Written by Scott Humor; Originally appeared at thesaker.is

H.R. 1644, the Korea Interdiction and Modernization of Sanctions Act

President Trump signed the ‘Buy American, Hire American’ executive order.

“The most spectacular claim—that North Korea is, at present, “capable of producing a nuclear bomb every six or seven weeks”—

is backed up entirely by an anonymous blob of “expert studies and classified intelligence reports.”… it is “impossible to verify.”

Coming to Russia, don’t complain about its weather. Remember that our climate was designed as a weapon against invading armies. At the end of April 2017, the United States government apparatchiks have officially  divorced themselves from reality by starting two initiatives, both being a severe infringement on Russia’s sovereignty. First is an announcement of the US government tender to run a “refugee resettlement center” in Moscow for the Eurasian countries each of which having its own US Embassy. So far there has been no official Russia’s reaction to this announcement.

On April 29, the US House of Representatives passed a newly minted H.R. 1644: Korean Interdiction and Modernization of Sanctions Act. Despite of its title, the Bill targets Russia, China, Iran and Syria by a slew of measures that normally would be implemented only in a time of war.

At the look of it, the US Congress members claim to enforce the control over implementation of the UN Security Council resolution that limits the trade of the DPRK with other countries, and bans the supply of weapons, aircraft, missiles, nuclear and other technologies. However, the document also provides the “legal basis” for US military control over Russian ports in the Far East and in Syria, and also over the Iranian and Chinese ports.

What the Russian politicians and observers found the most amazing was the fact that the UN Security Council has never requested the US to provide control over implementation of its resolution on the DPRK.

As it is being presented, the H.R. 1466 Bill is an affront not only to common sense, but also to the fundamental norms of international law. For starters, if it becomes a law the Bill will allow the US military to inspect, search and seize any vessel or aircraft suspected in violation of the anti North Korea sanctions per their own discretion. It also gives the US military the authority to inspect the sea ports in Russia, Syria, Iran and China, implying that resisting will result in much broader sanctions against these four countries.

If adopted and signed into law by President Trump, the bill will also sanction Russia’s global food trade due to the North Korean workers being employed in Russia’s agricultural sector, at the time when Russia overtakes the US and Canada as a major grain supplier. The Bill, apparently, stands to completely ban the trade of Russia’s produced food over the world in order to replace it with the US produced Genetically Modified Organisms that the US sells as food.

The Bill has also targets Russia’s Far East ports and fleet and its Navy base in Syria. It seeks to impede Russia’s right to freedom of navigation, and its LNG and oil transported by sea.

But, why stop there?

The H.R. 1466 Bill seeks to put a stoppage to the Chinese trade with the US, it also seeks to impose the MANDATORY ASSET BLOCKING on the unspecified Chinese capital and properties located on the territory of the US and elsewhere.

In essence this Bill is an act of naked aggression and interference in the affairs of the sovereign states.

Below I posted information on the bill’s authors and their political contributors, so you would be able to see for yourself how much the US agricultural lobbies have been investing into this piece of legislature along with the pro-Israel lobbies, and Aerospace and Defense contractors like the Raytheon Company and Boeing.

Overall, the H.R.1466 is a very ambitious Bill, and I have to give credit to its real authors (not to the US Representatives, who landed their names to it); they manage to hide its real targets so deep that only a few people with the knowledge of the reality can actually read it.

Take for example a provision of “within the last 365 days” that allows retrospectively blanket target Russia and China. According to the Bill, any Chinese and Russian vessel including military, and aircraft carrying on regular passenger flights to the US, are the subject to seizure by the US authorities due to a simple fact that these countries’ fleets have been visiting the North Korean ports and the North Korean workers have been legally allowed to work in Russia and China. You can judge for yourself, from the excerpts posted below.

If this Bill is signed into the law, we might assume that it will place a halt to passenger flights between the US and Russia, and between China and the US.

Another important point of this Bill is a designation of the north Korean citizens as “slaves” and the country as a “terrorist state.” To designate an entire nation of twenty five million people as “terrorists” is some serious kooky-bananas. A similar attempt made by a military junta in Kiev Ukraine to designate as “terrorists’ the population of Donetsk and Lugansk republics has previously been rejected by the UN Security Council.

According to the GovTrack: “This was a vote to pass H.R. 1644 in the House. This vote was taken under a House procedure called “suspension of the rules” which is typically used to pass non-controversial bills. Votes under suspension require a 2/3rds majority. A failed vote under suspension can be taken again.”

