Should Japan get a permanent seat on the UN Security Council?

[yoMAMA]

Rice in Japan, backs Japan Security Council Bid, demands it to end the beef ban (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46196-2005Mar18.html)

also...shoud Japan lift the U.S beef ban? [Japan is its most lucrative market].

[Ogumo]

I believe so. It would probably be good if south korea became a part also. However many would argue but thats my opinion. As for the beef issue. Why should japan lift the ban on american beef when the americans are not meeting the standards that japan set? The government wants every cow checked and the U.S. refuses. So no not japan not lift the ban.

[Keshikov]

No! Japan is a political puppet of the United States!

[SunWuKong]

No! Japan is a political puppet of the United States!

i agree. South Korea has a little more backbone when it comes to the US, but both their foreign policies are ultimately dictated by the US. perhaps when Japan no longer play host to American troops, then it can be put into consideration - and if this ever happens, i'd want India and Brazil to also get permanent seats together with Japan.

[Jung Rhee]

i agree. South Korea has a little more backbone when it comes to the US, but both their foreign policies are ultimately dictated by the US. perhaps when Japan no longer play host to American troops, then it can be put into consideration - and if this ever happens, i'd want India and Brazil to also get permanent seats together with Japan.

I agree, especially the Republicans and the Neocons are going to dominate the US politics for years or decades to come. I would support Korea instead.

[SunWuKong]

I agree, especially the Republicans and the Neocons are going to dominate the US politics for years or decades to come. I would support Korea instead.

i wouldn't want South Korea to get a permanent seat for the same reason i don't want Japan to get one. but i think if South Korea had more power in the UN, it would definitely help facilitate reunification with North Korea, because i think both China and the US essentially want the status quo on the Korean reunification issue.

[yuuteya]

yes, of course. japan is a global economic power that does alot of economic support for asia, but with little independent political power, (ie. american military/economic/political influences.) in order for japan to move away from american influence, east asian people should also sincerely support their fellow asian country and friend japan to take step by steps to be a regular/normal country, with balance of political and economics. if a (future normalized/regularized) japan, (future united/integrated) korea, (future democratic/human rights/non-nationalistic/non-militaristic) china become realized, then it will make the future east asian unity and equality to make more sense and last.

hope chinese and koreans can be supportive as our nice friends to help japan out. then japan as a member of the security council can more assertive and independent from american influence, and japan can sincerely work together with china, together as asian partners can help korea out to get a seat, and maybe even thailand and malaysia. we need to build the framework for mutual support networks with china, korea, and japan helping each other out. this will form the foundations for a workable future regional alliance. try to see it from a pan-asian unity point of view, not a singular/ethnic/nationalist point of view. the narrow ethnic-national self interests should give way to a more unified point of view as asian people.

[haplesshobo]

while we're at it, why don't we start adding mexico, italy, romania, mozambique, etc.. as permanent security council members as well.

that's what happens when we start talking about adding all countries, regardless of their stature.

it seems japan's time as a potential world power passed by in the 80s, and it doesn't have any chance to reclaim it due to demographic reasons. and, south korea has even less potential as a world power.

having said all that, i disagree that because japan's policy closely alligns itself with america makes it less worthy to be given a seat. the uk pretty much follows what we do, and that doesn't mean their seat should be taken away.

all this pan asian thing seems a little silly especially talk of a non-nationalistic China. just because americans see all asians as the same doesn't mean that asians are really that alike.

[yuuteya]

while we're at it, why don't we start adding mexico, italy, romania, mozambique, etc.. as permanent security council members as well.

that's what happens when we start talking about adding all countries, regardless of their stature.

it seems japan's time as a potential world power passed by in the 80s, and it doesn't have any chance to reclaim it due to demographic reasons. and, south korea has even less potential as a world power.

having said all that, i disagree that because japan's policy closely alligns itself with america makes it less worthy to be given a seat. the uk pretty much follows what we do, and that doesn't mean their seat should be taken away.

all this pan asian thing seems a little silly especially talk of a non-nationalistic China. just because americans see all asians as the same doesn't mean that asians are really that alike.

the rise of a nationalistic china is quite scary idea for japan, sometimes we are worried what might happen if the communists collapse, the vacuum if it easily be might filled in by a capitalistic-very nationalistic (anti-japanese) china? wow thats kind of scary. because nationalistic chinese education is mixed with anti-japanese attitudes. its a very dangerous combination, dont you think?

