Have a look at the excellent analysis by Max Atkinson of Hillary Clinton trying to sound robust while also not being too specific on the subject of how the USA might respond to North Korea.

As the video clips show, she is choosing her words so carefully that it all ends up looking more evasive than convincing.

Why is she ending up so hesitant?

See this other Max posting and the shrewd comments which pretty much sum it up:

The disparity between Clinton’s words as written down and the immensely eye-shifting, umming and emming delivery as she sought the precise (albeit empty) language that she used, is immense. She’s obviously very uncomfortable with the concept of standing up there and basically saying nothing … the immediate impression is of a lady who would rather not be on that podium.

The problem she faces is that she is having to say something ‘live’ and significant which is credible on several levels of Negotiation at the same time (US v N Korea, US v China/Russia, Multilateralism v Unilateralism, Democrat v Republican, Tough v Weak, Jaw-Jaw v War-War).

This is impossible to accomplish without a clear line, and as she has no clear line (because the issue is bewilderingly difficult and unpredictable) she ends up looking unhappy.

Plus, even if the Americans plus/minus Chinese can come up with some ‘um, consequences’ for North Korea, it is better not to say what they are.

The striking thing about this saga is that if anything falls under the rubric of a ‘threat to international peace and security’ as per Chapter VII of the UN Charter, it is the acquisition by North Korea of nuclear weapons.

Yet, perversely, because the threat is so significant there is no top table consensus on how if at all to respond to it.

Such is the UN we have.

On the subject of the UN and Consequences, see how calling for Jewish books to be burned is not necessarily a bad career move.