Chinese banks stop financial transfers to North Korea
The Associated Press

Published: October 20, 2006

BEIJING Chinese banks have stopped financial transfers to North Korea under government sanctions imposed for Pyongyang’s nuclear test, bank employees said Friday, in a possibly serious blow to the country’s frail economy.

China is North Korea’s main trading partner and aid donor, and the disruption of financial transfers is a forceful expression of Beijing’s anger at the Oct. 9 nuclear test. It is a break with China’s earlier reluctance to use economic pressure against its isolated ally for fear the North might collapse.

All four major Chinese state-owned banks and British-owned HSBC Corp. have stopped financial transfers to the North, according to bank employees in Beijing and the northeastern Chinese city of Shenyang.

“We received a circular recently that banned services from China to North Korea because of the sanctions imposed as a result of the nuclear test,” said an employee of the international business department of the Agricultural Bank of China Ltd., in Shenyang. She would give only her surname, Song.

Employees of the Bank of China Ltd., the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd., China Construction Bank Ltd. and HSBC said they received similar orders and stopped transfers.

“The ban started this week,” said a Bank of China employee in Dandong, a Chinese city on the North Korean border. She would give only her surname, Zhang. “We have to wait for notice from higher levels about when to resume these operations.”

The bank employees said the orders didn’t say how long the suspension would remain in effect.

Spokespeople for the banks’ headquarters in Beijing and for China’s central bank said they couldn’t confirm such an order was issued and had no information on the scale of Chinese transfers to the North.

China also has stepped up inspections of cargo being trucked across the border into North Korea since the U.N. Security Council approved sanctions on the country last Saturday.

China is believed to be North Korea’s main link to the world financial system. China’s importance increased after Washington imposed sanctions on a Macau bank that served North Korean companies, making other financial institutions uneasy about dealing with Pyongyang.

Washington has long pressured Beijing to use its leverage as the North’s main economic partner to compel Pyongyang to return to six-nation talks aimed at ending its nuclear ambitions.

But Beijing has been reluctant to use economic pressure for fear the regime of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il might collapse, setting off a flood of refugees into China’s northeast and upsetting Northeast Asia’s complex military balance.

But China’s anger has grown as Kim’s government defied appeals not to conduct its nuclear test and an earlier plea in July not to test-fire ballistic missiles.

___

AP Business Writer Elaine Kurtenbach in Shanghai contributed to this article.

BEIJING Chinese banks have stopped financial transfers to North Korea under government sanctions imposed for Pyongyang’s nuclear test, bank employees said Friday, in a possibly serious blow to the country’s frail economy.

China is North Korea’s main trading partner and aid donor, and the disruption of financial transfers is a forceful expression of Beijing’s anger at the Oct. 9 nuclear test. It is a break with China’s earlier reluctance to use economic pressure against its isolated ally for fear the North might collapse.

All four major Chinese state-owned banks and British-owned HSBC Corp. have stopped financial transfers to the North, according to bank employees in Beijing and the northeastern Chinese city of Shenyang.

“We received a circular recently that banned services from China to North Korea because of the sanctions imposed as a result of the nuclear test,” said an employee of the international business department of the Agricultural Bank of China Ltd., in Shenyang. She would give only her surname, Song.

Employees of the Bank of China Ltd., the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd., China Construction Bank Ltd. and HSBC said they received similar orders and stopped transfers.

“The ban started this week,” said a Bank of China employee in Dandong, a Chinese city on the North Korean border. She would give only her surname, Zhang. “We have to wait for notice from higher levels about when to resume these operations.”

The bank employees said the orders didn’t say how long the suspension would remain in effect.

Spokespeople for the banks’ headquarters in Beijing and for China’s central bank said they couldn’t confirm such an order was issued and had no information on the scale of Chinese transfers to the North.

China also has stepped up inspections of cargo being trucked across the border into North Korea since the U.N. Security Council approved sanctions on the country last Saturday.

China is believed to be North Korea’s main link to the world financial system. China’s importance increased after Washington imposed sanctions on a Macau bank that served North Korean companies, making other financial institutions uneasy about dealing with Pyongyang.

Washington has long pressured Beijing to use its leverage as the North’s main economic partner to compel Pyongyang to return to six-nation talks aimed at ending its nuclear ambitions.

