UN Split Among (nearly) Historical Lines

UN Split Article

UN Security Council members

I realize I may have picked a strange newspaper source to relay my thoughts, but as of the time I'm writing this, I couldn't find an American paper with as much info in it as the RIA Novosoti -- a Russian paper -- has.

No decisions have been made on if or how to punish North Korea's actions because of a 10-5 split among the security council nations.

What's interesting, is that the split really goes along historical guidelines, excluding maybe one country in the mix.

As of now, Russia, China, Vietnam, Libya and Uganda oppose a resolution to punish and condemn the North Koreans for their actions. The United States, Britain, France, Japan, Austria, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Mexico and Turkey are all in favor of the condemnation.

Of the five permanent UN Security Council member nations, it is split between Russia and China against the United States, Britain and France. Even though Japan was historically an enemy of the United States, their inclusion with the group is no surprise, considering the serious relationship repair that has taken place between the United States and Japan since the end of WWII.

Among the other detractors, we have an African (self-proclaimed) socialist government in Libya, communist governments in Vietnam and China and the Democratic Republic of Uganda. Uganda is an African nation in which multiple government parties were banned from 1986 to 2005. And we all know Russia is a former communist nation.

Now, it looks like I'm making broad judgments here. And I am, for the sake of people reading back home, and to make it clear that this is simply an opinion piece and my observations.

Either way, the five stalling nations are sure that the North Koreans launched a satellite and it's now in orbit, whereas the 10 nations who want the resolution say it was a clever trick to test ballistic missiles, and the only thing in orbit is the blood pressure of the South Koreans and other world leaders.

What does this mean for the safety of South Korea? Well, right now, there's no meaning whatsoever. The majority of South Koreans I know are so used to more than 50 years of threats, that they've sort of lost their spark.

It's certainly possible that we're in danger, but the overwhelming idea is that Kim Jong Il is far too clever to attack South Korea, knowing his country's destruction would surely be the result. Just because a dictator seems crazy, doesn't mean he's crazy enough to want to lose power.

So family and friends back home, fear not as of now. Keep watching the news and see how the Security Council's situation develops, but stay positive. Remember that old '90s slogan on a bunch of hip, graffiti-ed t-shirts? No Fear!