The UN Security Council plans to convene an emergency session on Sunday to deal with Korean tensions. Russia officially requested the meeting in an apparent move to prevent further military escalation in the West Sea amid North Korea’s warnings of “deadlier” firepower retaliation against South Korea’s live-fire drills that were planned for this weekeend, either Saturday or Sunday, but may now be postponed to early next week due to poor maritime weather conditions.

Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin is about to make a press statement in a matter of minutes. (See statement below)

North Korea is playing the military card and nuclear card simultaneously. Pyongyang shelled South Korea’s Yeonpyeong Island on November 23, 2010 killing both soldiers and civilians, in its first deadliest attack on South Korea since the Korean War ended in 1953. The regime previously disclosed its pilot uranium enrichment facility to American scientist Sig Hecker along with construction plans for an indigenous light-water reactor.

It is unclear how certain points will be discussed among Council members and what action it will take. The least (lowest action) the Council can do in terms of response or action is to release a President’s Statement. The last time the Security Council met over North Korea’s provocation was after Pyongyang sank the South Korean ship Cheonan. But the Council’s action was very weak and disappointing since the UNSC Statement did not name North Korea as the attacker upon China’s influence.

Korea watchers generally are not hopeful for any substantive results at the Council this time.

With looming questions over the Security Council’s effectiveness, there is a debate among experts as to whether the Council should uphold its obligation to take action as instructed by the UN Charter or whether Council involvement would actually interfere with a matter that should be dealt with between the two Koreas first. (Click Read More)

Statement by Vitaly Churkin, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN, 18 December 2010:

“We are seriously concerned about possible further escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula.This situation directly affects the national security interests of the Russian Federation.This morning I sent a letter to the current President of the Security Council – the delegation of the United States – requesting that an emergency meeting of the Council be called on the situation on the Korean peninsula.We believe that the Security Council must send a restraining signal to the Republic of Korea and DPRK and help launch diplomatic activity with a view to resolving all issues of dispute between the two Korean sides by political and diplomatic means.However, the President of the Security Council declined to convene such a meeting today. We regret that. We believe that such a step by the President is a departure from the practice existing in the Council.The US delegation has promised that the meeting of the Council will be convened on Sunday, December 19th, at 11 a.m. New York time and that the information to that affect is going to be circulated now to the Members of the Security Council, the UN Secretariat and the media.We assume that nothing will happen in the interim that would bring about a further aggravation on the Korean peninsula.”

As Republicans continue to work themselves into a tizzy about the New START treaty’s preambular language on missile defense, there are a number of key points to keep in mind about why this should be a non-issue.  I realize that this is all about p…

‘Twas the week before Christmas, when all through the house,
Not a treaty was stirring, not even New START.
The speeches were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that some amendments soon would be there;
The Senators were nestled all snug in their rooms,
While smells of jet fuel danced in their heads.

When out on the plaza there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.
Away to the window I flew like a flash,
Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.
The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow
Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below,

When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But an adjournment resolution, and eight tiny taxis,
With a little old driver, so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment it must be St. Reid.

More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name;
“Now, Kyl! now McCain! now, Kerry and Lugar!
On, Casey! on Cardin! on, DeMint and Wicker!”

To the top of the Senate! to the top of the Capitol!
Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!”
But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight,
“Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-recess.”

With apologies to the original authors and for the poor rhyming.

During his colloquy yesterday with Senator Kerry, Senator Kyl argued that New START’s preambular language noting an interrelationship between offensive and defensive forces, together with Russia’s unilateral statement stating that improvements in U.S. missile defense capabilities could be grounds for withdrawal from the treaty, gives the Russians powerful leverage over the future direction of U.S. missile defense programs

As such, some Republicans plan to support a treaty killing amendment to be offered by Senator McCain (today?) to remove the language on missile defense from the preamble so that Russia can’t threaten to withdraw from the treaty if the U.S. expands its missile defenses.

In a Dear Colleague letter sent to other Senators yesterday, Senator Lugar (R-IN) reiterated that amending the preamble in this way would be pointless and counterproductive:

For more information on how the treaty’s preamble does not meaningfully limit U.S. missile defenses, see here and here.

In the wake of yesterday’s impressive 66 – 32 procedural vote in favor of moving to executive session to consider New START, the Senate spent the day “debating” the treaty – without considering any amendments to the treaty or the resolution of ratification.  

Meanwhile, our military leaders continued to stress the national security urgency of prompt ratification.  “We need START, and we need it badly,” proclaimed Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at Gen. James Cartwright at a White House press conference.  Or as the Associated Press put it: “Military leaders dispute GOP on arms control pact”.

For the most part Senators gave speeches in support and in opposition to the treaty.  Those who spoke in favor of the treaty included: Kerry (Massachusetts), Lugar (R-Indiana), Cardin (Maryland), Boxer (California), Nelson (Nebraska), Mark Udall (Colorado), Shaheen (New Hampshire), Bingaman (New Mexico), Menendez (New Jersey), Dorgan (North Dakota), Conrad (North Dakota), Durbin (Illinois) and Casey (Pennsylvania).

Opponents who spoke included: Kyl (Arizona), Thune (South Dakota), Burr (North Carolina), Cornyn (Texas), Inhofe (Oklahoma) and Sessions (Alabama).  Senator Chambliss (Georgia) also raised numerous concerns, but did not indicate how he would vote.  Despite repeated calls from Senator Kerry for amendments, Republicans offered none.  Instead they complained about the lack of time to consider the treaty and rehashed substantive objections that have been addressed and answered time and time again over the past seven months.  As Senator Kerry put it: “We’re ready to vote on the treaty. The only thing we’re waiting for are the people who say we don’t have time.”

Two moments from the debate stood out.  First, immediately following a 45-minute statement from Senator Kyl, Senator Isakson (R-Georgia) gave a stirring speech about the importance of the treaty and his reasons for voting to support it in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Said Isakson: “I came to the conclusion that verification is better than no verification at all. Transparency is what prevents things like 9/11 from ever happening again.”  While he did not join the majority in yesterday’s procedural vote, his impassioned defense suggests that he will support final approval of the treaty.  

The second noteworthy moment was an evening colloquy between Senator Kyl (who once again made it abundantly clear that he intends to oppose the treaty) and Senator Kerry.  The two Senators went back and forth on the Department of Defense’s plans to maintain and modernize U.S. nuclear delivery systems and missile defense.  On missile defense, Kyl disagreed with the entire military brass in claiming that the treaty imposes meaningful limits on U.S. missile defenses and gives the Russians powerful leverage over the future direction of these programs.

Kyl made it clear that there will be amendments offered to strike New START’s preambuar language and Article V, Paragraph III of the treaty, which prohibits the conversion of ICBM and SLBM launchers into launchers for missile defense interceptors and vice versa.

Given some last minute changes to the Senate schedule before adjourning for the day, New START will be on the floor again tomorrow – the schedule after that remains murky.  Will the Republicans begin offering amendments?  Stay tuned.

UPDATE 12/17 8:30 AM: Due to Republican opposition, Majority Leader Reid has pulled the Omnibus appropriations bill from consideration in favor of a short term CR, which should be wrapped up by Saturday night to avoid a government shutdown. Reid also filed cloture on the DREAM Act and DADT repeal last night, meaning votes on those two issues will occur on Saturday as well. With the omnibus out of the way, the road should be even clearer to debate and vote on New START before Christmas (how soon before Christmas is anyone’s guess). Those Republicans arguing that the Senate shouldn’t consider New START at the same time as an enormous spending bill (a specious argument to begin with) no longer have that leg to stand on.