to chinese people, try to get out of the chinese nationalist point of view and the 'instant fear of japan' idea... so if china politically and publicaly supported japan to become more politically independent, support the japanese to be less dependence from the united states.. in other words if china helps japan to be more poiltically assertive, then in the long term it is actually in china interests, and in the regions interest. because it will be creating a situation of an actual asian regional political partnership, in addition to the economic one. china should also support the political normalization of japan. that would really move the regional alliance to happen sooner. you all know about asian reciprocity, if an asian person helps another asian person in a tangible way, it creates a sense of mutual connections and support to each other. its an asian cultural thing. and despite the 90s, japan is very much an economic power.

put it this way, japanese economic assistance has helped china become an economic power, so chinese political assistance can also help japan become a political power. lets help each other out.

[Yeahman]

I don't think there should be permenant seats.
All countries should vote and no country should have veto power. Votes should be weighed by population.

[yoMAMA]

I don't think there should be permenant seats.
All countries should vote and no country should have veto power. Votes should be weighed by population.

By that measure China and India would run the show.

:tongue:

while we're at it, why don't we start adding mexico, italy, romania, mozambique, etc.. as permanent security council members as well.

well, none of those countries have the world's second largest economy, nor are they the world's largest creditor.

[Yeahman]

By that measure China and India would run the show.
Oh yeah I forgot to mention the other half of my idea. Like our congress, one house would be weighed by population, the other would be 1 vote for every country. So you need a majority of the world's countries as well to pass a resolution.

[haplesshobo]

i still think talk of a pan asian alliance is extremely silly. every asian country is different, and has different interests. one of the reasons the europeans joined together was to form a economic bulwark against american hegemony. however, it seems that china in the future will be able to act as an alternative to america by itself so why would it need to form some type of asian union. already china's growing economic power was able to help pull japan out of a recession. indeed, if there is going to be a pan asian thing, i think it ends up revolving around china much like how america dominates nato.

personally, i find all that talk of my country is better than your country a little silly.

there's nothing wrong with nationalism by itself. there are many reasons why other countries fear a dominant china, for reasons other than nationalism. china has historically been a very nationalistic country. it seems a little silly to be scared of it for those reasons. should america hate and fear japan because its also nationalistic.

[SunWuKong]

personally i would love for American troops to leave Japan, but that means Japan re-arming itself, and there's no way China would want that. China wants American troops in Japan.

[imturok]

Too many voices would get less things done. I suggest to reduce the number of permanent seats.
Afterall if an issue is so difficult to require a 'veto', one way or the other won't mean that much. The only sure way for humans to reapt the best outcome is to work together and execute that decision. Right the right and right the wrong.

[SunWuKong]

having said all that, i disagree that because japan's policy closely alligns itself with america makes it less worthy to be given a seat. the uk pretty much follows what we do, and that doesn't mean their seat should be taken away.

actually i do think that the UK is pretty useless occupying a permanent seat and i do think they should take it away. give it to India or Brazil.

[YuheiCarreau]

actually i do think that the UK is pretty useless occupying a permanent seat and i do think they should take it away. give it to India or Brazil.

To my mind, the one truly useless member of the Security Council is France...

[SunWuKong]

To my mind, the one truly useless member of the Security Council is France...

nah, France hates the UK and the US on principle alone. :tongue:
it's there to be a counterweight against US-UK hegemony.

[yoMAMA]

Oh yeah I forgot to mention the other half of my idea. Like our congress, one house would be weighed by population, the other would be 1 vote for every country. So you need a majority of the world's countries as well to pass a resolution.

Sounds like a bloody good idea! [english accent on]

:biggrin:

To my mind, the one truly useless member of the Security Council is France...

LOL.

[YuheiCarreau]

nah, France hates the UK and the US on principle alone. :tongue:
it's there to be a counterweight against US-UK hegemony.

Yeah, but the French criticism of US-UK actions is always the same: "Who do these people think they are? They just do whatever they want without consulting the rest of the world (read: France)!"... Then the French go and do whatever they want. Yet France is not nearly as important to the world's economy or the balance of power as many of the other UN member nations that don't have a seat on the council.

[yoMAMA]

Yeah, but the French criticism of US-UK actions is always the same: "Who do these people think they are? They just do whatever they want without consulting the rest of the world (read: France)!"... Then the French go and do whatever they want. Yet France is not nearly as important to the world's economy or the balance of power as many of the other UN member nations that don't have a seat on the council.


