The US increases sanctions against North Korea

The sanctions that the United States has imposed on fifty-six shipping companies and companies dealing with trade with North Korea, mainly concern companies from the following countries: China, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Marshall Islands, Tanzania , Panama and the Comoros Islands. These are companies that have repeatedly violated the economic embargo towards Pyongyang, allowing North Korea to obtain oil and, at the same time, export the raw materials produced by the North Korean regime to foreign countries. Trump has repeatedly reported the limited effectiveness of sanctions against North Korea, precisely because of too many international actors who continued to violate them, allowing the regime a certain degree of subsistence. The question is a long one: already with Obama the White House had repeatedly denounced the insufficient application of sanctions, which, however, were considered the best alternative to a possible military response to nuclear weapons trials. In fact, for sanctions to be able to obtain convincing results, they must be applied in their entirety and without violations that would allow them to be circumvented. The United States has always denounced a merely theoretical application, even by states that had ruled in favor of this diplomatic route to counteract the progress made in the atomic weapons of Pyongyang. However, from the two countries most involved in the issue: South Korea and China, the decision of the US Treasury was judged to be wrong for the timing and the manner of the decision, which took place over a period, that of the Winter Olympics, which seemed to open perspectives of detente and dialogue. The decision to increase the American pressure on North Korea was decided autonomously and not coordinated with Seoul, for which the United States remains the most important ally, and has provoked a very strong resentment in the South Korean country, whose government expressed conviction in the resumption of negotiations. The interest of Seoul is not to exacerbate the situation, also because a possible military option is judged not viable, because of the extreme danger of a North Korean response, which South Korea would have as its first objective. Moreover, the new course of the South Korean government has shown to prefer dialogue to the tests of strength and from this follows the negative judgment on the American action. China is opposed not only for the reasons similar to Seoul, also because it frustrates its efforts with Pyongyang, it was a patient diplomatic work to soften the positions of North Korea, which is likely to be thwarted by the new US sanctions, which also offer a prestige to the Pyongyang regime to raise tension. The North Korean country is likely to see its energy supplies blocked and this could lead to a new escalation of the will of force demonstrations. The reasons that have led the United States to act in this sense, are not only of practical purpose, that is to sanction those who do not adapt to economic sanctions, but also of political order: meanwhile the statement by Trump, who defined the together with the largest ever sanctioning measures, it demonstrates the US will not to give credit to North Korean readiness and at the same time reaffirm its leadership in the western region of the region. The activism of Seoul, which has adopted a more conciliatory approach with Pyongyang, has overshadowed the American role, which serves Trump to keep the North Korean issue at the center of attention internally: for the American president to have enemies of the state, on which to focus the attention of the media is necessary in a period of difficulty due to the legal issues that involve it in the context of Russian interference in the last presidential elections. If the decision to hit those who do not comply with the embargo has fundamental principles, the manner of its application and, especially the time in which they occurred, contradict the necessary caution, also required by the allies, that the North Korean case requires the unpredictability of the Pyongyang regime. It would not be siphoned to learn that this provision was taken in disagreement with US diplomacy.