The North Korea problem is one that is so complex that annalists can’t figure out if it’s the bombs that are the main problem or the actors. Going from being just an “issue” to a full-fledged problem long ago, North Korea has become a pleasant catastrophe that remains, shockingly, diplomatically debated among the concerned 6-party members (China, S. Korea, N. Korea, The US, and Russia). An article from the United Press International analyzes a new piece in the back and forth ballet.

The article here says that

Banco Delta Asia froze the $25 million after the U.S. Treasury accused it of laundering money Pyongyang pockets through illicit financial activities. North Korea has said it would not take disarmament steps before confirming the transfer of funds.

By transferring the funds to another offshore bank, the North wants to see the money accepted internationally and to keep using the international banking system to manage its overseas funds. But foreign banks have refused to handle North Korea‘s funds at the BDA for fear that it would downgrade their credibility.

In response to the US Treasuries potentially crippling accusations, the Delta Asia Financial Group who oversees the Macau based banking agency: Banco Delta Asia (BDA) had this to say,

“Delta Asia Group (Holdings) Limited (“DAGH”) regrets the US Department of Treasury’s decision to finalize the rulemaking to impose a special measure against our commercial banking arm, Banco Delta Asia, S.A.R.L.

DAGH denies that BDA knew or suspected that its customers were engaged in money laundering or that any of its customers were engaged in any criminal activities or their funds were in any way connected with such activities. It is always BDA’s commitment to ensuring that its anti-money laundering policies and procedures comply with the guidelines and requirements of the regulator, that is, the Macau Monetary Authority.

Denying the activities of the BDA doesn’t dismiss that North Korea still wants its overseas money, and more over, wants to continue its overseas transactions. North Korea finds that not being able to bank freely has put a kink in what seems to be its master plan. All of this puts a bind in executing the Chinese backed February 13^th agreement which was supposed to force Pyongyang to shut down its plutonium-producing reactor at Yongbyon and invite back U.N. nuclear inspectors by April 14 in return for energy aid and security guarantees. Now Pyongyang has put the BDA in a tight position as the US would condemn the bank if it continued to bank with North Korea, but by not banking, North Korea refuses to disarm.

So far it seems that the BDA has chosen to follow US Treasury demands for better ethical banking and anti-laundering measures,

“Since the designation of BDA by the US Department of Treasury in September 2005, BDA has always been co-operating fully with the US regulator and remains committed to enhancing its anti-money laundering (“AML”) and know-your-client policies and procedures.”

However long this compliance will last is uncertain. All of this has stopped the European Union from carry out its 8 million euro humanitarian aid initiative for the year 2007. The standstill has everybody worried. The European magazine Cafebabel.com asks an all important question that is on everybody’s minds,

“What to do now? That’s the burning question on the lips of all diplomats in place. If the option of armed intervention is still valid, how do you attack a country which, from now on, possesses atomic weapons? The risk seems too big. The Taepodong II missile has a range estimated at 6700 km (4200 miles), allowing North Korea to strike Alaska. Other experts claim that a version of the missile could have a range of 15,000 km, putting the entire American territory in danger.”

With no end in sight and defiant messages from North Korean diplomats such as North Korea’s deputy foreign minister, Kang Sok-ju, speaking to a group of reporters while passing through Beijing from Russia,

“Why would we abandon nuclear weapons? Are you saying we conducted a nuclear test in order to abandon them?”

The solution is no where close to being resolved. Eventually either compromise or a military action will have to take place leaving yet another unfinished project on our plate to be dealt with.

~J out

links to the articles cited:
Analysis: Debate on North Korea continues-United Press International (UPI)