France is not exactly herself a model of international behaviour:

they are the same country that used the military against Greenpeace and had nuclear test in the western pacific.

[Chu Chi]

Oh yeah I forgot to mention the other half of my idea. Like our congress, one house would be weighed by population, the other would be 1 vote for every country. So you need a majority of the world's countries as well to pass a resolution.


Exactly,

The constitution of the United States is an excellent document for organization, except for the parts dealing with the classification of people on the basis of color.

CC

[yuuteya]

personally i would love for American troops to leave Japan, but that means Japan re-arming itself, and there's no way China would want that. China wants American troops in Japan.

if everyone moves forward, away from ww2 ideas and historical apprehension against japan, then chinese support for the re-development of the japan self defense forces would actually be good for both china and japan in the long term. china should support the japan self defense forces.

an expanded japanese professional armed force would be able to effectively use and maintain the former-american bases. though some bases might be closed, by maintaining key bases, there would be less negative impact on base dependent local economies. as friends and east asian allies, japan would welcome chinese forces on to the japanese bases, conducting joint east-asian alliance exercises.

if the america suddenly left, base-dependent economies such as in okinawa would suffer economic setbacks and previously needed skilled workers would be unemployment... china might even cutback on its own military spending if america was not around to post a threat to china... as in any political-economic web, the sudden departure of a major piece, such as the united states, while good in the ideological sense, would be a sudden change for all the east asian economies... but if china moved toward becoming japan's political supporter, and vice versa, then the departure of america from asia would make more sense and become less of an economic-political shock to asia.

in short, a japanese-chinese-korean east asian alliance will make america redundant in the area. if we asians want america to leave and leave in a sensible way, we have to unite into a friendly east-asian alliance.

in a positive enviroment of sincere japanese-chinese friendship and alliance, the japanese facilities would welcome chinese forces and korean forces as friendly east-asian alliance forces... the reciprocity will continue and japanese self defense forces would also be welcome on chinese bases and korean bases. the key is to move forward into the future and not be pulled back into the past. change your internal thoughts and you can change the external reality.

by creating workable political, economic, social interconnections and between china, japan and korea, by strengthening their mutual cooperation in various areas and sectors, this would make the alliance practical, sensible and real.

and while it seems like all the above is in support for armament (albeit an east asian alliance one), its actually not in the longer term... you see, a peaceful and cooperative east-asian alliance would create lasting peace in the region. and further onward into the future, there would be less need to maintain excessive armed forces in all 3 east asian countries... you could say that by having china support japanese forces in the near future, it will open the way for the eventual demilitarization of the entire east asia region in the long term future. perhaps one day the PLA might itself become into a non-aggressive asian self defense force.

[YuheiCarreau]

France is not exactly herself a model of international behaviour:

they are the same country that used the military against Greenpeace and had nuclear test in the western pacific.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. The French government criticizes the US for its "cowboy diplomacy", but in reality they're not much different from us.

[nola]

Yuhei Carreau: Who do these people think they are? They just do whatever they want without consulting the rest of the world (read: France)!


Ha ha!

[SunWuKong]

if everyone moves forward, away from ww2 ideas and historical apprehension against japan, then chinese support for the re-development of the japan self defense forces would actually be good for both china and japan in the long term. china should support the japan self defense forces.

sorry to rehash this, but...

we can't possibly move on until the Japanese government apologises and make amends in the name of the atrocities it committed in WW2. it's all fine and dandy for me to personally think that any reasonable Japanese person would feel those atrocities are wrong, and that the Japanese government wouldn't become imperialistic again, but i don't have the security of an entire nation on my shoulders.

the Japanese government never apologised for those atrocities, Japanese courts keep denying reparation to those that suffered, Koizumi keeps visiting those war shrines, Ishihara is just plain racist, etc etc. what is the Chinese or Korean government to think? they can't just go by simple intuition that the Japanese government won't become imperialistic again when the Japanese government acts like what it did in WW2 was justified.

and beside that, hundreds of thousands of people were tortured, raped, and killed. i mean, i can't just punch someone in the face, and without apologising, tell the person to just move on. it doesn't work that way. to move forward, the Japanese government must apologise and make real amends.

i mean, the Chinese government doesn't want the US to leave Okinawa because the US government never did anything to China on the scale of the Nanjing Massacre.

[nola]

They renege on promises to give reparations to comfort women too. It adds insult to injury when they do that. Comfort women were raped hundreds of times and to not apologize for that or to not give repartions for that is an outrage.

