Japan pushes for permanent membership on the UN Security Council
- Thread starter Blackstone
- Start date
Mr T
Senior Member
I don't know that follows. India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel got nuclear weapons, and only India is bidding for a permanent seat on the UNSC - and arguably their nuclear status has nothing to do with that.
Japan remains one of America's key allies in Asia, and there's nothing (realistically that is going to happen) that can change that. Does that mean the US wants a nuclear Japan? No. But Japan has no reason to randomly start nuking the US, even if it had the ability to do so.
There is a reason that the 5 permanent members of the UN security council are the 5 first and largest nuclear powers in this world.
There is a reason that the 5 permanent members of the UN security council are representative of the victorious side of WWII.
A common unspoken goal of the 5 nations of the UNSC is to prevent more members from getting in and dilute power. They might not all veto at the same time, but at least one of them vetoing at a time is enough.
There is a reason that the 5 permanent members of the UN security council are representative of the victorious side of WWII.
A common unspoken goal of the 5 nations of the UNSC is to prevent more members from getting in and dilute power. They might not all veto at the same time, but at least one of them vetoing at a time is enough.
Brumby
Major
The creation of the UN and the resulting 5 permanent security members is a function of a set of historical conditions that will not be replicated even if there is WW3.
The UN and the 5 permanent members as is are basically dysfunctional at most times. We don't really need to add to the mess regardless of whether is Japan, India or what have you.
Blackstone
Brigadier
There are enough pressure from most of the world's nations to force some kind of Security Council reforms. As always, the devil is in the details.
US already went on the record of supporting Japan and India as new permanent members of the UNSC.
One doesn't have much to do the the other. Japan might want nuclear weapons if it feels it no longer could count on absolute security guarantees from the US. And even then, the debate within Japan would be legend.
You're all over the map, but I think your thesis is US confidence on Japan going rogue. I don't think that will happen in the foreseeable future, because long before Japan stabs US in the back (again!), it would have to economically, politically, and militarily defeat China. I think the US could be confident of no Japanese betrayals, in this century anyway.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Well... Pakistan has made it clear it has problems with India getting a permanent seat on the UNSC and not them, since they have a large population, and is the only Muslim state with nuclear weapons.
Well... American and Japanese national interests are beginning to diverge and probably will increase over time. Someday in the future, Japan may feel it could no longer count on the US for security and would fully rearm; a process that might or might not include nuclear weapon. The bottom line is while the US likes Japan better, China is more important to her national interests. We know it, China knows it, and what's more, Japan knows it too.
The problem of the nuclear weapons can be solved by abolishing them as promised in the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 45 years ago. But even small countries like UK and France are spending unconcionable amounts of money to keep them and the amounts spend by the other small nuclear powers ....
Btw how does the costs of its nuclear weapons compare the the national debt of US?
Btw how does the costs of its nuclear weapons compare the the national debt of US?
japan is not going to get permanent membership on the UN security council anytime soon, if ever. everyone knows this including shinzo abe himself, but why is he doing all this? I believe it's domestic politics, if I were a Japanese citizen I would give him credit for trying and raising a ruckus out there and at least start up a topic about it. the reason why japan can't get it is because japan has no foreign policy of it's own. here's the difference between china and japan. you can praise/criticize, admire or loathe china's foreign policy but there is no dispute that they have their own independent foreign policy but you can't say the same for japan. that is why no one really takes japan seriously and when some major event happens somewhere in the world they don't really need to know Japan's position because their position is exactly the same as Washington's. forget about china or Russia vetoing Japan's bid for permanent UN security council, even Asian nations don't support it. check out Singapore's former ambassador to the UN, Kishore Mabubani's comments about this subject and you will get a feel about how fellow Asian nations position is. Mabubani said it's virtually impossible because other Asian nations response to a japan bid was "why give the United States two votes".
SamuraiBlue
Captain
I really do not care if Japan obtains a permanent seat on the UNSC or not.
The two bits I have is that the other 4 permanent members of the UNSC besides US pays far less in maintaining the UN compared to Japan and yet they act as if they are the only players in the game.
I say place your wallet where your mouth is or step down graciously so that nations making far more contributions to maintain the system have a more active voice.
The two bits I have is that the other 4 permanent members of the UNSC besides US pays far less in maintaining the UN compared to Japan and yet they act as if they are the only players in the game.
I say place your wallet where your mouth is or step down graciously so that nations making far more contributions to maintain the system have a more active voice.
