The United Nations has imposed a fresh round of sanctions on North Korea after its sixth and largest nuclear test.
The measures restrict oil imports and ban textile exports – an attempt to starve the North of fuel and income for its weapons programmes.
The US had originally proposed harsher sanctions including a total ban on oil imports.
The vote was only passed unanimously after Pyongyang allies Russia and China agreed to the reduced measures.
The sanctions, which were passed at a UN Security Council meeting on Monday, were met with anger by North Korea.
A statement on state news agency KNCA warned that if the US did eventually push through harsher sanctions, North Korea would “absolutely make sure that the US pays due price”.
The US call last week for a total ban on oil imports was seen as by some analysts as potentially destabilising for the regime.
The new sanctions agreed by the UN include:
- Limits on imports of crude oil and oil products. China, Pyongyang’s main economic ally, supplies most of North Korea’s crude oil.
- A ban on exports of textiles, which is Pyongyang’s second-biggest export worth more than $700m (£530m) a year.
- A ban on new visas for North Korean overseas workers, which the US estimates would eventually cut off $500m of tax revenue per year.
A proposed asset freeze and a travel ban on North Korean leader Kim Jong-un were dropped.
The US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, told the Security Council after the vote: “We don’t take pleasure in further strengthening sanctions today. We are not looking for war.”
A South Korean presidential office spokesman said on Tuesday: “North Korea needs to realise that a reckless challenge against international peace will only bring about even stronger sanctions against them.”
- North Korea crisis in 300 words
- Can the world live with a nuclear North Korea?
Monday’s resolution was the ninth one unanimously adopted by the UN since 2006.
What have previous sanctions achieved?
- 30 November 2016: UN targeted North Korea’s valuable coal trade with China, slashing exports by about 60% under a new sales cap. Exports of copper, nickel, silver, zinc and the sale of statues were also banned.
- What happened next? On 14 May 2017, North Korea tested what it said was a “newly developed ballistic rocket” capable of carrying a large nuclear warhead.
- 2 June 2017: UN imposed a travel ban and asset freeze on four entities and 14 officials, including the head of North Korea’s overseas spying operations.
- What happened next? On 4 July, North Korea claimed it carried out its first successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).
- 6 August: UN banned North Korean exports of coal, ore and other raw materials and limited investments in the country, costing Pyongyang an estimated $1bn – about a third of its export economy.
- What happened next? On 3 September, North Korea said it tested a hydrogen bomb that could be miniaturised and loaded on a long-range missile.China’s foreign ministry said on Tuesday (link in Chinese) that North Korea had “ignored international opposition and once again conducted a nuclear test, severely violating UN Security Council resolutions”.
It also repeated its call for a “peaceful resolution” instead of a military response, adding: “China will never allow the peninsula to descend into war and chaos.”
The BBC’s China editor Carrie Gracie says Beijing is treading a fine line and wants sanctions tough enough to signal its displeasure to Pyongyang and avoid American accusations of complicity, but not so tough as to threaten North Korea’s survival.
- North Korea crisis: What will Russia do?
- How do you defend against North Korea?
Both Russia and China reiterated their proposal that the US and South Korea freeze all military drills – which anger North Korea – and asked for a halt in the deployment of the controversial anti-missile system Thaad, in exchange for Pyongyang’s cessation of its weapons programmes.
Beijing believes Thaad, which employs a powerful radar, is a security threat to China and neighbouring countries.
Ms Haley last week dismissed this proposal as “insulting”.