I am profoundly saddened by the smoke screen rhetoric that's been taking up ca. 80% of this thread.
Do we still remember what our teacher said in our 2nd or 1st grade, or kindergarten ?
"Just because everybody else is doing it, doesn't make it right !"
I guess education, if not dead, has been highly ineffective, not only in Japan, but elsewhere as well. Sorry if I piss off some people. I'm not playing holier-than-thou. Just stating a straight, sad fact of life I see here.
I think, you're way off here, if you want to imply that Senseiman is trying to lay a smoke screen. I can agree with most he said.
To become a member of the SC, morality was never a requirement. Just like Senseiman I cannot see why such a qualification should only be necessary for Japan but nobody else.
The SC, in its current state, is seriously flawed, anyway. That's why I would propose a complete reform. Do away with permanent membership in general. A new way to deal with the matter could be to apply a certain number of seats to world "blocks". Perhaps 3-4 seats each for the Americas, Europe & Africa, 5-6 for Asia, 1-2 for Australia/Oceania, where the "blocks" could chose their members freely or with automatic rotation.
Another way to regulate these blocks could be via UN contribution: major, medium & minor contributor blocks (where the minors' block would probably be the biggest) would each get 5 seats. There is a multitude of possibilities, but I'd definitely get rid of the veto right.
"Just because everybody else is doing it, doesn't make it right !"
I think, you're way off here, if you want to imply that Senseiman is trying to lay a smoke screen. I can agree with most he said.
To become a member of the SC, morality was never a requirement. Just like Senseiman I cannot see why such a qualification should only be necessary for Japan but nobody else.
The SC, in its current state, is seriously flawed, anyway. That's why I would propose a complete reform. Do away with permanent membership in general. A new way to deal with the matter could be to apply a certain number of seats to world "blocks". Perhaps 3-4 seats each for the Americas, Europe & Africa, 5-6 for Asia, 1-2 for Australia/Oceania, where the "blocks" could chose their members freely or with automatic rotation.
Another way to regulate these blocks could be via UN contribution: major, medium & minor contributor blocks (where the minors' block would probably be the biggest) would each get 5 seats. There is a multitude of possibilities, but I'd definitely get rid of the veto right.
But I suppose, your teacher also taught you that everybody should be measured by the same standards.
You are making certain points here any way. But I think we are discussing Japan's entry into the UNSC as UNSC is today. UN reform, perhaps including what you suggest as "automatic rotation" may be necessary but is quite off the topic here or utterly another topic, right?
UN was started to promote peace. But if imperialism and racial prejudice are still not condemned (by applying certain moral standards) as immoral and barbaric, i do fear that there is the danger of changing the UN into an evil club where world powers will bid for evil gains by evil means without being restrained by any moral codes.
All member nations in the international community each have their flaws and even crimes. But do you expect to draw out of this that everyone is the same? The same standard for all does not mean all are the same. We need standards when not all are the same, especially when some are viciously dangerous. Reason, Bossel.
China, or, France or US or perhaps all the five might no longer be qualified SC members. What then? Very simple, just kick it/them out if we can find better-qualified ones----by applying standards of course, but, Rossel, we should never allow us be so irrational as to just drag some one in who is even more brutal than any of the present five , by ignoring all standards and moral codes.
The Germans have always been highly philosophical.
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.
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.
The need for (universally applied) criteria/standards itself speaks out --- not all are the same, though none is perfected, But I mean no racial prejudice here. I just mean that someone, at a certain time and under ceratin circumstances, may be incapable of certain responsibilties by certain criteria, just like I, for the time being am not yet qualified to function as UN secretary general.
Exactly, & the SC today is not a club of morally outstanding countries. Esp. the permanent members have skeletons in the closet. The US (eg. Iraq, Guantanamo Bay), UK (eg. Iraq), Russia (eg. Chechnya) & PRC (eg. Tibet, Xinjiang) even have current issues which to me make them look much more "viciously dangerous" than Japan.