“H.R. 1644 amends the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 to modify and increase the President’s authority to impose sanctions on persons in violation of certain U.N. Security Council resolution regarding North Korea. Specifically, the bill expands sanctions to deter North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs, targets those individuals overseas who employ North Korean slave labor, cracks down on North Korean shipping and use of international ports, and requires the administration to determine whether North Korea is a state sponsor of terrorism.”

232 republicans and 187 democrats voted for this bill. Only one republican voted against, Thomas Harold Massie, an American engineer and politician who has been the United States Representative for Kentucky’s 4th congressional district.

As in case of imposing anti-Russian sanctions after the US staged military putsch in Ukraine (STAND for Ukraine Act H.R. 5094 in May 2016), the US lawmakers use a completely artificial and staged anger with the North Korean leader to attack trade and freedom of navigation of Russia, China, Iran and Syria.

It’s important to understand that, going forward, it won’t matter what steps these four countries would take to satisfy the US government demands, their “guilty” status has been already predetermined and written into this Bill by a provision “within the past 365 days.”  The Bill dictates that the moment president Trump signs it into the law, the US grants itself the “right” to start seizure of Russia’s, Chinese, Iranian and Syria capital, properties, vessels and aircraft, civilian as well as military, on the territories under the direct jurisdiction  of the US laws, if not all over the world.

On average, it takes about a year for the US lawmakers to come up with a piece of legislature, so we can safely assume that H.R. 1644 was in development before the presidential elections. An anti – North Korea hysteria has started in March with an over exaggerated reaction to a video presumably made by the country.

It’s all started on March 21st, when the New York Times’ Russell Goldman reported that “Korea Flexes Its Military Muscle on YouTube, With Added Effects”

“North Korea released a propaganda video this week depicting a United States aircraft carrier and a warplane being destroyed in computer-generated balls of fire, the latest salvo in an escalating war of words between the two nuclear powers.”

A video in question was posted on March 18th by the state NK agency, and is a compilation of random images on the US troops and some computer generated graphic. The simple fact that it was released in Korean language shows that it was intended to be for the Korean audience only.

One has to be hard-pressed to find any threat in this sort of video. However, based on this video the US “Military Experts” concluded that the North Korea intended a missile launch within days.”

Not being “the US military expert,” I was absolutely right to assume that this was just another utterly fake threat that the U.S. cooked up in order to target Russia’s ports and to disrupt the international trade and freedom of navigation of Russia and China by deploying its fleet near the Russia’s Far Eastern borders.

There is a school of thoughts that the North Korean leader was recruited by the UK secret serviceswhile being a student of an elite boarding school there. That would explain his bizarre behavior and playing right into the hands of the US propaganda, and also his spat with China and his attempts to ruin the country’s relations with Russia that had been cherished so much by his father. Shortly before his death, ill and frail Kim Jong-il boarded a train and took a week long journey to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. Their meeting was unofficial, and we still don’t know what was discussed, but I bet that the old man asked Putin to take care of his people. Putin is not known to ever renegade on his promises.

===========================================================

PART II: The H.R. 1466 and its authors

The first draft of the Bill passed the House of representatives on March 21, 2017 allegedly in response to a “threatening” video.

Anyone who is familiar with the way the US laws are being written and adopted would know that it takes months and sometimes years to write something into a law. The high velocity with which this Bill passes through the US Congress indicates a premeditated event.

The Bill claims to enforce the UN Resolution on the North Korea, without naming one. The reason why the US House of Representatives fails to name any particular UN resolution that they seek to “enforce” is because there is NONE that would warrant such measures. In essence, with the H.R. 1466 the US lawmakers seek to place a stoppage to the global trade and maritime activities, and they see targeting Russia and China as the best place to start.

The Western Media reporting on the H.R. 1466 Bill mentioned the UN Security Council resolution #2270 adopted on March 2nd, 2016.

The latest UN resolution condemning the N. Korean missile test was adopted on March 23rd, 2017, two days after the US Senate passing the H.R. 1466.

RES/2345 The Resolution reads: “This resolution renewed for another 13 months the mandate of the Panel of Experts assisting the 1718 DPRK Sanctions Committee.”

According to the draft of this Bill, its first version was submitted on March 21, 2017 and the second was reported in the House of representatives on April 28, 2017.

Following our tradition to look at people behind the political events, the following is the list of authors and sponsors of this Bill.

