http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-15-voa22.cfm
Japan's Campaign for a Seat on the Security Council
"Countries with a seat on the United Nations Security Council belong to an exclusive club. Under the UN charter, the Security Council has the primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security around the world.
He says China remains angry over what it sees as Japan's failure to apologize for its World War Two atrocities. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's annual visits to Tokyo's Yasukuni shrine, which includes Japanese war criminals among its honored war dead, infuriate Beijing. New Japanese history textbooks also anger the Chinese, along with the South Koreans.
Critics say the books whitewash Japan's militaristic past and 1937 mass murders in the Chinese city, Nanjing -- events that became known as the "Rape of Nanking." Mr. Breer speaks about this inaccuracy. "There's a lot of denial in Japan of that, but everybody knows of the so-called Rape of Nanking and the Chinese remember that. They not only remember it but they stimulate memory of that in their education system."
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-15-voa22.cfm
Does China have good arguments, in your view, to oppose this Japannese wish ?
Do you yourself want Japan to occupy a permanent seat on the Security Council ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeJapan should come to terms with its past and atone for the crimes of the 30s and 40s. But I don't blame them for failing to take seriously a morality lecture from a dictatorial regime with plenty of skeletons in its own closet.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-15-voa22.cfm
Japan's Campaign for a Seat on the Security Council
"Countries with a seat on the United Nations Security Council belong to an exclusive club. Under the UN charter, the Security Council has the primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security around the world.
He says China remains an ...[text shortened]... annese wish ?
Do you yourself want Japan to occupy a permanent seat on the Security Council ?
The Security Council needs reform, as it doesn't really represent the modern balance of power. I don't know how fair it is to have some countries on the council and others not; a system by which aligned regions of the world, eg the EU or the Arab countries, choose representative countries for the Security Council by some means might be better. But given the current system, Japan, India and Germany have at least as good claims to permanent membership as the UK, France or Russia. Having said that, I can see an argument for witholding permanent membership from India and Japan until they resolve their own international disputes (Japan with China and Korea, India with China and Pakistan), as it would give them a strong incentive to do so.
Originally posted by rwingettPerhaps there should be no UN, and we should stick to the old 'might makes right' school of international diplomacy. 😞 Or do you propose that the General Assembly or the UN bureaucracy (the Secretary-General et al) should take over the Security Council's role? I doubt that the Assembly is capable of coming to decisions fast enough, or that the bureaucrats have the necessary authority.
Perhaps there should simply be no security council.
Originally posted by AcolytePerhaps the General Assembly should take over the duties of the Security Council. They would have to remove the need for unanimous votes on issues. Maybe they could make a 75%, or 80% vote on something sufficient to put an issue into force.
Perhaps there should be no UN, and we should stick to the old 'might makes right' school of international diplomacy. 😞 Or do you propose that the General Assembly or the UN bureaucracy (the Secretary-General et al) should take over the Security Council's role? I doubt that the Assembly is capable of coming to decisions fast enough, or that the bureaucrats have the necessary authority.
Originally posted by AcolyteI would support the abolition of the Security Council as it has become a mere tool of the strong countries to oppress the weak under color of "international law". The SC is a strong component of the present "might makes right school of international diplomacy": toothless to preserve the peace against the militarily powerful. Scrap it and be done with it.
Perhaps there should be no UN, and we should stick to the old 'might makes right' school of international diplomacy. 😞 Or do you propose that the General Assembly or the UN bureaucracy (the Secretary-General et al) should take over the Security Council's role? I doubt that the Assembly is capable of coming to decisions fast enough, or that the bureaucrats have the necessary authority.
The UN can and does do useful things seperate from the SC in areas of health, education, etc. Scrapping the SC would not mean scrapping the UN.
Originally posted by AcolyteAcolyte: "Having said that, I can see an argument for witholding permanent membership from India and Japan until they resolve their own international disputes (Japan with China and Korea, India with China and Pakistan), as it would give them a strong incentive to do so."
Japan should come to terms with its past and atone for the crimes of the 30s and 40s. But I don't blame them for failing to take seriously a morality lecture from a dictatorial regime with plenty of skeletons in its own closet.
