I may be baiting the wolves to say so here, but if Japan really cared about a seat on the UNSC they might try not going quite so far out of their way to piss of the Chinese. I'm not saying kissing Chinese ass is a preferable alternative, but I don't want to hear any whining about not getting a seat when the Japanese government can't seem to get its priorities straight.
Getting a seat on the Security Council is the aspirations of the elder politicians like Nakasone, Miyazawa, etc. It's my impression that the younger politicians don't really mind losing it if the power to veto doesn't come with it. Besides, the UN is disfunctional as is. A lot of my friends are saying that they'd rather see a cut in our contributions so Japan can allocate it more strategically and directly to friendly countries. No seat, less money. Let China pay up to its role.
If Japan doesn't get a seat, I'm sure you'll hear a lot of whining. However, I think those who have been fed up with the China-kissing elders and the press will grab the chance to "fix" the situation and paint China as the antagoist they are. The general public, knowing they've been humiliated, will probably go along. It will also wake up many Japanese from their blind faith for the UN, making it easier to ditch Article 9. I'll welcome such a turn of events as long as it doesn't go too far as "Let's drop out of the UN," and repeating a terrible mistake Japan made has in the past.
Anyhow, no amount of kissing China's a** in the past by the elders achieved anything except to make us look weak in China's eyes and a scapegoat for all of China's woes, so I don't think anything Japan does now will affect China's decision. If that's the case, why bother?
The origins of Chinese characters. The French in Hong Kong and local nationalism. Seriously, if you're not reading that site everyday, what's wrong with you? Research guides to Chinese law. There's no such thing as a free lunch, but in Hong Kong th...
Per "NYT":http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/18/international/18council.html?ex=1289970000&en=6becf9e1ffaa6b98&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss this week:
UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 17 - Broadening the outdated membership of the Security Council was the most attention-getting of this year's proposed institutional changes at the United Nations, but diplomats now hold out little hope the 15-member panel will change any time soon.
The "official view of the US":http://www.un.int/usa/05_214.htm is an effective UN is necessary:
Per the US ambassador, this month:
The United States believes strongly in the Security Council. We will continue to ensure that the Council is able to carry out *its mandate under the Charter.*
The United States takes its responsibilities as a permanent member of the Security Council very seriously. History has shown that the Council, working together and with the full cooperation of all Member States, can reverse aggression, contribute to the expansion of freedom and maintain peace and security for the benefit of us all.
More on "the US view of the UN Security Council":http://www.un.int/usa/05_214.htm.
"We want this important body to reflect the world as it is in 2005 "“ not as it was in 1945. We must also ensure that new permanent members are supremely qualified to undertake the tremendous duties and responsibilities they will assume. In our view, qualified nations should meet criteria in the following areas: size of economy and population; military capacity; contributions to peacekeeping operations; commitment to democracy and human rights; financial contributions to the United Nations; non-proliferation and counterterrorism records; and equitable geographic balance."
Key reforms agreed so far include a new Peacebuilding Commission; but where will the supporting manpower come from? Nowadays, developed nations contribute very little to UN peacekeeping (the US supply 1% of the troops and civilian police).
"Today's progress report":http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=VCSWRQESCYPV5QFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2005/11/27/wbolton27.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/27/ixportal.html on reform at the United Nations. The US are threatening an about turn; the outburst at the end is especially interesting.
To the irritation of Mr Bolton [US representative], many developing nations are bitterly opposed to changes that they claim are driven by American political pressure. He suggested last week that talks on the 2006 and 2007 budgets could be postponed as a means to overcome the trenchant resistance from the "G77" bloc of developing countries. *He also threatened that the United States could seek an alternative to the UN for solving international problems in future.*
[...] Joe points out that the Washington Post is coming a little late to the Koizumi-as-Anakin analogy, but that doesn’t mean we still can’t have some fun with Fireworks. [...]
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
Saru
July 14, 2005
4:31 pm
Two Cents
July 14, 2005
11:44 pm
If Japan doesn't get a seat, I'm sure you'll hear a lot of whining. However, I think those who have been fed up with the China-kissing elders and the press will grab the chance to "fix" the situation and paint China as the antagoist they are. The general public, knowing they've been humiliated, will probably go along. It will also wake up many Japanese from their blind faith for the UN, making it easier to ditch Article 9. I'll welcome such a turn of events as long as it doesn't go too far as "Let's drop out of the UN," and repeating a terrible mistake Japan made has in the past.
Anyhow, no amount of kissing China's a** in the past by the elders achieved anything except to make us look weak in China's eyes and a scapegoat for all of China's woes, so I don't think anything Japan does now will affect China's decision. If that's the case, why bother?
Simon World
July 15, 2005
3:32 am
The origins of Chinese characters. The French in Hong Kong and local nationalism. Seriously, if you're not reading that site everyday, what's wrong with you? Research guides to Chinese law. There's no such thing as a free lunch, but in Hong Kong th...
GaijinBiker
July 16, 2005
4:10 am
IJ
November 19, 2005
12:36 pm
UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 17 - Broadening the outdated membership of the Security Council was the most attention-getting of this year's proposed institutional changes at the United Nations, but diplomats now hold out little hope the 15-member panel will change any time soon.
J.Kende
November 19, 2005
1:06 pm
IJ
November 19, 2005
1:37 pm
Per the US ambassador, this month:
The United States believes strongly in the Security Council. We will continue to ensure that the Council is able to carry out *its mandate under the Charter.*
The United States takes its responsibilities as a permanent member of the Security Council very seriously. History has shown that the Council, working together and with the full cooperation of all Member States, can reverse aggression, contribute to the expansion of freedom and maintain peace and security for the benefit of us all.
IJ
November 25, 2005
11:53 am
"We want this important body to reflect the world as it is in 2005 "“ not as it was in 1945. We must also ensure that new permanent members are supremely qualified to undertake the tremendous duties and responsibilities they will assume. In our view, qualified nations should meet criteria in the following areas: size of economy and population; military capacity; contributions to peacekeeping operations; commitment to democracy and human rights; financial contributions to the United Nations; non-proliferation and counterterrorism records; and equitable geographic balance."
Key reforms agreed so far include a new Peacebuilding Commission; but where will the supporting manpower come from? Nowadays, developed nations contribute very little to UN peacekeeping (the US supply 1% of the troops and civilian police).
IJ
November 27, 2005
3:01 pm
To the irritation of Mr Bolton [US representative], many developing nations are bitterly opposed to changes that they claim are driven by American political pressure. He suggested last week that talks on the 2006 and 2007 budgets could be postponed as a means to overcome the trenchant resistance from the "G77" bloc of developing countries. *He also threatened that the United States could seek an alternative to the UN for solving international problems in future.*
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » WaPo a year behind Joe and Curzon
September 25, 2006
2:15 am
Mutantfrog Travelogue » Blog Archive » He’s a knight, even if he can’t be a Master
September 25, 2006
2:19 am