Text: H.R.1644 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]

[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[H.R. 1644 Introduced in House (IH)]  115th CONGRESS  1st Session  H. R. 1644   To enhance sanctions with respect to transactions relating to North  Korea, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES  March 21, 2017

March 21, 2017

Mr. Royce of California (for himself, Mr. Engel, Mr. Yoho, and Mr. Sherman) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Financial Services, Transportation and Infrastructure, Oversight and Government Reform, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

April 28, 2017

Additional sponsors: Mr. Connolly, Mr. Bera, Mr. Abraham, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Cook, Ms. Gabbard, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Keating, Mr. Sires, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Barr, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Ted Lieu of California, Mrs. Wagner, Mrs. Mimi Walters of California, and Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas

—

Authors of the Bill

Edward Randall “Ed” Royce, a member of the United States House of Representatives for California’s 39th congressional district, is listed as the main author of this bill.

Edward R. Royce is listed by the non-government political watchdogs as the top second  US representative that received pro-Israel campaign contributions –  $233,943

Total Campaign Contributions Received by Ed Royce: $4,041,553

NORPAC is a bipartisan, multi-candidate political action committee working to strengthen the United States–Israel relationship – $114,243

Top 10 Interests Funding

Top 10 Organizations Funding

Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016.

According to the MapLight disclamer, “Contributions data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org). Legislative data from GovTrack.us. ”

—–

Eliot L. Engel Democrat (Elected 1988), NY House district 16

I wrote in details about the Representative Eliot Lance Engel in connection to his anti-Russia activities in authoring  STAND for Ukraine Act H.R. 5094 in May 2016

Eliot Lance Engel has been reported as being a recipient of the  pro-Israel campaign contributions $191,150

Total Campaign Contributions Received by Eliot L. Engel: $1,596,646

Top 10 Interests Funding

Top 10 Organizations Funding

Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016.

—-

Ted S. Yoho Republican (Elected 2013), FL House district 3

Total Campaign Contributions Received by Ted S. Yoho: $721,346

Top 10 Interests Funding

Top 10 Organizations Funding

—

Brad Sherman Democrat (Elected 1996), CA House district 30

Brad Sherman has reputedly received $93,580 in pro-Israel campaign contributions.

Total Campaign Contributions Received by Brad Sherman: $1,575,550

Top 10 Interests Funding

Top 10 Organizations Funding

Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016.

—

The US Representatives sponsoring the Bill

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen   is  listed as a recipient of the pro-Israel campaign contributions  –  $138,800

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Republican (Elected 1988), FL House district 27

Total Campaign Contributions Received by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: $1,453,178

Top 10 Interests Funding

Top 10 Organizations Funding

Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016. Contributions fro

—

The US representative Ralph Lee Abraham, Jr.

Total Campaign Contributions Received by Ralph Lee Abraham: $649,364

Top 10 Interests Funding

Top 10 Organizations Funding

Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016. Contributions from political

—

William R. Keating (D-MA) U.S. House

Total Campaign Contributions Received by William R. Keating: $1,094,550

Top 10 Interests Funding

Top 10 Organizations Funding

Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016. Contributions from political parties and from

—

Democrat David Nicola Cicilline the U.S. Representative for Rhode Island’s 1st congressional district, an author of the US-Israel Cybersecurity Cooperation Act

—

Steven Joseph “Steve” Chabot, the US Representative for Ohio’s 1st congressional district

Listed as the US legislator that received the most Pro-Israel campaign contributions:

—

Paul Cook (CA-8) reportedly received 3.300 in pro-Israel campaign contributions.

—

Ted Poe has reportedly received $11,250 in pro-Israel campaign contributions. 

—

Andy Barr is reported to receive $35,750 in pro-Israel campaign contributions.

—

Michael T. McCaul reported to receive  $37,650 in pro-Israel campaign contributions.

—

Ted Lieu reported to receive $56,395  pro-Israel campaign contributions

—

Only five sponsors of the Korean Bill, Austin Scott, Steven Brett Guthrie, Ann Louise Wagner, Marian Elaine “Mimi” Walters and Samuel Robert “Sam” Johnson, have not been listed as a recipient of pro Israel campaign contributions.

According to the MapLight: ” U.S. Congress illuminates the connection between campaign contributions and legislative votes in unprecedented ways.”

