What's new

Permanent Seat for Japan on the UN Security Council?

mikecash said:
When you come right down to it, the whole idea of the UN functioning as some sort of world government is pretty idiotic,
What isn't pretty idiotic is that there be a formal and public way for countries in general to hammer out agreements and decide matters between themselves. To paraphrase a well known saying the UN is the worst possible such organisation - other than any of the alternatives (mainly because there are, at present, no alternatives).
 
I agree it has its good uses. There's baby in the bathwater.

The problem is that so many people seem to regard it as being some sort of World Government. A classic usenet post from one of my all-time favorite posters illustrates one of the biggest problems with this:
Google Groups
 
No, the UN is not a government of any sort. It is a forum for countries to sort out disagreements, and make agreements. The UN charter is clear in that the UN itself shall always respect a countrys sovereignty. And that is, I believe, a big reason why the UN wouldn't ever support an invasion such as the invasion of Iraq. And I also believe that is also why Kofi Annan claimed the "war" illegal, as it went against the agreements made with the UN, and between the countries that are members of it.
 
Here is more news (beware of the Mainichi Shimbun's credibility though) : Public supports Japan's bid for UNSC permanent seat

Nearly 60 percent of Japanese people support Japan's bid for permanent membership in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), a recent Mainichi Shimbun poll suggests.

However, a majority of the pollees voiced opposition to the use of force by Japan to settle international disputes.

What do the average Japanese expect ? Having a seat in the UNSC makes it almost unavoidable to have to send troops to settle international disputes. That would be too easy to approve UN military help, then just let the other do it.
 
It shouldn't happen

Japan is a little brother of the US.
Once US says Japan should send military to Iraq, we follow the order.
Once Bush says he wants to attack Iraq, we support.
Once US says Israel has a right to attack Palestines, we'll agree.

If Japan become a permanent member of the security councel, we'll be like
what Isreali now does: veto together with the US, if it is not any interests for the US.

Two permanent member's veto is seriously big.
I don't think it should happen.

Fujisawa Times
 
samurai said:
If Japan become a permanent member of the security councel, we'll be like
what Isreali now does: veto together with the US, if it is not any interests for the US.

You were doing so well until you displayed your ignorance by suggesting that Israel has the ability to veto anything in the Security Council.
 
> What do the average Japanese expect ?

To have a seat in the UNSC is the second thing. To see/show which countries are against Japan is the more effective action under the current situation. Waking up from a bittersweet daydream, and things will happen. 良い方に転べばよいんですけどね。。。
 
PaulTB said:
You think India doesn't have problems with corruption and political instability?

Paul,

UK has also corruption, so does US. So, that is no big deal though one should strive to have a non corrupt society.

There is no political instability at all.

Our govts have changed as per the elections and there has been no military dictatorship. To compare India with UK (if that is the index that you have applied) would not be correct since India is a vast country unlike UK, which is but a small island.

I daresay that the political situation in UK is comfortable. Lib Dems are on the roll, the Labour is downsliding and the Conservatives are a dim vision on the politcal horizon.

It is said that Labour will win. Imagine that. With such large rallies against going to Iraq, yet Tony Blair wins! Rather odd for a democracy.
 
Back
Top Bottom