BTW, another sign that the PRC government also isn't improving in regards to morals & standards becomes obvious when Hu Jintao welcomes the murderous bastard Karimov as an "old friend" only some days after Karimov had his military kill hundreds of civilians. What is more important to the PRC? Economic resources or human lives? Hmm...
UN reform, perhaps including what you suggest as "automatic rotation" may be necessary but is quite off the topic here or utterly another topic, right?
Only partially, because if you want to make the SC a club of morally perfect member states you will have to accomplish much farther going reforms than I propose. Reform is an issue for you as it is for me.
changing the UN into an evil club where world powers will bid for evil gains by evil means without being restrained by any moral codes.
Ah! The fight good vs. evil. What a nice & simple point of view. Sadly the world is not made like this. There is no black & white, just shades of grey.
To me it seems rational to apply the same standards to all countries. This doesn't mean that all countries have to be the same, but if you want to judge any behaviour, I can't see how you want to do this by applying your rules on an arbitrary basis.
be so irrational as to just drag some one in who is even more brutal than any of the present five
Speaking of irrationality: Isn't it quite irrational to say that a country that was the aggressor 60 years ago is more brutal than countries which still fight aggressive wars?
Ignoring all standards? Where did I say so? I said, if you want to have standards, you need to apply them equally.
On moral codes I didn't say anything yet, I think. Reason being: morals are relative. If you want a moral code to apply for SC members you 1st have to define the morals to apply. Yours? Mine (if I have any)? Any particular country or culture? Morals are a very difficult topic.
Speaking of irrationality: Isn't it quite irrational to say that a country that was the aggressor 60 years ago is more brutal than countries which still fight aggressive wars?
Ignoring all standards? Where did I say so? I said, if you want to have standards, you need to apply them equally.
On moral codes I didn't say anything yet, I think. Reason being: morals are relative. If you want a moral code to apply for SC members you 1st have to define the morals to apply. Yours? Mine (if I have any)? Any particular country or culture? Morals are a very difficult topic.
Two Japanese cabinet ministers ﾂ（whose names I am unable to transmit in an alphabetic formﾂ）openly proposed that the Class A war criminals in the what-ye-call-it shrine should not be taken as criminalsﾂ， utterly denying the far-east military tribunal as one-sidedﾂ。
Itﾂ's no surprise to meﾂ， as such radical behavior has always earned such politicians creditﾂ，which I believe such politicians are more aware of than any one of us hereﾂ。But itﾂ， as I view itﾂ， does add weight to my question of ﾂ"Is Japan morally qualified for a UNSC seatﾂ？ﾂ"
Responsibility / accountabilty, Bossel, if we are too helpless in this grayishly-shady world (as you put it) to desire any bit more than that!
Frankly speaking I don't like political topic.What I want to say here is that everyone loves his country and people.The world needs peace as human being need water and air.
Frankly speaking I don't like political topic.What I want to say here is that everyone loves his country and people.The world needs peace as human being need water and air.
If it were only that simple. But the world isn't "black and white". You can't preach how nations should solve problems without talking politics. Peace can't be achieved in a blink of an eye, y'know. And nationalism is very, very complex.
What we need here is to reform the Security Council entirely! The notion of "permanent members" is very outdated. USA, UK, France, Russia, and China, take note, were all Allied Powers! After the dust settled, only they had the capacity to effectively deal sensitive topics like wars, unrests, power struggles, etc. Not anymore. As someone pointed out, these countries have a lot of skeletons in the closet: which are a lot worse than the Yasukuni issue.
With non-permanent members, the SC will be a lot more flexible than before. Smaller, but more able, countries (ie 3rd world and Africa) can have a chance for membership. Also this will eliminate the Big 5's hegemonic grip over security issues.
Perhaps we could start another thread to discuss UN reform considering Japan, Germany and some others are exerting their effort to find their way into the UNSC. Are they making all these efforts just to find that UNSC is no linger existent?
Yes, I definitely agree. One last question, somewhat related/repeating, is why are there efforts to add members to the SC before coming forth with possible/probable/required changes to the blueprint of UN. Doesn't make sense at all. And please don't tell me they didn't know changes were in the near future. I get the impression of inverted priorities.