==================================

Notable excerpts from the H.R. 1466 Bill

Text: H.R.1644 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)

Shown Here: Referred in Senate (05/04/2017)

—

The devil is always in the details, the Russia’s agricultural trade is targeted by the following:

“b) Expansion of Additional Discretionary Designations.–Section

104(b)(1) of the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of

2016 (22 U.S.C. 9214(b)(1)) is amended–(4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:

“(M) knowingly, directly or indirectly, engaged in, facilitated, or was responsible for the exportation of workers from North Korea in a manner intended to generate significant revenue, directly or indirectly, for use by the Government of North Korea or by the Workers’ Party of Korea;

 “(3) a list of foreign persons that knowingly employ North Korean laborers, as described in section 104(b)(1)(M)”

Putting aside the bizarre rhetoric of the freedom of movement as being an “exportation of workers,” this point is directly targeting Russia that is known to issue 20,000 work visas for the North Korea’s citizens annually. The migrant workers from North Korea are mostly employed by the agricultural companies, they also known to create cooperatives to rent land for production of agricultural products. Russia is a host to the biggest community of the North Korean nationals most of whom live in Vladivostok area on permanent and semi-permanent basis.

The Bill seeks to declare the Korean community members work in Russia as being in a “violation of the UN resolution.”

———————

(1) In general.–Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, and annually thereafter  for 5 years, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that specifically describes the compliance of foreign countries and other foreign  jurisdictions with the requirement to curtail the trade described in subsection (b)(1).

“(2) Form.–The report required under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex.”.

—-

Provisions targeting the sea ports and freedom of navigation

SEC. 104. Amendments to enhance inspection authorities.

Title II of the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 9221 et seq.), as amended by section 102 of this Act, is further amended by striking section 205 and inserting the following:

205. Enhanced inspection authorities.

“(a) Report required.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this section, and annually thereafter for 5 years, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report—

“(A) identifying the operators of foreign sea ports and airports that have knowingly—

“(i) failed to implement or enforce regulations to inspect ships, aircraft, cargo, or conveyances in transit to or from North Korea, as required by applicable United Nations Security Council resolutions;

“(ii) facilitated the transfer, transshipment, or conveyance of significant types or quantities of cargo, vessels, or aircraft owned or controlled by persons designated under applicable United Nations Security Council resolutions; or

“(iii) facilitated any of the activities described in section 104(a);

“(B) describing the extent to which the requirements of applicable United Nations Security Council resolutions to de-register any vessel owned, controlled, or operated by the Government of North Korea have been implemented by other foreign countries;

“(C) describing the compliance of the Islamic Republic of Iran with the sanctions mandated in applicable United Nations Security Council resolutions;

“(D) identifying vessels, aircraft, and conveyances owned or controlled by the Reconnaissance General Bureau of the Workers’ Party of Korea; and

“(E) describing the diplomatic and enforcement efforts by the President to secure the full implementation of the applicable United Nations Security Council resolutions, as described in subparagraphs (A) through (C).

“(2) FORM.—The report required under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex.

“(b) Specific findings.—Each report required under subsection (a) shall include specific findings with respect to the following ports and airports:

“(1) The ports of Dandong, Dalian, and any other port in the People’s Republic of China that the President deems appropriate.

“(2) The ports of Abadan, Bandar-e-Abbas, Chabahar, Bandar-e-Khomeini, Bushehr Port, Asaluyeh Port, Kish, Kharg Island, Bandar-e-Lenge, and Khorramshahr, and Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport, in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“(3) The ports of Nakhodka, Vanino, and Vladivostok, in the Russian Federation.

“(4) The ports of Latakia, Banias, and Tartous, and Damascus International Airport, in the Syrian Arab Republic.

“(c) Enhanced security targeting requirements.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary of Homeland Security may, using the Automated Targeting System operated by the National Targeting Center of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, require enhanced screening procedures to determine whether physical inspections are warranted of any cargo bound for or landed in the United States that—

“(A) has been transported through a sea port or airport the operator of which has been identified by the President in accordance with subsection (a)(1) as having repeatedly failed to comply with applicable United Nations Security Council resolutions;

“(B) is aboard a vessel or aircraft, or within a conveyance that has, within the last 365 days, entered the territory, waters, or airspace of North Korea, or landed in any of the sea ports or airports of North Korea; or

“(C) is registered by a country or jurisdiction whose compliance has been identified by the President as deficient pursuant to subsection (a)(2).

