Discussion about this post

User's avatar
bevin's avatar

One other aspect of this matter is that the war in korea is actually between the DPKR and the UN. That at least is my recollection and the fact that the armistice has not led to a peace treaty, and an end to the economic war against the people of the North, is a reflection of the long dominance of the US over the UN.

BRICS signals a challenge to that dominance, just as multipolarity, and the idea of returning to a rule of law in international relations also coincides with the development of BRICS.

There is a reminder today of the claims being advanced- by Brazil and India, for permanent membership of the UNSC- a claim likely to win the support of both Russia and China. This in turn implies a revaluation of the memberships of both the UK and France on the Security Council, and raises the intriguing possibility that it would be eminently rational of the US to side with the Indian and Latin American claims, perhaps throwing its old allies, now reduced, thanks to their submissiveness, to little more than seconding US initiatives, under the bus.

It has been clear for some time that the UN has to choose between complete irrelevance or change,. And that any change will be uncomfortable for the US and its complacent satraps.

It's time there was a Peace Treaty and a return to the idea of re-unification in Korea. If the UN won't take the first steps then BRICS will have to, with the inclusion of south Korea in a bloc to which its industry and strategic posuion could bring so much.

Expand full comment
james's avatar

yes - turkey is the 64,000 dollar question here, isn't it? thanks roger!

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts