On July 9, the UN Security Council reached a consensus and passed a statement on the "Cheonan" incident. It's a response to two letters addressed to the UN Security Council President by South Korea on June 4, and by North Korea on June 8.

The statement referred to the findings of an international report released by South Korea, and the North Korea's assertion that it had nothing to do with the incident. It condemned the attack that led to the sinking of the Cheonan and expressed its deep sympathy and condolences to the government, people, victims and their families. The statement also emphasized the importance of maintaining peace on the Korean Peninsula as well as in all of Northeast Asia. In addition, the statement encouraged the settlement of unsolved issues on the Korean Peninsula by peaceful means, and encouraged the resumption of direct dialogue and negotiation between the North and South, as well as resumption of the Six Party Talks.

This statement seems fair and balanced. However, the internationally active South Korea seems uncomfortable with the statement while the North Korea recognizes it as a diplomatic victory.

Regardless of this statement, the two nations maintain a precarious relationship to say the least. The real significance of this statement is, in the modern world and especially on big issue like war and peace, the "principle of unanimity" must be followed, which was designed for the UN by Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill, who learned lessons from the World War II.

The "principle of unanimity" means the UN Security Council can make major decisions only when the major countries get agreements on the big issues (of course, there are exceptions, the most classic exception is the Korean War 60 years ago). The statement of the UN Security Council must emphasize stability when the major countries – the United States, China and Russia – believe that war could not break out on the Korean Peninsula. In the UN reform, the Security Council's current format of five permanent seats is often said to be a great privilege for major powers. But it's a responsibility as well as a privilege. The main problem for these powers is how to use their privilege. This time, I believe, the statement has reversed the tension on the Korean Peninsula and made clear the parties should bury the hatchet and work for peace.

In accordance with Mencius' philosophy, the major powers should be benevolent, and the small ones wise. In today's world, it seems difficult for most major powers to be benevolent; they pay more attention to the balance of interests. For better or worse, most issues still require the attention of the major powers. Therefore, small countries should be cautious and wise when dealing with them.

I think both South Korea's and the North Korea's leaders are wise. The North Korea has recently declared its readiness to resume six-party talks.

The author is a professor with the Beijing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics who has been doing research on military and other strategic issues for years.

(This post was first published in Chinese and translated by Lin Liyao)