During the recent UN Security Council emergency meeting to tackle the Korean peninsula crisis, it seems that the five permanent UN Security Council members are having split over the crisis going on.
Russia and China would not want that the Council will characterize Pyongyang as the aggressor and urged the UN Secretary-General to send special envoy that would pacify the heating war of threats between the two Korea. On the other hand, the United States, France, Great Britain, and Japan are trying to make a certain point by trying to show the world that North Korea is bad and South Korea is good.
The picture that each side would want to imply to the nations of the world observing their diplomatic or pacifying intervention between the contending parties, does not likely amplify in no way what really is the real score!
Russia is joining with China to institute a unique display of diplomacy which the West would not like to honor as yet considering that the reclusive North is more inclined to defy the wishes of the majority. This is so because there is also something within its own agenda that the West fails to realize.
Meantime, we could not blame Russia for doing so because there exist an indifferent view among US legislators who refuse to ratify the US-Russia bilateral treaty.
The maximum restraint that China and Russia require of Pyongyang and Seoul is not quite symmetrically comprehensible when considering the damage that Pyongyang caused on Seoul. What the world wants to see is the equal treatment of the issues raised from both sides; but neither of these Giants would yield to every enticing that could influence their decision of what resolution is more appropriate in the circumstances.
Perhaps, the UN charter is now hanging in the balance; and it would take a different kind of leadership charisma that can convince all to consider the consolidation of issues that will reveal the true meaning of diplomacy. In fact, all the governments involved in this impasse are actively trying to win one over each other using the ultimate brilliancy available to weave the course of action.
Nevertheless, the selfish motive that each has to hold for themselves or their companions would slowly fade away while there exist a sign of willingness to institutionalize discussions and the voice of the aggrieved or the aggressor will be heard in court of international justice.
What the parties failed to realize is that the court of international justice has a wider jurisdiction over all concerns. It only takes the aggrieved party to file the proper complaint in court.
Now, blaming Pyongyang is not wise as yet. However, letting it go unscathed with the allowance of imposing what is required of justice will only bring out the problem into an insurmountable proportion.
The parties who are trying to mend the wound between the two contending countries should not put a gag on the mouth of those who are directly accountable for their actions.
I think it would be best to settle the problem of the two Koreas to arena of the international court of justice where each voice can be heard and their respective evidence be viewed and reviewed by the responsible Justices. Perhaps this would be a time that a country will be tried in court, and let’s see what it can make for all.