Sunday, October 15, 2006

The toothless and useless UN

I recently wrote a blog entry about how I see China as the player of utmost importance in this whole North Korea (NK) nuclear standoff. And, as I wrote in that prior blog, I expected China to do what is in their best interest regardless of the outcome of any UN Security Council resolutions.

Well, I sit here watching the news this morning and listening to pretty much the exact thing I prognosticated: sanctions will be imposed on NK, including inspecting vessels going in and out of the country (supposedly for weapons technology or nuclear related stuff), but China says it will not inspect any of the trade going in and out of NK by land (i.e., through China). Of course, China is NKs biggest supporter and trading partner, and regardless of what the UN says they are "united" in resolving, the fact of the matter is that China's disregard for the resolution to inspect inbound and outbound shipments for NK says a world about where they really stand -- anything but "united" with the rest of the council. As always, with any country in the UN, personal interests always come before doing what is right.

Oddly enough, the next country that could be an issue with enforcing any sanctions against NK is South Korea. A fair amount of cash-flow into the North comes from the South. Southern commercial interests in Northern real-estate development (like, mountain resort communities) propel cash-flow northward. And, the whole time, people living in Seoul seem to think that NK may actually target them with a nuke given the chance. Talk about a strange double-vision thing when viewing the North from the South!

The fact is, unless truly united (and consistent) action is taken against the NK, this latest round of resolutions and sanctions will end up exactly where all the prior actions have: in the useless and toothless resolutions graveyard. NK will continue its nuclear arms progress and its threats against the world, and politicians will blame their predecessors for the situation that arises.

1 comment: