Political Crossfire Forums

[Seapearl]

There's been a long discussion during the last few years over the issue of reforming the UN Secutiry Council. The issue was raised as the Security Coucil can no longer represent the political, economic and social reality of the world. The fact that it consists of permanent and no permanent members, the right of veto etc. set some drawbacks and are doubted.

There are some countries such as Germany, Japan, Brazil which some suggest that should take a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.
Undoubtedly, Japan is a major ODA (official development assistance) contributors and plays a major role in the UN framework. Some even say that it outweighed the disarmament with economic assistance.

My question is this: should Japan become a permanent member of the UN Security Council? Why?

[foadi]

Hell no. China and Korea would throw a hissy-fit.

[mr_FOBolous]

aha...no.

[The Red Thunderbolt]

Why not?

If Communist China can, why can't a democratic Japan.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that China is set to become a major player on the world stage in the years to come. It only serves the Wests interests to have such nations on their side so as to check mate the Dragon when the need arises.

India Japan Germany and Brazil would fit the bill quite nicely, I think.

[antonio62]

Japan (or India), Nigeria (or one of the other large African nations) and Brazil. Should be given permanent seats and the veto power taken away from everyone. Perhaps the EU should be given a seat instead of having Britain and France have one each.

[Seapearl]

antonio62 wrote: Japan (or India), Nigeria (or one of the other large African nations) and Brazil. Should be given permanent seats and the veto power taken away from everyone. Perhaps the EU should be given a seat instead of having Britain and France have one each.

I absolutely agree :clap:

[Saracen]

Seapearl wrote: antonio62 wrote: Japan (or India), Nigeria (or one of the other large African nations) and Brazil. Should be given permanent seats and the veto power taken away from everyone. Perhaps the EU should be given a seat instead of having Britain and France have one each.

I absolutely agree :clap:

I just saw this post as well. Good one, antonio. :clap:

[mr_FOBolous]

i would agree to japan joining the secruity council if they show true remorse for what they have done during WW2 like Germany did.

[antonio62]

mr_FOBolous wrote: i would agree to japan joining the secruity council if they show true remorse for what they have done during WW2 like Germany did.

I don' see other security council members showing remorse for atrocities they have committed.

[Seapearl]

mr_FOBolous wrote: i would agree to japan joining the secruity council if they show true remorse for what they have done during WW2 like Germany did.


Ahmmmmm, why would they have to do that? Haven't they done enough already?

Japan has paid the WWII price quite hard. It was completely destroyed (we shouldn't foregt Nagkasaki and Hiroshima), and after the end of the war was put under American occupation. In fact Americans changed the whole political culture and system of Japan based on the western state model. The Americans created a new Constitution in about ten days and japanese leaders accepted it more or lesss as it was. Japan is the second economy worldwide and a major economic partner to the US. What's more, Japan was fully demilitarised and actually is one of the major donors of official development assistance.

[TwinkieDP]

If Japan is allowed on the Security Council, does that mean Japan will be allowed to remilitarize? If so, I wonder if Chinese leadership will use the fear of future Japanese aggression to fan Chinese Nationalism and perhaps start an arms race in Asia. Doesn't seem to paint a pretty picture.

[antonio62]

TwinkieDP wrote: If Japan is allowed on the Security Council, does that mean Japan will be allowed to remilitarize? If so, I wonder if Chinese leadership will use the fear of future Japanese aggression to fan Chinese Nationalism and perhaps start an arms race in Asia. Doesn't seem to paint a pretty picture.

It looks like they may do that anyway.

[foadi]

TwinkieDP wrote: If Japan is allowed on the Security Council, does that mean Japan will be allowed to remilitarize? If so, I wonder if Chinese leadership will use the fear of future Japanese aggression to fan Chinese Nationalism and perhaps start an arms race in Asia. Doesn't seem to paint a pretty picture.
Well, Japan could re-militarize now, if they really wanted to. All they need to do is amend their constitution. And if they promised to offer assistance in Iraq or where ever, I doubt Washington would object. But I agree, Japan building up its military again can only lead to bad things happening.

[mr_FOBolous]

Seapearl wrote: mr_FOBolous wrote: i would agree to japan joining the secruity council if they show true remorse for what they have done during WW2 like Germany did.


Ahmmmmm, why would they have to do that? Haven't they done enough already?

Japan has paid the WWII price quite hard. It was completely destroyed (we shouldn't foregt Nagkasaki and Hiroshima), and after the end of the war was put under American occupation. In fact Americans changed the whole political culture and system of Japan based on the western state model. The Americans created a new Constitution in about ten days and japanese leaders accepted it more or lesss as it was. Japan is the second economy worldwide and a major economic partner to the US. What's more, Japan was fully demilitarised and actually is one of the major donors of official development assistance.

go to this thread: http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=44262

[Chris29]

Its exactly like antonio said we need to get some other permanent members on the SC to both represent the current reality of world power as well as create a more representative georgraphical representation of the world.

I would certainly stick with the typical suggestions of india, japan and brazil on the SC. As for the African seat I am not sure yet who I would pick. Obviously Nigeria is the economic power in Africa and has been gaining a lot of respect, particularly vis-a-vis the African Union however I still have some reservations about their government accountability.

[mr_FOBolous]

THIS IS WHY JAPAN SHOULDN'T BE IN THE SECRUITY COUNCIL:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4449005.stm

Quote: Japan's decision to approve new school textbooks, criticised by some for glossing over the country's wartime record, have promoted demonstrations in several Chinese cities. But as William Horsley discovers the row between the two countries concerns the future as well as the past.


Prime Minister Koizumi's visits to the shrine were criticised by China
The most striking thing about the Yasukuni Shrine is its massive and forbidding black "torii" gate.

A distinctive symbol of the Shinto religion, a gaunt silhouette beneath which, on a bright spring day, I watched men and women of all ages streaming in to pay their respects to ancestors, or to admire the enchanting display of cherry blossoms on the tree-lined avenue.

Each family group would pause, shut their eyes and pray in front of the open-plan wooden building where the souls of two-and-a-half-million Japanese war dead are enshrined.

Those war dead include Hideki Tojo, Japan's wartime prime minister who was later hanged with a dozen other top leaders as a war criminal.

Japan's present leader, Junichiro Koizumi has made regular visits to Yasukuni Shrine in spite of furious complaints from China, South Korea and other neighbouring countries that in doing so he was condoning Japan's aggressive war in the 1930s and 1940s.

And now, the news from China is bad, very bad.

Demonstrations over the text-books have extended to South Korea
Last weekend an angry crowd gathered in Beijing to throw stones at the Japanese embassy.

In other cities young people have attacked Japanese shops and businesses.

In Shanghai two Japanese students were badly beaten up in a restaurant.

Chinese leaders say Japan will not deserve a permanent seat on the UN Security Council until it faces up honestly to its wartime misdeeds.

An e-mail doing the rounds in China calls for a mass boycott of Japanese goods. "Send this on to other Chinese people", the message says, "and we won't need to go to war!"

History

This stream of invective against the Japanese is not new.

Some Asia watchers see it largely as a device by Chinese leaders to extract more Japanese aid or divert attention from their own failings.

It is alarmingly reminiscent of the age of the Communist Red Guards.

The Yasukuni Shrine remains a potent symbol of how the Japanese, intoxicated by fascism and coerced by military rule, once collectively lost their reason and were fed fantastic myths, of racial superiority and the Emperor's divinity

But on this trip to Japan I could not avoid the conclusion that a new mood of nationalism has also begun to take hold in this country which has been publicly devoted to peace and economic prosperity for so long.

One sign is the Japanese authorities' approval of several new school history textbooks written by known right-wing scholars.

One book which has angered the Chinese failed to make any assessment of the number of Chinese civilians killed in the infamous Rape of Nanjing.

The internationally accepted view is that hundreds of thousands died in an orgy of sexual violence and killing by Japanese troops.

And Japan's largest national newspaper, the Yomiuri Shimbun, in what I take to be blatant disregard for the known facts, has called on its readers to celebrate, because the new textbooks have cut out all mention of one of the greatest of all the humiliations inflicted by Imperial Japan on its neighbours: the use of large numbers of women in conquered Asian countries as sex slaves for the Japanese army.

It was right to set the record straight, I read, because the accusations "had been shown to be untrue".

Surely I thought modern Japan could not give in to the poison of such deceit and hypocrisy ever again.