(c) Mandatory and discretionary asset blocking.—Section 104(c) of the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 9214(c)) is amended—

(1) by striking “of a designated person” and inserting “of a person designated under subsection (a)”;

(2) by striking “The President” and inserting the following:

“(1) MANDATORY ASSET BLOCKING.—The President”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(2) DISCRETIONARY ASSET BLOCKING.—The President may also exercise such powers, in the same manner and to the same extent described in paragraph (1), with respect to a person designated under subsection (b).”.

—

subsection (b)is called” b) Expansion of additional discretionary designations.—Section 104(b)(1) of the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 9214(b)(1))

Under section “205. Enhanced inspection authorities“ the US government grants itself “enhanced authorities” and the US doing so unliterary, using its own domestic legislature and   on behalf of all the UN members and even the permanent members if the UN Security Council Russia and China, without ever getting the authorization from the UN Security Council.

“(c) Enhanced security targeting requirements.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary of Homeland Security may, using the Automated Targeting System operated by the National Targeting Center of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, require enhanced screening procedures to determine whether physical inspections are warranted of any cargo bound for or landed in the United States that—

“(A) has been transported through a sea port or airport the operator of which has been identified by the President in accordance with subsection (a)(1) as having repeatedly failed to comply with applicable United Nations Security Council resolutions;

“(B) is aboard a vessel or aircraft, or within a conveyance that has, within the last 365 days, entered the territory, waters, or airspace of North Korea, or landed in any of the sea ports or airports of North Korea; or landed in any of the sea ports or airports of North Korea; or

“(C) is registered by a country or jurisdiction whose compliance has been identified by the President as deficient pursuant to subsection (a)(2).

—-

“(C) is registered by a country or jurisdiction whose compliance has been identified by the President as deficient pursuant to subsection (a)(2).”

“(d) Seizure and Forfeiture.—A vessel, aircraft, or conveyance used to facilitate any of the activities described in section 104(a) under the jurisdiction of the United States may be seized and forfeited under—

“(1) chapter 46 of title 18, United States Code; or

“(2) part V of title IV of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1581 et seq.).”.

SEC. 204. Determination on designation of North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism.

(a) Determination.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a determination whether North Korea meets the criteria for designation as a state sponsor of terrorism.

===============================================

The Russia’s lawmakers response to the Bill

A senior Russian senator says the American bill allowing the US Navy to enforce international sanctions on North Korea through the control of Russian ports is a violation of international law, and is equal to a declaration of war.

“The realization of this [US] bill includes a proposed force scenario in which the US Navy would conduct compulsory inspections of all ships. Such a scenario is simply unthinkable because it means a declaration of war,” RIA Novosti quoted upper house Committee for International Relations head Konstantin Kosachev as saying.

The senator emphasized that no one had given the United States official powers to enforce the UN Security Council resolution on North Korea, and said that Washington is trying to establish the primacy of US laws over international law.

The deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee for Defense and Security, Frants Klintsevich, said that the possibility of external control over Russian sea ports was out of the question, but the mere fact that US lawmakers were discussing the proposal was definitely a hostile act.

He added that it was extremely unlikely that the US motion would force North Korea to change its course.

“What immediately draws attention is the list of nations where US congressmen want to have special control over sea ports,” he said. “These are Russia, China, Iran and Syria. The United States is again trying to expand its jurisdiction all over the globe. It is as if they were telling Russia, China, Iran and Syria that these nations are suspects in crime, which is nonsense, according to international law.”

Another deputy head of the same committee, Andrey Krasov, said that the US bill will face an appropriate response from Russia, should it be passed.

“The US administration will receive a symmetrical adequate response to any unfriendly steps toward Russia and our allies. In any case, no US ship will enter our waters,” Krasov was quoted as saying by RIA Novosti.

Last week, Russia expressed support for a Chinese initiative at the UN Security Council aimed at resolving the ongoing crisis on the Korean Peninsula. The draft resolution proposes that North Korea refrain from missile and nuclear testing, and that the United States and South Korea undertake not to hold any military exercises in the region.

In addition, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov has urged Washington and Seoul to reconsider their decision to put the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system on the Korean Peninsula, warning that it will serve as a “destabilizing factor” in the region.

—-

Thanks to our Navy researcher LeDahu for pointing out this piece of the US legislature that I missed because new anti-Russia sanctions have been deceptively disguised as an enforcement of the UN anti-Korea sanctions. Come to think of it, the same way the Stand for Ukraine Act was actually a list of sanctions against Russia.

Scott Humor

Director of Research and Development

author of The enemy of the State

Follow me on twitter

Featured image: 1 kilogram gold coin minted in Korea depicting Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.