Is Japan Morally qualified for UNSC Permanent Membership?

[Tonysoong]

Any country, as long as it wants to, can apply for its UNSC permanent membership. And it's good that Japan is willing to undertake greater international responsibilities by assuming more important international roles. But the question here is "Is Japan morally qualified to undertake international responsibilities even though it claims it is willing to?"

Shiiii---The Japanese are not in the position to answer.

Can we boldly speculate that we alread have a different new Japan? Perhaps Asians know better.

 

[lexico]

Good querstion, Tony. But wasn't the subject already decided, or am I mistaken ?
I also recall one Japanese leader saying, "We wouldn't expect becoming a member after the Japanese historical textbook revisionist movement caused intense demonstrations in China," Hong Kong, and Korea. Did I miss any other area, such as Cupertino California, USA ? (in paraphrase)

Anyway, I'd like to suggest we have some objective standards and maybe a public pole to go with it so members who don't want to get too involved in it can opt to simply cast a vote under one's name. What do you think, Tony ?

Another highly interesting issue would be the case for Germany. At least one German daily harshly criticised the unhealthy manner in which Japan has handled itself regarding its colonialist past. Some analysts also commented that Germany's criticism also stems from the negative impact that Japan's irritation might have on Germany's bid for permanent membership in the UN Security Council. (both in paraphrase) I think that would also be a stimulating topic to discuss.

 

[Tonysoong]

Yes, Germany is in a better position to demonstrate to Japan how Japan can assume greater international roles with adequate sense of responsibility.

 

[bossel]

I didn't know that there was a moral qualification necessary to become a permanent member.

IMO, they should do away with permanent membership & power of veto, anyway.

 

[qwertyu]

From its position over post-WWII repentence and the Iraq war, Germany does seem to deserve a UNSCOM seat, but then it might be too soon to tell. Already, there are many voices protesting that Germany is overdoing its WWII penance. Governments can veer suddenly to the extreme, as history has shown.

 

[senseiman]

Moral qualifications? Er...take a look at the big 5 permanent security council members and see how "Morally qualified" they are for the job:

China- brutal dictatorship that supresses religious and ethnic minorities. Executes more of its citizens every year than any other country in the world.

Russia - Became a member of the security council under Stalin, one of the most brutal dictators in human history responsible for the deaths of millions. Currently fighting a brutal campaign to crush seperatists in Chechnya that has killed hundreds of thousands.

Britain - Became a member of the Security council at a time when it was the colonial overlord of a quarter of the Earth's surface, using extreme brutality to suppress independence movements across Africa and Asia.

France - Has during its time as a security council member fought unsuccesful wars of suppresion in Southeast Asia and North Africa in which hundreds of thousands were killed.

The USA - Has a rap sheet a mile long of illegal wars, propping up of viscious dictators and other bad deeds done during its tenure on the Security council.


During the entire 50 plus years of the existance of the Security council, no Japanese soldier has fired a single shot in anger. In that time, every one of the five members of the security council has been involved in wars in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed. How is it that Japan isn't to be considered "morally qualified" to be on the council when those other five are? Because the repeated apologies it has issued over for acts commited over 60 years ago haven't been sufficiently heartfelt?

No offence, but I can't comprehend the rationale of the argument against Japan. It just seems ludicrously hypocritical to me.

 

[kirei_na_me]

Ah, senseiman's posts are so refreshing.

 

[Tonysoong]

Moral qualifications? Er...take a look at the big 5 permanent security council members and see how "Morally qualified" they are for the job:

China- brutal dictatorship that supresses religious and ethnic minorities. Executes more of its citizens every year than any other country in the world.

Russia - Became a member of the security council under Stalin, one of the most brutal dictators in human history responsible for the deaths of millions. Currently fighting a brutal campaign to crush seperatists in Chechnya that has killed hundreds of thousands.

Britain - Became a member of the Security council at a time when it was the colonial overlord of a quarter of the Earth's surface, using extreme brutality to suppress independence movements across Africa and Asia.