The Yasukuni Shrine remains a potent symbol of how the Japanese, intoxicated by fascism and coerced by military rule, once collectively lost their reason and were fed fantastic myths, of racial superiority and the Emperor's divinity.

'Bitter dispute'

I had come to see the recently expanded Yasukuni museum of Japanese history.

For 100 years Japan has been number one in Asia. Now China, with 10 times Japan's population, is in a hurry to take over that role

I found that its 18 galleries of high-quality displays, maps and texts amount to a lavish and expensive re-write of the history of Japan's imperial age, to show the Japanese as innocent victims of a conspiracy by the Western colonial powers, to thwart Japan's ambition to lead East Asia and force Japan into war.

By this account annexing Korea, setting up a puppet regime in Manchukuo, the step by step takeover of China, each was done in self-defence, aiming only to bring peace.

As for Nanjing, I found no mention of Japanese soldiers killing civilians.

Instead, these words: "The Chinese were soundly defeated, suffering heavy casualties. Inside the city, residents were once again able to live their lives in peace."

However you look at it, that will not do as a record of what happened.

By chance I came across this testimony of a Japanese army veteran who was there.

"No matter how young or old, none of the women we rounded up could escape being raped. Each one was allocated to 15 or 20 soldiers for sexual intercourse and abuse."

Afterwards "we always stabbed them and killed them. Because dead bodies don't talk."

The bitter dispute now raging between Japan and China is both about setting the record straight and about a struggle for power.

For 100 years Japan has been number one in Asia.

Now China, with 10 times Japan's population, is in a hurry to take over that role.

And as with highly-geared racing cars sharing the same circuit, it is the moment of overtaking that brings the greatest risk of a crash.

now to make it easier for you people...imagine Germany doing everything Japan is doing right now...what would you think? would you even think of suggesting Germany to become one of the permenant secruity council members if they were doing all that Japan is doing right now?

[Chris29]

One more important thing I would like to add to this discussion is wether or not any new permanent members should be given the veto. It has been proposed by numerous countries either for political means or for simple reform policy that any new members should not be given a veto vote.

I completely agree with this. To me the veto can be equated to giving someone nuclear weapons it essentially makes them unaccountable and immune to consequences. For example lets say India gets on the security council as a permanent member. If they had the veto vote they would be able to veto any action regarding the Kashmir that they see fit. This would only further weaken the security councils ability to take actions on neccesary international disputes.

It would also IMO have a secondary effect, that being it would set a precedent to a Security council in the future that would have no veto votes.

[Rankor and Pissing]

foadi wrote: TwinkieDP wrote: If Japan is allowed on the Security Council, does that mean Japan will be allowed to remilitarize? If so, I wonder if Chinese leadership will use the fear of future Japanese aggression to fan Chinese Nationalism and perhaps start an arms race in Asia. Doesn't seem to paint a pretty picture.
Well, Japan could re-militarize now, if they really wanted to. All they need to do is amend their constitution. And if they promised to offer assistance in Iraq or where ever, I doubt Washington would object. But I agree, Japan building up its military again can only lead to bad things happening.

I'm not sure they would actually do it, even if they decided to amend their constitution. They're doing quite well without a military - it could only get worse if they did that. Folks need to understand that hating Japan for what happened 60 years ago isn't very healthy.

I certainly would support them being a permenant member, but, then again the U.N. is barely effective at anything and corrupt to the neck - I'm not sure I'd want them to be part of that either...

[Kaoru]

Well, both sides (Japan getting the perm. seat, and not getting perm.) seat seem logical, but i have to support Japan not joining because i think it would cause a internal conflict with china, and korea.

[thundertaker]

I thought one of the reasons for being on the security council was military capablity. As Britain and France are 2nd and 3rd in terms of power projection capablity, other countries that cannot project their military power much beyond their own borders don't deserve to be on the PSC. Japan's military is small due to post-war Pacifist ideology, and China's military is a joke. Not sure what Brazil's is like, but I doubt it's in the same league as most western militaries.
Finally, Permanent members of the security council should be global powers with global interests. Can that be said of Nigeria, or Brazil? When's the last time they had to deploy troops on the other side of the globe outside of the UN?
The EU has no military capability on it's own. And combining the French and British seat into a single EU would be a tacit admission that they were becoming a federal superstate....