I really do appreciate the idealism of us discussing the reconfiguration of the UN to reflect a more balanced world, but I would like to return to the REALITY of our brave new world of absolute US dominance, of "pre-emptive wars" in contradiction of international laws, of new space weapons, of the US continuing to seek and expand its power over the UN and everyone else, for them or against them. This is why the character and morality of a country matters - the only way out of this is for the majority of Americans to come to their senses about their lunatic government. Ditto Japan, who is strategic in the US's own geopolitical machinations in the Pacific. At least the EU will thwart the US when things get out of hand. The question is what is the current character of Japan? Is it rightwing? Is it pro Bush's wars? Will the people stand up to the US when international laws are broken? Is Japan antagonistic rather than conciliatory with its neighbours? Will Japan stand on the side of the Asia-Pacific countries or on the side o Bush? From Bush's dealings [and Japan's support] with countries from N. Korea, China to Russia, we can safely infer that Japan's role is to strengthen the quasi-fascist Bush administration and its Projuect for the New American Century or some such Orwellian utopia.
The day when I see the opposite inclination [i.e. of joining the majority of the world in reiterating the international laws which served our peace so well, of genuine rapprochement and diplmacy with its neighbours, of ceasing to glorify its WWII crimes] among Japan's populace voting for a genuinely pacifist and conciliatory government, will probably be the day when Japan enjoys unquestioned support for its permanent seat as an honest broker.
Sigh, I said no such thing. Sometimes, a particular view of what constitutes self-interest dominates, even though it might be completely questionable, eg. many Japanese' view that they are better off belonging with neo-con America than an emergent Asia.
Take Israel for example. You have the thinly disguised racist hardliners [Sharon voters] who push for greater antagonism with the Arabs, obstructing a Palestinian state and a closer relationship with a rightwing, islamophobic America out of what they believe is crucial for the survival of Israel. In that sense, they support US wars, intervention and hegemony in the Middle East and separate themselves further from the context of the Muslim region within which they are geographically located. Which makes no sense to the Israelis [Rabin voters] who are willing to deal and negotiate with the Palestinians, giving up land for peaceful co-existence with the Palestinians and the other Arab and non-Arab neighbours. Both groups love Israel, but they diverge when it comes to the long-term strategy of dealing with their neighbours and the US.
[For the sake of simplifying the argument, I am assuming that America is Bush's America, even though I know almost half of equally patriotic Americans did not want him.]
Right now, the former dominates Israel, with a huge majority support from Israeli voters. What do you think will happen to global diplomacy when Israel gets a UNSC seat? More "Iraqs" but now with UN "approval". The rightwingers declare themselves the most red-blooded patriots, but are they doing what's best for Israel?
For now, racist, pro-WWII Ishihara voters dominate Japan. They support US Pacific hegemony, attacking N. Korea [which is easy if the aim is to bomb and destroy, not occupation] and are contemptuous of conciliation with Japan's "inferior" neighbours. They proclaim proudly that they don't give a toss for what their regional neighbours think, but only what America thinks. Is Japan pro-Asia Pacific, or pro-America? Is that a Japan that deserves support from its neighbours for a UNSC seat? Someday in the distant future, when the Japanese Rabin sweeps into power, maybe all that will change for the greater good of everyone.
I will also refrain from passing judgement on the "unquestionable pacifism" of Japan under the constraints of an involuntary pacifist postwar Constitution imposed on them. [Surely that's a good argument that in rare circumstances, changes forced upon from the outside might be beneficial]. Rather, I would judge Japan based on its VOLUNTARY actions, exonerating their war criminals who went on to prosper mightily [from the Unit 731 head to top WWII politicians], approving revisionist history texts, its politicians paying homage at Ysukuni Shrine, its actions in its territorial disuptes with its neighbours, and not least of all, its support for Bush's wars. This hardline, unrepentent Japan [which many here argue resides at the margins despite the voter support of hardliners' victory and dominance] is feared and loathed by its neighbours.