France - Has during its time as a security council member fought unsuccesful wars of suppresion in Southeast Asia and North Africa in which hundreds of thousands were killed.

The USA - Has a rap sheet a mile long of illegal wars, propping up of viscious dictators and other bad deeds done during its tenure on the Security council.


During the entire 50 plus years of the existance of the Security council, no Japanese soldier has fired a single shot in anger. In that time, every one of the five members of the security council has been involved in wars in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed. How is it that Japan isn't to be considered "morally qualified" to be on the council when those other five are? Because the repeated apologies it has issued over for acts commited over 60 years ago haven't been sufficiently heartfelt?

No offence, but I can't comprehend the rationale of the argument against Japan. It just seems ludicrously hypocritical to me.

Well said. You are telling us that God doesn't create man flawless, nor does He do any nation.

But does the fact that no human being is flawlessly ferfected suggest that we can blur those well-evolved criteria guiding our choices, and that any human being can be US president or Japanese prime minister, or that any nation is entitled to a UNSC seat just because none of the present 5 is perfect?

That China does not deserve its UNSC seat only suggests that China should be kicked out, But please don't be so irresponsible to say we need to drag Japan in because China or Russia or France or someone else is already there.

 

[Tonysoong]

I didn't know that there was a moral qualification necessary to become a permanent member.

IMO, they should do away with permanent membership & power of veto, anyway.

What better qulifications are there so that morality needs to be neglected?

You are telling us that they should do away with permanent membership while you Germans and your gov't is exerting efforts to obtain it.

 

[lexico]

What better qulifications are there so that morality needs to be neglected?

You are telling us that they should do away with permanent membership while you Germans and your gov't is exerting efforts to obtain it.

I know you have a point, but it seems to me that Bossel, as an idividual, is not the same as the German government, and is entitled to his own views. I hate to say this, but please refrain from making too personal a remark. The expression "You Germans" is too strong, I think.

 

[Tonysoong]

How is it that Japan isn't to be considered "morally qualified" to be on the council when those other five are? Because the repeated apologies it has issued over for acts commited over 60 years ago haven't been sufficiently heartfelt?

No offence, but I can't comprehend the rationale of the argument against Japan. It just seems ludicrously hypocritical to me.

You have boiled the whole thing down to the bottom again, senseiman, which i am afraid will get on your own nerves. But i feel obliged to remind you that you are not in the best position to tell a Chinese or Korean that he is ludicrously hypocritical not to think "the repeated apologies Japan has issued over for acts commited over 60 years ago have been sufficiently heartfelt." You do make a competent spokesman for the offender in telling the offended that the offender's apology must be taken as heartfelt.

No offense though

 

[Tonysoong]

I know you have a point, but it seems to me that Bossel, as an idividual, is not the same as the German government, and is entitled to his own views. I hate to say this, but please refrain from making too personal a remark. The expression "You Germans" is too strong, I think.

Sorry, Bossel

 

[lexico]

You have boiled the whole thing down to the bottom again, senseiman, which i am afraid will get on your own nerves. But i feel obliged to remind you that you are not in the best position to tell a Chinese or Korean that he is ludicrously hypocritical not to think "the repeated apologies Japan has issued over for acts commited over 60 years ago have been sufficiently heartfelt." You do make a competent spokesman for the offender in telling the offended that the offender's apology must be taken as heartfelt.

No offense though

I completely agree with you, unless senseiman meant extreme sarcasm.
Let me draw a simple comparison to show that Japan's so-called 19 official apologies that the Foreign Minister of Japan recently boasted of by saying "Japan apologized many more times than Germany" were on the whole fake, although there were a small number of private, genuine apologies from consciencious Japanese citizens.


