In accordance with new rules requiring the United Nations General Assembly to examine any veto wielded in the Security Council by any of its five permanent members, China and Russia defended their vetoes of a resolution that would have imposed new sanctions on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on Wednesday.
China and Russia oppose the imposition of more sanctions on the DPRK, insisting that it is dialogue between Pyongyang and Washington that is needed to resolve the Korean Peninsula issues, not more sanctions.
At the first-of-its-kind meeting, which has been hailed as a history-making advance for the UN, Chinese, Russian, DPRK and US representatives each tried to clarify their countries' respective positions on the proposed resolution and regional security.
Such clarification meetings are well-intentioned as they have been introduced as a way to hold the five permanent members of the UN's most important decision-making body accountable for wielding their veto privilege.
But just as the May 26 vote exposed the de facto divide in the Security Council, the Wednesday session showed how difficult it is to bridge that divide, as the two opposing sides simply blamed each other for the current situation.
The United States' representative claimed that the Joe Biden administration is "more than prepared" to discuss easing sanctions to achieve the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and that it had passed on this message to the DPRK, which had responded with "destabilizing (missile) launches that threaten not only the region but the world".
But in chanting empty slogans for dialogue while increasing sanctions against the DPRK, Washington has brought the situation "to a complete deadlock", China's representative said.
Such an exchange of accusations shows why meaningful crisis control is needed, as any trust that was built between Pyongyang and Washington after the momentous face-to-face meetings between Biden's predecessor and the DPRK's top leader has been quickly dissipated thanks to Washington's failure to follow through on the headway that was made.
With the new government in the Republic of Korea also adopting a tougher tone toward Pyongyang than its predecessor－which initiated the flurry of meetings that produced the precious detente that seemed to herald reconciliation was on the cards－tensions on the Korean Peninsula are once again simmering.
It would be positive and productive, not only to the matter in hand but to global governance in general, if the unprecedented meeting proved to be more than just another talking shop.
All the parties involved should put aside their preconceived positions, reflect on what was said with open minds, and seek to find ways to reengage.
And with the Biden administration having aggravated the DPRK's security concerns with its engineering of the conflict in Ukraine, it should take the initiative to demonstrate the sincerity of its claim that it is willing to engage in dialogue without preconditions by easing some of the sanctions on the DPRK.
That the detente between the US and the DPRK generated high hopes of their reconciliation shows that it had substance despite being short-lived. It is those hopes that should be rekindled rather than the embers of war.