BTW, another sign that the PRC government also isn't improving in regards to morals & standards becomes obvious when Hu Jintao welcomes the murderous bastard Karimov as an "old friend" only some days after Karimov had his military kill hundreds of civilians. What is more important to the PRC? Economic resources or human lives? Hmm...
This is over simplifying it isn't it? The US, Russia and China are all rolling out the red carpet for Karimov, with the US even paying generously for a miltary base there and sending Muslim "terror suspects" for the Karimov treatment. They all do it for different but politically strategic and arguably expedient reasons. You can't single out just one for moral recrimination, and if you must, shouldn't that be the country that, unlike the other two, claims it is bringing freedom and democracy to the dark corners of the world?
You can't single out just one for moral recrimination, and if you must, shouldn't that be the country that, unlike the other two, claims it is bringing freedom and democracy to the dark corners of the world?
If you had read my post thoroughly you'd have noticed this:
"The US (eg. Iraq, Guantanamo Bay), UK (eg. Iraq), Russia (eg. Chechnya) & PRC (eg. Tibet, Xinjiang) even have current issues which to me make them look much more "viciously dangerous" than Japan."
I was not singling out China. I just mentioned Karimov as another example because that was something I read in the news recently.
If you had read my post thoroughly you'd have noticed this:
"The US (eg. Iraq, Guantanamo Bay), UK (eg. Iraq), Russia (eg. Chechnya) & PRC (eg. Tibet, Xinjiang) even have current issues which to me make them look much more "viciously dangerous" than Japan."
I was not singling out China. I just mentioned Karimov as another example because that was something I read in the news recently.
from the CALD:
vicious
adjective
1 describes people or actions that show an intention or desire to hurt someone or something very badly:
2 describes an object, condition or remark that causes great physical or emotional pain:
from M-W:
1 : having the nature or quality of vice or immorality : DEPRAVED
2 : DEFECTIVE, FAULTY; also : INVALID
3 : IMPURE, NOXIOUS
4 a : dangerously aggressive : SAVAGE <a vicious dog> b : marked by violence or ferocity : FIERCE <a vicious fight>
5 : MALICIOUS, SPITEFUL <vicious gossip>
6 : worsened by internal causes that reciprocally augment each other
Helpless! People could (intentionally) differ so greatly in ways of viewing things, especially when certain common-sense criteria and facts are VICIOUSLY neglected. It's not a matter of IQ, Bossel, instaed, it must be that some one of us intrincically tends to " describe an object, condition or remark that causes great physical or emotional pain", as you relayed to us from M-W.
Exactly, & the SC today is not a club of morally outstanding countries. Esp. the permanent members have skeletons in the closet. The US (eg. Iraq, Guantanamo Bay), UK (eg. Iraq), Russia (eg. Chechnya) & PRC (eg. Tibet, Xinjiang) even have current issues which to me make them look much more "viciously dangerous" than Japan.
BTW, another sign that the PRC government also isn't improving in regards to morals & standards becomes obvious when Hu Jintao welcomes the murderous bastard Karimov as an "old friend" only some days after Karimov had his military kill hundreds of civilians. What is more important to the PRC? Economic resources or human lives? Hmm...
Bossel, while you grouped them all together in the previous paragraph, you DID single out China for "special", "btw" mention when it comes to Karimov, even though the US and Russia have been much heftier supporters in words, action and deed up till and even after the revelation of the massacre, as my links indicated.
Another thing, I don't think soveriegn Iraq [a million dead from US sanctions and now 100, 000 in an illegal invasion] plus the torture gulags in Guantanomo, Afghanistan and god knows where else can be the moral equivalent of secessionist Chechnya and Xinjiang, which suffer brutal crackdowns, but certainly not at the same scale as pitting missiles, torpedoes, cluster bombing, tanks, F-16s, Blackhawks against an entire country and its population. Tibet has been opened to visitors for many years now, while I am sure some arrests and political repression take place today, it isn't an embattled region.
