Interesting article in the Joong Ang today about Japan trying to lobby for a permanent UN security council spot (Joong Ang Article).
I think it is a great idea to give Japan a security council slot because first of all they are the world’s second largest economy, have one of the world’s largest populations, and are becoming more and more involved in maintaining international security which is evident by their involvment in Iraq and Afghanistan much to the dismay of its Northeastern Asian neighbors.
The current members of the security council are France, England, Russia, China, & the US. The Japanese definitely have more of a case for being on the UN security council than France. France has a much weaker economy, smaller population, irrelevant military, and little influence besides the security council on overall international security affairs.
Though Koreans are opposed to Japan being on the UN security council due to past war crimes from World War II, this should not be a reason for not being on the security council since 60 years have passed since its military dictatorship days. Japan is clearly a country now that respects human rights, democracy, and free markets.
Other countries that should be looked at on the security council are India due to its huge population, democratic government, adequate military, and rising economy. India would be a great country to represent the developing world.
Also Indonesia or Turkey should also be viable candidates. Both would give representation to a Muslim nation, plus both are democracies, and set good examples for how a Muslim nation can respect human rights and be peaceful. In Turkey’s case it would be especially helpful in their bid to join the European Union which should be of great national interest to us here in the US to help a Muslim democracy to continue to develop and show tangible rewards internationally for respecting human rights, maintaining free markets, and democracy.
Finally the UN should look at adding two more countries to represent Africa and South America. Possibly Nigeria, South Africa, Brazil, and Chile would make good candidates.
Never the less, it is obvious that the current make up of just five permanent security council nations is not a good system and unfair to many other nations who have developed since the security council was made 50 years ago. Plus the irrelavance of the security council was shown in the build up to the Iraq War. What good is the council if it does not enforce its own resolutions? Hopefully some new blood on the council will give it new life. And Japan is a step in the right direction.
Popularity: 2%
My StumbleUpon Page
10:01 am on December 24th, 2006 1
The rotating membership on the council by non-permanent members (6 month terms I think, without the veto power of the permanent members) takes the pressure off the need for this, I’m guessing. But I’d go even further than you.
Besides Japan, Germany should be there based on economy. India and Indonesia also based on their populations. (Indonesia has 4th largest population in the world, or am I thinking of their land mass? maybe both..) Indonesia is majority Muslim and should be the Muslim member before Turkey.
You’ll never get current permanent members to be deleted, but a really daring US President would announce our intention to no longer exercise our membership in the Security Council until these changes were made. What an uproar that would create! Let the world’s obnoxious US critics be forced to cast a critical eye on their own failings and prejudices for a change.