A Comparison of Post War Reflection of Aggression between Germany and Japan from end of WWII into the 1990's
The statistics do not include those imposed by Allied Powers

.......................Germany...........Japan
WWII related
criminal............>100,000...............0
suspects pursued

WWII related
suspects.............>6,000...............0
convicted

source: Takahashi Tetsuya ﾂ坂?壺?ｹ'窶廸ﾂ催 Sengo sekininron ﾂ戰ﾅ津｣ﾂ静凪?戮ﾋ彑 Kondasha 1999, Chapter 1. Demanding Sengo sekinin, Sengosekinin as the Japanese People (p. 67 Korean edition.)


A Comparison of Post-War Relief Funds Paid to Families of the War Dead between Germany and Japan from end of WWII into early 1990's

..........................Germany...........Japan
WWII relief funds
for survivors of ...........?..............~Y40,000,000,000,000
war dead (Japanese military)

WWII relief funds
for survivors of ..........?.................~Y1,000,000,000,000
war dead (non-Japanese victims)


Germany's Self-Criticism on Revisionist Trends

"Althought some German politicians express their hopes that the post-war period is over, this is certainly not the case. Regarding (our) past that destroyed so many human lives and happiness, will there ever be a time when we can positively say, 'Enough is enough !' ? This is not a matter that we can conclude for ourselves. This is because there are people in other countries who will never forget, who can never forget what had happened there. What we could not handle under the scrutiny of our consciousness for the past 20 years shall return to us any time as painful memories."

source: Alexander & Margaret Mitcherich Sorrows Lost-the psychoanalysis of fascism (Die Unfahigkeit zutrauern) 1967.


Germany's President von Weizacker on Mourning

"We must firstly mourn the Jewish, then all other peoples who were victimized by Germany's aggression, and only after, and lastly, must we mourn the German soldiers."


Premier Kohl's Figures Without Expiration

"Germany bears the responsibiity for the outrage that Nazi committed to human history. This responsibility is expressed in the figures without expiration."--1985, 40th anniversary of the end of WWII


Fujioka & Nishio's Revisionism

"1. Nanjing Massacre never happened. Comfort Women system as a sexual slavery instituion did not exist in the Imperial Japanese military."

"2. 'Comfort women' were not sex slaves but only prostitutes who engaged in selling their sexual services."

"3. The victim count of the 'Nanjing Incident' is neither 300,000 like the Chinese say nor 200,000 like the Japanese tetbooks say, but only 10,000 at the most. Even if the report by the International Committee of the Safety Zone were all verifiable, there were only 47 civilian casualties."

"4. As for the colonization of Choson (Korea) and the Sino-Japanese War, Japan should bear no responsibility. The real responsibility lies with (the governments of) Choson and China who felt no sense of crisis facing the threats from Russia, Europe, and America."

"5. The real threat of many East Asian countries when (Imperial) Japan expanded into Asia was not Japan but the Powers of Russia, Europe, and America."

"6. The problems of 'Nanjing Massacre' and 'Comfort Women' were all fabrications propagated by anti-Japanese elements from in and out of Japan."

Takahashi Tetsuya, op. cit. p. 138


Please forgive my sloppy translation/transcription. Any correction is welcome.

 

[Sensuikan San]

Moral qualifications? Er...take a look at the big 5 permanent security council members and see how "Morally qualified" they are for the job:

China- brutal dictatorship that supresses religious and ethnic minorities. Executes more of its citizens every year than any other country in the world.

Russia - Became a member of the security council under Stalin, one of the most brutal dictators in human history responsible for the deaths of millions. Currently fighting a brutal campaign to crush seperatists in Chechnya that has killed hundreds of thousands.

Britain - Became a member of the Security council at a time when it was the colonial overlord of a quarter of the Earth's surface, using extreme brutality to suppress independence movements across Africa and Asia.

France - Has during its time as a security council member fought unsuccesful wars of suppresion in Southeast Asia and North Africa in which hundreds of thousands were killed.

The USA - Has a rap sheet a mile long of illegal wars, propping up of viscious dictators and other bad deeds done during its tenure on the Security council.