Also, I wouldn't praise a hand-cuffed former aggressor for not hitting others simply because he is unable to. I would assess the genuity of his reform and repentance based on how he feels and brags about his former crimes, his other words and actions that are not similarly constrained. In the form of 70 something percent public support for Shintaro Ishihara, a Rumsfeld/Bolton/Ernst Zundel/KKK member all-in-one, I seriously doubt it. How is it that no one notices the phenomenal success of this guy?
What's REALLY going on in Central Asia? Here's an answer, a sophisticated piece in Asia Times, an erudite, provocative site with contributors from different corners of the world, Russia, US, India, China, Europe, not just your usual axis-of-knights-in-shining-armour pundits.
I have just become a member today. I am Japanese and live in Tokyo. Reading through messages, I get a feeling that there seems a certain lack of understandings or information. Let me write some and hopefully you have a better perspective.
1. Japanese feeling of WWII War Crime Tribunal
Have you seen a 2003 movie ﾂ"the Fog of Warﾂ"? Robert McNamara was interviewed for his roles as the Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War as well as those of an assistant to Air Force General Le May during the World War II. In WWII, the US bombarded Japanese cities knowing that resulted in killing millions of civilians. At the interview, he said ﾂ"If Japan won the war, we would all be war criminals.ﾂ"
Japanese feel Japan victimized Chinese and Koreans as well as other Asians, and treated them terribly during the war. We admitted war crimes and apologized for it (actually 17 times or so to Chinese and Koreans and others, even by the emperor at his visit to China) and paid for it ($30 billion aid to China alone after the agreed war compensation fully paid). What unsettling to Japanese is the war tribunal was one-sided. During the trial, all evidences or opinions considered assisting Japan were denied. A predetermined scenario was set by the victors against the losers. Nobody in the allied forces and government has been tried and persecuted.
2.5 million dead Japanese soldiers were dedicated at Yasukuni Shrine. They include Class A war criminals. The A's also died for Japan as far as Japanese are concerned, and their dead souls should be respected. Also some of the A's had been pardoned and played important roles in the post war Japan. Japanese quite don't understand why Chinese and Koreans are so vehemently against Koizumi's visit to Yasukuni. What's wrong about paying respect to those who died for Japan in the past wars? Or, are they against Shinto shrine itself? There are Shinto shrines in every town in Japan. It is a part of Japanese culture. It is more than a religion and simply a part of Japanese daily life.
2. UN Security Council Membership
China's Prime Minister Wen Jiabao declared that:
"Only a country that respects history, and takes responsibility for history, can take greater responsibilities in the international community." (Reuters)
Is he serious about saying it? Does he know his own country is not taking responsibility for its own history? A million civilians were killed by the Chinese troops when they invaded Tibet; Mao's Great Leap Forward caused 20 million people starved to death; 1979 unprovoked China's invasion of Vietnam; massacre of Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989 and so forth.
It sounds like Wen wants to de-list China from the UNSC! Well, I shouldn't be making fun of the Chinese Prime Minister. But it is getting really too much illogical and unrealistic the way China accusing Japan. I think Japan has been providing free democratic society to its people and helping peace and prosperity in the world through aids and recently more with its people. Japan deserves to be a UNSC member.
2. Textbook issues
There are so much mentioning of Japanese national textbook being too nationalistic or whitewashing the past wrongdoings, etc. But do you know there is no national textbook in Japan? Japan's several publishing companies create textbooks for Japanese schools. The government checks for the fact errors only and asks for the corrections. There is no suggestion by the government about what to write. This is a democratic society! Many Japanese felt the history textbooks being too apologetic about the war, and wanted to see it from a larger perspective like the WWII caused to quicken some Asian nations' independence. But that textbook is only one of several textbook versions used in Japan last year, and also this year. That textbook caused uproar in China and Korea, but that version was adopted by less than 5 % of Japanese schools last year! I hope Chinese people see how the society works in Japan. I have read that history textbook. To me, it was well written and rather balanced. I don't think it can be considered ultra-nationalistic at all. I sent email to that publishing company to translate it to many languages to be viewed by the world. I hope they take my advice.
I want Japan and Japanese to be more active in public relations to the world. Only then, better understandings and relationships can be developed.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