The Security Council needs reform, as it doesn't really represent the modern balance of power. I don't know how fair it is t ...[text shortened]... na and Korea, India with China and Pakistan), as it would give them a strong incentive to do so.
I agree with you on that one.
Giving Germany a seat would increase the European influence too much. Besides that, Germany's past will stimulate many countries to oppose a German membership.
We must ackowledge the fact that the more expanded the Security Council becomes the less effective it will become. That could be an interesting panorama for countries like Russia and the US.
Originally posted by AcolyteI visited Japan for 3 weeks last year. I was amazed by its admissions of mistakes and its treatment of POW's and enslavement of Chinese and Koreans in the 30's and 40's.
Japan should come to terms with its past and atone for the crimes of the 30s and 40s. But I don't blame them for failing to take seriously a morality lecture from a dictatorial regime with plenty of skeletons in its own closet.
The Security Council needs reform, as it doesn't really represent the modern balance of power. I don't know how fair it is t ...[text shortened]... na and Korea, India with China and Pakistan), as it would give them a strong incentive to do so.
If you get the chance to visit Hiroshima and its musuem you'll see an amazing even handedness in analysing the past.
The UK and the US could benefit from similar difficult apprieciation that there are two sides to every story.
From "Gulf Times" - Doha (abridged)
"Japan supports Plan A. For Japan, India, Germany and Brazil to ensure that the United Nations adopts a resolution calling for an increase in the number of both permanent and nonpermanent security members in June.
Plan A would incorporate six new permanent members into the council, but deny them veto power, while Plan B would establish a new position of quasi-permanent membership, also without veto power.
Japan must gain the approval of at least 128 UN members – or two-thirds – if the resolution is to be adopted.
Italy, South Korea, Pakistan and other nations have launched a full-fledged campaign opposing Plan A, hoping to prevent rival countries from joining the council as permanent members.
China and South Korea are also campaigning against the plan, more specifically by naming Japan as a nation unworthy of the status of permanent member."
It's doubful that Japan will get 128 countries support, but damage to US China relations has been done.
Bush seems increasingly determined to go head to head with China.
He also publicly supports Taiwan's independence from China... which enfuriates China.
Originally posted by Tirau DanVery interesting, can you give me the link you used ? I want to read the whole story.
From "Gulf Times" - Doha (abridged)
"Japan supports Plan A. For Japan, India, Germany and Brazil to ensure that the United Nations adopts a resolution calling for an increase in the number of both permanent and nonpermanent security ...[text shortened]... rts Taiwan's independence from China... which enfuriates China.
As far as Taiwan is concerned: On the one hand the US do not support Taiwan in proclaiming its independence, while on the other hand they warn China not to take any military action against Taiwan. When tensions rise between Taiwan and China and China is once again showing its military teeth to Taiwan, the US usually send a few warships, among them preferably an impressive aircraft carrier, through the Taiwan strait. Such an action always has a very calming effect on the boys in Beijing. They immediately stop smiling.
Originally posted by ivanhoehttp://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=33719&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26
Very interesting, can you give me the link you used ? I want to read the whole story.
As far as Taiwan is concerned: On the one hand the US do not support Taiwan in proclaiming its independence, while on the other hand they warn China not to take any military action against Taiwan. When tensions rise between Taiwan and China and China is once again show ...[text shortened]... action always has a very calming effect on the boys in Beijing. They immediately stop smiling.
This one is much more pert: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1463076,00.html
from Britain's conservative Guardian newspaper sums up the reasons for US support of Japan and it's implications which include a slide into an Asian Cold War.
excerpts inc: "Washington's wish to use Japan as a command post for operations extending to the Middle East are transforming Japan's formerly semi-detached defence posture.
In other words, after 60 years largely spent keeping its head down, Japan appears destined to supplant Australia as Washington's "deputy sheriff" in the Asia-Pacific region and become a pillar of America's 21st-century security architecture."
Originally posted by Tirau Dan
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=33719&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26
This one is much more pert: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1463076,00.html
from Britain's conservative Guardian newspaper sums up the reasons for US support of Japan and it's implications which include a slide into an Asi ...[text shortened]... Asia-Pacific region and become a pillar of America's 21st-century security architecture."
Thanks very much for the links, I'll check them out.