During the entire 50 plus years of the existance of the Security council, no Japanese soldier has fired a single shot in anger. In that time, every one of the five members of the security council has been involved in wars in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed. How is it that Japan isn't to be considered "morally qualified" to be on the council when those other five are? Because the repeated apologies it has issued over for acts commited over 60 years ago haven't been sufficiently heartfelt?

No offence, but I can't comprehend the rationale of the argument against Japan. It just seems ludicrously hypocritical to me.

I agree with your points totally .... almost .... !

I would take issue on one small detail, however - your reference to Great Britain. Certainly not perfect ... but ... for the record ....

..... At the time the United Nations was formed, Great Britain was not a colonial overlord of a quarter of the World's surface. Virtually all of the old "British Empire" was already gone ! Much of it without violence or brutality.

As for extreme brutality .... I think the last case of that was in Ireland, prior to that country achieving its rightful independance.

Question the examples of Malaya and Palestine and it's possible that I might well agree with you to some degree ... but other than that .... can you cite examples ?

"Éireann go Brách"

ﾆ淡ﾆ停?｡ﾆ停?

 

[Tonysoong]

A Comparison of Post War Reflection of Aggression between Germany and Japan from end of WWII into the 1990's
The statistics do not include those imposed by Allied Powers

.......................Germany...........Japan
WWII related
criminal............>100,000...............0
suspects pursued

WWII related
suspects.............>6,000...............0
convicted

source: Takahashi Tetsuya ﾂ坂?壺?ｹ'窶廸ﾂ催 Sengo sekininron ﾂ戰ﾅ津｣ﾂ静凪?戮ﾋ彑 Kondasha 1999, Chapter 1. Demanding Sengo sekinin, Sengosekinin as the Japanese People (p. 67 Korean edition.)

This, I think, readily serves concusion of this thread, though there are still some among us doubting whether we need moral criteria at all.

 

[senseiman]

Well said. You are telling us that God doesn't create man flawless, nor does He do any nation.

But does the fact that no human being is flawlessly ferfected suggest that we can blur those well-evolved criteria guiding our choices, and that any human being can be US president or Japanese prime minister, or that any nation is entitled to a UNSC seat just because none of the present 5 is perfect?

That China does not deserve its UNSC seat only suggests that China should be kicked out, But please don't be so irresponsible to say we need to drag Japan in because China or Russia or France or someone else is already there.

I'm not at all taking sides as to whether or not Japan should be admitted into the UN Security council. My problem is that the underlying assumptions of the question in your first post "Is Japan Morally qualified to undertake international responsibilities...?" are fundamentally flawed. The point I was trying to make is that if "Moral qualifications" were at all necessary for admittance into the UN security council then not only would none of the current members be allowed in but Japan would probably be one of the most qualified major powers in this regard given its complete lack of a militarist past for over 60 years now.

There are numerous valid reasons for opposing or supporting Japan's membeship on the council, but IMHO a lack of "moral qualifications" cannot seriously be considered one of them.

 

[senseiman]

You have boiled the whole thing down to the bottom again, senseiman, which i am afraid will get on your own nerves. But i feel obliged to remind you that you are not in the best position to tell a Chinese or Korean that he is ludicrously hypocritical not to think "the repeated apologies Japan has issued over for acts commited over 60 years ago have been sufficiently heartfelt." You do make a competent spokesman for the offender in telling the offended that the offender's apology must be taken as heartfelt.

No offense though

I'm not a spokesman for anybody, nor did I tell any offended parties that they must accept anybodies apology. I'd thank you not to misconstrue what I write. I was just trying to point out how, in my opinion, your entire premise for debating Japan's entry was flawed. Chinese and Koreans have every legitimate right to oppose Japanese entry into the UN security council (or to view Japan's apologies as insincere) just as I'm sure many Tibetans must oppose Chinese representation, many Vietnamese and Iraqis must oppose American representation, etc. etc.

As you point out, every country in the world has enemies who are going to oppose its entry into the Security council. If thats the entire basis for your argument (and it is the only argument I have seen presented here) it is pretty weak.

