luxury goods for one. Sabar 21:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not really all that specific. Given typical North Korean income levels, bicycles probably count as luxury goods according to the definition in that article. Rhialto 22:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I was under the impression that the targeted luxury items would be destined for the people who actually have money and influence in North Korea, as their inconveniences would probably have a lot more impact on the internal political situation than the unconscionable starvation of penniless, powerless millions. However, I am not aware of any specific information on what is meant by "luxury items". (The entire text of the relevant paragraph of the cited article is: "Also prohibited from export to the DPRK are luxury goods.") Do we have any reliable sources for what this means? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Rhialto, you're on point. This is really the problem, that nobody but China (and just barely, Russia) has any real leverage with Pyongyang. We had some leverage under the Agreed Framework....whistles Luxury goods definitely are something that will be noticed by the elite[1] (gold pistols?!), but since there's no enforcement and they smuggle a lot of stuff anyway, who knows whether this is effective enough. As for a definition, I think that's up to the members, which returns to the enforcement issue. --Dhartung | Talk 04:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this info from the link Dhartung provided should help qualify and expand on the concept of luxury items.

"During those times, the North Korean government also spent $1.3 million on purchasing perfume from France and $12 million for jewelry, sports goods and game machines from Germany"

It would also give some idea of the monitary value of the sanctions.Hypnosadist

Link to nuclear missle test?

Shouldnt this article include a link for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_Korean_nuclear_test in the See Also section? Seems justified to me since these sanctions are a direct result of the test.Maclover134 04:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also, "See also" links "should ideally not repeat links already present in the article". I'm not sure it's that bad an idea, especially for closely connected subjects (like this) or articles whose titles aren't exactly quoted but are instead hidden behind article text (like the "nuclear test" link in this article's intro paragraph). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, at first I didnt notice the link for "nuclear test" and thats why I suggested it. Now I figure that if I couldnt see, there are probably more people in the same boat. Maclover134 13:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. I think you're right -- it's more than justified on account of the pipelink hiding the explicit link first time around. Bolivian Unicyclist 13:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Luxury Goods section

I think the ban on luxury goods should be delt with in more detail, any objections?Hypnosadist 22:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718.jpg

Image:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

How the hell is this legal?

How can a dozen nations decide to stifle a country? That's criminal.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.141.8 (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)