Perhaps Kommersant was trying to put on a brave face, finding some "clever trading" and "national interest"? I suppose voting politics everything that happens around the same time can be seen as a bit of a trade, but the incentive here is very small. "Urges" is the mildest of official language (and recognizes that one is not legally taking a stand, for N. Korea the language was "Demands"). And the Georgians, by sending in thinly disguised troops, did rock a boat that the U.S. has no particular interest in seeing rocked.
2) As for the travel ban in the N. Korea resolution, it can apply to all persons - not just N. Koreans. AFAIK, this is the first time someone can be banned from traveling (pretty much anywhere in the world) for "supporting or promoting" a policy (in a substantial way). Actions or official role are no longer at issue.
For example, in principle, members of the Japan-Korean Friendship Association (fairly substantial in Japan) could be banned from travel anywhere in the world. Ditto for the US based Workers World Party. Lists of banned persons will be prepared by a Security Council Committee of relatively junior diplomats, based on names put forward by individual governments.
Whatever, actions are actually taken this time against non-Koreans, the legal precedent is established and could well apply to "supporters or promoters" in future cases (Iran, Palestinian terrorists, etc).
To my knowledge this is the first time the Security Council has taken action against persons based only on speech.
Paul
John M., re the S.C. Resolution on N. Korea and the travel writes:
>Seems to me it was passed only after the US was forced to sell out their
>Georgian puppets:
>
><http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8851.doc.htm>
>
>and in partucular the following:
>
> > "3. Having in mind the relevant Security Council resolutions
> > containing an appeal to both sides to refrain from any action that
> > might impede the peace process, expresses its concern with regard to
> > the actions of the Georgian side in the Kodori Valley in July 2006,
> > and to all violations of the Moscow agreement on ceasefire and
> > separation of forces of 14 May 1994, and other Georgian-Abkhaz
> > agreements concerning the Kodori Valley;
> >
> > "4. Urges the Georgian side to ensure that the situation in the
> > upper Kodori Valley is in line with the Moscow agreement and that no
> > troops unauthorized by this agreement are present;
>
>"having in mind" that up until the last moment before the N. Korean
>resolution was traded, the US had blocked any criticism of the Georgian
>(US armed, trained and paid) army's July move into the Kodari gorge.
>
>The obvious link was pointed out by the swinish Kommersant
><http://www.kommersant.com/p713218/r_538/UN_Resolution_Georgia/>
>but does not seem to have penetrated the blockhead US press, not used
>yet to the US being forced to sell out its creatures ("allies").
>
>john mage