Germany, Japan fume at Obama's UN nod

[Chinese-Dragon]

Isn't that a good thing to have? I mean not to have a war at the first place?

Sure it's a nice thing to have, especially considering what happened during WW2.

But why should a declining power like Japan, get a seat on the security council?

They have a "pacifist constitution", and a stagnant economy... what can they do to uphold "global security"?

Their own constitution prevents them from even making the "threat" of force. They even recently declared that they were going to stop giving foreign aid, because they are short on cash and high on debt.

Regardless of the reasoning, you can be sure that China will veto the entire resolution, if there is even the slightest chance of Japan getting a permanent seat.

 

[Ras]

The Indians seem pretty happy just with a permanent seat endorsement by Obama. What I was pointing out was that it isn't clear yet whether he endorses a seat with/without veto.

I am assuming they are happy as they think it is with veto...and all the articles in the Indian media not even seem to have considered the fact that it could be without veto.Not sure they will be very happy if that is the case.

 

[Ras]

Sure it's a nice thing to have, especially considering what happened during WW2.

But why should a declining and power like Japan, get a seat on the security council?

They have a pacifist constitution, and a stagnant economy, what can they do to uphold "global security"?

Depends on if the role of the security council is to comprise of members with a strong military. In that case very soon England and France will have to give up their seats.

 

[CardSharp]

I am assuming they are happy as they think it is with veto...and all the articles in the Indian media not even seem to have considered the fact that it could be without veto.Not sure they will be very happy if that is the case.

Hmmm it would be nice if the issue gets clarified but I doubt this would happen. Beyond Obama's speech, there's nothing concrete yet, so no details on the promise.

 

[StingRoy]

It means that they cannot contribute troops to serve abroad. Though the right-wingers and militarists in Japan seem set to change their constitution to allow war again.

This is interesting. Will read about it more.

Sure it's a nice thing to have, especially considering what happened during WW2.
But why should a declining and power like Japan, get a seat on the security council?
They have a pacifist constitution, and a stagnant economy, what can they do to uphold "global security"?

Even if they are a stagnant economy, they are still the 3rd largest economy. But if you ask me personally, I will also not prefer Japan in the UNSC, rather include one nation from Latin America, i.e. Brazil.

 

[StingRoy]

I think the powers of the UNSC needs to change and the veto power should be withdrawn from the members and instead made based on an absolute majority (or maybe 80% Yay works). Veto power may have worked good when there were 5 members... but once it increases to 8 or say 10, then there will be some country or the other who will have some opposition (directly or indirectly) to the motion.
This would help accommodate and represent nations from other regions/continents more easily.

 

[CardSharp]

This is interesting. Will read about it more.


Even if they are a stagnant economy, they are still the 3rd largest economy. But if you ask me personally, I will also not prefer Japan in the UNSC, rather include one nation from Latin America, i.e. Brazil.

Oh yeah the right wing Japanese movement is pretty interesting. They recently fired a cheif of staff of the air force (or JASDF) because he published a set of essays saying "it is a false accusation to say (Japan) was an aggressor nation"

and that during World War II and that Japan was rather drawn into attacking the US by Chiang Kai-shek and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had allegedly been manipulated by the Comintern.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

But if you ask me personally, I will also not prefer Japan in the UNSC, rather include one nation from Latin America, i.e. Brazil.

Agreed. We need more developing countries on the security council, like India and Brazil.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Depends on if the role of the security council is to comprise of members with a strong military. In that case very soon England and France will have to give up their seats.

The UK and France are already members so it's a moot point. Regardless, neither of them have "pacifist constitutions"... and if push comes to shove, they can actually go out there and make things happen.

 

[Ras]

The UK and France are already members so it's a moot point. Regardless, neither of them have "pacifist constitutions"... and if push comes to shove, they can actually go out there and make things happen.

The fact remains that it is harder and harder for England and France to justify their place...if it is about economy then Germany should get the spot. If it is about the military then both of them are on a declining trend(though still strong today) and will still have to give up their spots soon.

 

[ChinaRocks]

i still think down to the last minute america will say no ,just too much at stake for usa, if india or japan is in the unsc then this will be a truely asian centery

 

[PakSher]

Unless the UN Security Council is fairly reformed, the UN will continue to loose strength in the years to come. All aspects of a country should be kept in mind. Pakistan with its 183 million people now is the 5th biggest country in the world and needs to have it proper representation at the UN.

 

[Alphatech]

Unless the UN Security Council is fairly reformed, the UN will continue to loose strength in the years to come. All aspects of a country should be kept in mind. Pakistan with its 183 million people now is the 5th biggest country in the world and needs to have it proper representation at the UN.

You already have proper representation through your UN membership.....or is this a hint that you would like to have a permanent seat too ???

I can even imagine you listing the reasons already.... 6th (not 5th) biggest country, representation on behalf of Islamic nations, Nukes, strategic significance....blah blah blah...

Don't bother...not gonna happen.... kindly apply after another century....thank you.

 

[third eye]

Why should there be a veto at all for anyone ?

The essence of democracy is to work as the majority wants. Let the UNSC expand & remove the veto for all.

 

[below_freezing]

UNSC is not about fairness, democracy or justice. it is about raw power and the people who won WW2 got the seats. right now there's 2 ways to expand the UNSC:

1.) the 5 winners of WW2 allow it to happen.
2.) there is another world war.

japan's not getting in either way. if india wants in, it should go alone and drop japan.