But Beijing has been reluctant to use economic pressure for fear the regime of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il might collapse, setting off a flood of refugees into China’s northeast and upsetting Northeast Asia’s complex military balance.

But China’s anger has grown as Kim’s government defied appeals not to conduct its nuclear test and an earlier plea in July not to test-fire ballistic missiles.

___

AP Business Writer Elaine Kurtenbach in Shanghai contributed to this article.

Firstly Pinko, why Talwar has only 22 missiles stored below deck? Simple, it’s the construction of the system. It has a revolver below deck, which means the “footprint” is by no means “filled” with missiles. Secondly, there is a raised platform with an RBU and Klub VLS on that spot. If you take those away you have plenty of deck space available.

Secondly, you seem to have forgotten that Talwar also has 2 Kashtan modules along with 32 SAM reloads and a control station below it. All that stuff has its weight too, and I’m pretty sure that two type 730 CIWS without missiles weigh a lot less than Kashtans.

KDX is heavier, but she’s also longer than 54A, considering she has a 32Cell Mk41, that would,together with the above and otherknowledge, certainly not exclude the Shtil for 54A. Is it that hard to admit they still import technology from Russia?

Then I would say the non VLS Talwar with totally different layout is indeed not a convincible comparator to assess a 054A with 32-cell VLS. Because 22 shtil missile magazine is not comparable to 32 cell shtil-1 VLS, and also you fail to address how to arrange another 10 cell of VLS shtil missiles. You would find the problem only if you are building it. If we have to compare, then do it with apple to apple. That’s why I brought out the 22350 frigate case, to be nearly 1000 tons larger, the 22350 frigate only has 32 –cell shtil-1.

Then there’re other more convenient sources fro us to assess the VLS, as sTar49 posted, when Russian exported Shtil systems to China in 2002, then we can see the news and found the PLAN imported Shtil system on their 052B DDG, Why there’s no news Russian ever exported Shtil-1 vLS to China? Even the Kanwa, a reliable source in tracking the Russian’s military export to china, openly denied there’s any Shtil-1 VLS export to China?

To sya HQ-16 is not SA-N-12 is not to deny Russian exported Technologies to China, on the contrary, I did say the 054A with deep Russian influences. However, it’s you so hard to accept the plain fact that the 32-cell VLS on 054A is not Shtil-1 VLS.

well the KDXII has 32 Sea Sparrow…
So does DD Murasame and Takanami class

all in the 4500-5000 ton range

Emmm, we never say 054A is not possible to have 32 cell VLS on board but it’s impossible for a 3600-4000 DWT 054A to have that big Shtil-1 32 cell VLS. Seasparrow is much smaller & lighter weight compared to SA-N-12, and hot-launch version MK48 is more compact than cold launch Shtil-1 VLS. If 054A does get 32-cell VLS, the missile will be more like Seasparrow in size than Shtil., which means the HQ-16 is NOT SA-N-12. That’s the point we want to make.

And your point is? That they are using Kinzhal? It certainly isn’t too big for that position. 4 cells or 8 cells could fit in there.

Currently the smallest ship with Shtil is INS Talwar, at approx 4000t full load displ. That incorporates 22 Shtil missiles below deck and the footprint of the launcher isn’t that much smaller than the VLS. So 54A could still have that amount of Shtil missiles. As for the Russian frigate, you,nor me, know anything about that ship, it could be any displacement ranging from 4000 to 8000t and it could have any number of missiles. The tonnage really doesn’t matter for this system. As mentioned before, we will have to wait and see, we can’t exclude any of the options (except for Rif-M 😉 )

Then I’m afraid the Talwar case you brought out is actually against your claim. Let’s assume the 054Aand Talwar are at the same displacement. Then, I’d like to bring some points for your note:

1. Why Talwar only carries 22 SAMs below the deck but not more? My view is the space constrained, even 22 shtil missiles is the more or less limit for a 4000 tonnage Frigate,,how about 1/3 more missiles at 32 for a same tonnage vessel?
2. VLS of course requires more space than just simply store the SAMs below the deck, especially those cold launched ones.
3. the projected Russian Frigate at beginning is said to be 8000 tonnage class with 64 Shtil-1 VLS and now is 4500 with 32 cells, no matter it’s 4000 or 8000, the number of Shtl missiles only double or half.

The 22350 frigate is with minmum DWT at 4500. 500 tons do count!That’s almost 1000 tons more than 054A 😀