 

[lexico]

eh..disappointed, senseiman

Well, then, senseiman. I'd have to point out the beam in your eye.

May I ask you a simple logical question ?
A necessary condition of 'morality' which you repeatedly deride, does include 'accountability,' right ?

If the government of a country is morally lacking, then it follows that it also lacks in accountability. Therefore your criticism can be likened to trashing the baby with the water. In other words, your logic excecises the fallacy of 'pointing to another wrong.' What do the qualities of the 5 coutries you listed have anything to do with the head post ? If you don't understand what I'm saying, please go to your book of logic or college writing.

Let me put it another way. Simple logic again. Japan's bid for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council will be a farce if the country with the bad record has failed to establish trust among nations, wouldn't you agree ?

Security and Aggression are like water and oil ? Elementary stuff :-(

 

[senseiman]

This, I think, readily serves concusion of this thread, though there are still some among us doubting whether we need moral criteria at all.

I'm not arguing against moral criteria. I just want to know why they are being exclusively used against Japan in this case. The whole point of having criteria is to achieve a standard that has to be universally applied. I can absolutely not understand the sense of saying "We can't let Japan in because it hasn't shown enough guilt over crimes it commited over 60 years ago" on the one hand while on the other saying "Well, nobody is perfect" when confronted with the far more recent and in some cases ongoing crimes of the big five members.

Should we demand that the French, Chinese and Americans apologize to the Vietnamise for their past (and far more recent) acts of aggression or face removal from the security council? This would be the logical conclusion of applying the same 'moral criteria' you apply to Japan to the rest of the members.

I wouldn't mind seeing moral criteria of that sort established, but I think it is incredibly hypocritical to say that Japan alone must be held to them.

 

[senseiman]

Well, then, senseiman. May I ask you a simple logical question ?
A necessary condition of 'morality' which you repeatedly deride, does include 'accountability,' right ?

I'm not deriding morality, I'm just objecting to its selective use.

If a country is morally lacking, then it follows that it also lacks in accountability. Therefore your criticism can be likened to thrashing the baby with the water. In other words, your logic excecises the fallacy of 'pointing to another wrong.' What do the qualities of the 5 coutries you listed have anything to do with the head post ? If you don't understand what I'm saying, please go to your book of logic or college writing.

There is no fallacy in my logic. The premise of the original post's argument is that Japan lacks moral qualifications to join the UN security council. The weakness in this argument is that it presupposes that morality is a factor in deciding on who becomes a member. The bad deeds of the five members I listed is entirely relevant as it completely disproves this assumption, without which the entire argument falls apart. The bad acts of those five nations in no way excuses Japan for failing to sufficiently apologize for its wartime aggression, but on the subject of the 'moral qualifications' necessary for entry into the Security council (which is what we are discussing) surely the moral behaviour of the actual members of the Security council are entirely relevant.

Let me put it another way. Simple logic again. Japan's bid for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council will be a farce if the country with a bad record has failed to establish trust among nations, wouldn't you agree ?

EVERY country on the security council has a bad record and has failed to establish trust among nations. My simple question is why, if this isn't considered an issue with those countries, is it considered of utmost importance when it comes to Japan?

 

[senseiman]

I agree with your points totally .... almost .... !

I would take issue on one small detail, however - your reference to Great Britain. Certainly not perfect ... but ... for the record ....

..... At the time the United Nations was formed, Great Britain was not a colonial overlord of a quarter of the World's surface. Virtually all of the old "British Empire" was already gone ! Much of it without violence or brutality.

As for extreme brutality .... I think the last case of that was in Ireland, prior to that country achieving its rightful independance.

Question the examples of Malaya and Palestine and it's possible that I might well agree with you to some degree ... but other than that .... can you cite examples ?

"Éireann go Brách"

ﾆ淡ﾆ停?｡ﾆ停?彈/QUOTE]

I didn't mean to pick on England, but it was still in control of India and most of its African and Asian colonies at the time the UN was formed. "A quarter of the world" was actually what it controlled at its height, but it wasn't too far off that as late as the 1940s.

