Op-Ed Contributors

Cheonan case: UN vague as usual

By Zhang Liangui (China Daily)
Updated: 2010-07-14 07:55

On July 9, the Security Council issued a statement by its chairman on the Cheonan affair. The statement came more than a month after the Republic of Korea (ROK) submitted the case to the United Nations accusing the People's Democratic Republic of Korea (DPRK) of sinking its warship on March 26.

But the statement, to all intent and purpose, is ambiguous. It includes the opinions of related parties and condemns the "trouble-maker" but avoids blaming a country or organization for the sinking of the Cheonan. It stresses the importance of preserving peace on the Korean Peninsula, and in East Asia as a whole, but offers no possible solution if any of the parties were to disturb the peace. Thus it would be reasonable to conclude that the UN statement lacks firmness and is incapable of resolving the affair.

Related readings:  DPRK vows to thoroughly investigate 'Cheonan' incident  DPRK opposes referral of Cheonan report to UN

In some sense, the ineffectiveness of the statement was expected. Each of the 15 members of the Security Council, especially the five permanent ones, has its own interest and claim, and conflicts of interests and even rivalry among the different parties are not rare.

Besides, the Cheonan accident is more of a political issue than judicial question. And the international community has always lacked authoritative jurisdiction, making it difficult to resolve such issues.

For instance, during the past several decades, many events have taken place on the Korean Peninsula and none of them has been settled to the satisfaction of all the parties involved. Hence, we cannot rely too much upon the international community, for only the naive would mix international politics with civil judiciary.

But the actions of several parties during the one month when the UN Security Council was deliberating the Cheonan affair deserve our special attention.

First, some of the parties told the Security Council that if it didn't take a tough stand on the Cheonan issue they would use force to "settle" it. The proposed US-ROK military exercise could be cited as an example of such use of force.

On June 5, a day after the ROK submitted the Cheonan case to the Security Council, the USS George Washington, a nuclear-powered super-carrier, sailed with a fleet to the ROK for the joint military drill. Although the drill was postponed until after the Security Council decision to make the threat not so naked, it made America's intentions clear.

The DPRK reacted fiercely, too. The Korean Central News Agency, the DPRK's official news agency, has used words such as "total war" and "nuclear war" in its broadcasts. The DPRK ambassador to the UN said the country's troops would respond strongly to any instigation. Such naked threats are not common in the history of the Security Council.

Second, group politics was more on display in the Security Council. Essentially, the Cheonan accident is a matter for the two opposing parties on the Korean Peninsula to settle. Neither the US nor China has the right or responsibility to judge the affair. But evidently external forces are too deeply involved in it.