A lot of the empire was given up without a fight, with exceptions like Malaya and the middle east. But you also have to take into consideration the violence that was involved in colonizing these places in the first place.

 

[lexico]

ehh...

So basically you're saying status quo est ad infinitum.

According to your logic, the French Revolution could never have happened as the past determines the future.

You probably would have shouted 'Vive l'ancien regime !' You would have shouted such anachronisms while the gates of Bastille were being cracked open. If you do not have the guts to make history, then please at least be brief.

 

[qwertyu]

During the entire 50 plus years of the existance of the Security council, no Japanese soldier has fired a single shot in anger. In that time, every one of the five members of the security council has been involved in wars in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed. How is it that Japan isn't to be considered "morally qualified" to be on the council when those other five are? Because the repeated apologies it has issued over for acts commited over 60 years ago haven't been sufficiently heartfelt? No offence, but I can't comprehend the rationale of the argument against Japan. It just seems ludicrously hypocritical to me.

senseiman, I take it that you do know a little about Japan, so I'm amazed that you can't see that one very probable reason that Japan hasn't fired one shot at another country/person in the past 50 yrs is that JAPAN IS CONSTITUTIONALLY BOUND NOT TO DO SO? The post-WWII pacifist constitution was forced upon Japan by the Allies. How would you know if Japan wouldn't involve itself in aggression again if they change their contitution as they said they would?

One clear indication of Japan's stance and what it believes in is its support for Bush's invasion of Iraq, an invasion condemned as an illegal act of aggression and imperialism by much of the rest of the world, justified by lies and propaganda.

Does this support reflect an anti-war, peace-loving, aggression-renouncing, morally responsible attitude?

And please, don't say that it was only a humanitarian mission, as Japan isn't constitutionally allowed to send combat personnel. By endorsing Bush's sham imperial project, Japan shows its mantle.

Sure, the governments of Spain, Britain, Italy, Poland also supported Bush, but their citizens overwhelmingly opposed it and registered their displeasure through the means available to them, the vote.

Also, I am aware of at least a couple of occasions when Japanese naval freighters fired, charged at and rammed into rickety fishing boats chartered by Diaoyu Island civilian activists in HK around the disputed islands, causing damage to the vessels, and the squirmish indirectly led to one death.

Might I also point out that Japan has standing disputes over territory it annexed prior to WWII from its neighbours, to which it maintains its claim to this day? Is this showing remorse for its past, or clinging to the spoils of aggression/war?

If you have concrete proof that regardless of its involuntary pacifist constitution, Japan will surely uphold international law [as oppose to supporting illegal American wars the UN is opposed to] and renounce aggression, then by all means provide them.

Otherwise, I will prefer to place my bets on actions and deeds rather than words and ambiguous apologies.

 

[qwertyu]

Since we have found ourselves on the slippery slope of moral relativism, I propose another criteria, how about nations' records at upholding international laws, treaties and accords and acting in good faith in international relations?

The US would certainly be disqualified on most scores, but they are the most powerful nation on earth militarily and it basically allows them to get away with murder and plunder. The rest of the world can only hope and pray that the American electorate will come to their sense and cease being the good Germans of 1935 one day soon. The US will unquestionably remain part of the UN body but its role needs checks and balances. In Japan, the US has an uncritical, all supportive sidekick which would help and enable it to expand its influence and warmongering ways into Asia. That is what I fear most, a neo-con dream of perpetual wars abetted by an already heavily-armed Japan. That Japan seems unable to convince its former victims of its remorse over its past simply acerbates its case.

 

[qwertyu]

Forgot to mention that S. Korea also sent support troops to Iraq but I was told by Korean friends that they were more or less blackmailed into it in exchange for the US agreeing not to take unilateral action against N. Korea and to continue 6-party talks. Most Koreans are opposed to it, as polls showed. Maybe lexico can confirm/debunk this.