[yuuteya]

thanks Mr.SunWuKong and nola for your frank opinion. ok i promised myself not to get into another debate and i wont. so instead let me ask open questions. actually, i really agree that the concerns of chinese and korean people need to be properly adressed in sincere and honest way.

what about japans friendly acts toward china and korea after the war's end? im just curious what you think? what do you think about previous statements by the japanese governement that they indeed officially remember and have deep emotional regret of the past war? ww2 history that names japan as facist and imperialist and nankin massace, are indeed part of 'history B' course in japanese highschools in accordance by ministry of education, which is an official government ministry. students are taught to have deep respect for chinese and korean cultures because they are our neighbors, will always be our neighbors and the closest countries to us culturally and historically. how do you see the massive financial aids that japan has given in post war period to china and south korea, and development assistance to other parts of asia, which has helped their post war developments? why are these sincere gestures of apologetic reconciliation and friendship, and much financial assistance, rejected by chinese and koreans?

maybe each side has a different idea of 'apology' and 'reparations'? there is often talk of it but not clear, just for clarification, what is meant by 'apology', and how is it to be done in a proper way according to china and korea? what is mean by 'reparations', and how is it to be done in a proper way according to china and korea? are the chinese and korean definitions identical to each other? hypothetically speaking, let us imagine that after 'apology' and 'reparations' (in accordance to chinese and korean definitions) are done, then what is 'forgiveness' and how is it to be done in a proper way? how will china and korea forgive japan (according to chinese and korean views of forgiveness). in case of china, which china will do it? in case of korea, which korea will do it? will japan be dealing with 2 chinas and 2 koreas? how exactly will we know when its all finished and everyone is happy? wont elements of chinese and koreans never be satistifed whatever japan officially does? wont elements of chinese and korea still make law suits and still be unsatisfied and still press charges and make more demands even after (if hypothetically) the chinese and korean demands are met?

one more idea. arent all of these things just heavily politicized acts and media events used as leverage to get other political purposes? if goverments of china and korea publicaly demands 'apology' (according to their idea of it), and goverment of japan capitulates tommorrow and follows their orders, then is that 'apology' sincere or actually just to appease the persistent chinese and korean political demands? there is much politics occuring on both sides right? the polticians abd bureaucreats of both sides are very hardheaded and slow to move, especially because of the present tenions of east asia. ie. fight over rocks, fight over historical rememberance, fight over japanese internal events, etc.

but if the environment were to change from tension to relaxation. if china and korea would politically support their friend japan to become a normal country again (just as china and south korea are normal countries), then there would be a shift to a new way of seeing east asia, in a more friendlty and sincere atmosphere.

so you see, isnt the issue of sincerity and heartfelt honesty more important than an official public media event? wouldnt a sincere and honest, face to face, heart to heart talk about war atrocities and past events as true friends (when china-japan-korea are together as allies) be more meaningful and sincere and honest?

would you chinese and korean people like to see china, korea and japan become the best and closest true friends in the world? i do. it needs to happen honestly, dont you think?

no offense to anyone, just some questions in my mind. peace

[SunWuKong]

what about japans friendly acts toward china and korea after the war's end? im just curious what you think? what do you think about previous statements by the japanese governement that they indeed officially remember and have deep emotional regret of the past war? ww2 history that names japan as facist and imperialist and nankin massace, are indeed part of 'history B' course in japanese highschools in accordance by ministry of education, which is an official government ministry. students are taught to have deep respect for chinese and korean cultures because they are our neighbors, will always be our neighbors and the closest countries to us culturally and historically. how do you see the massive financial aids that japan has given in post war period to china and south korea, and development assistance to other parts of asia, which has helped their post war developments? why are these sincere gestures of apologetic reconciliation and friendship, and much financial assistance, rejected by chinese and koreans?

maybe each side has a different idea of 'apology' and 'reparations'? there is often talk of it but not clear, just for clarification, what is meant by 'apology', and how is it to be done in a proper way according to china and korea? what is mean by 'reparations', and how is it to be done in a proper way according to china and korea? are the chinese and korean definitions identical to each other? hypothetically speaking, let us imagine that after 'apology' and 'reparations' (in accordance to chinese and korean definitions) are done, then what is 'forgiveness' and how is it to be done in a proper way? how will china and korea forgive japan (according to chinese and korean views of forgiveness). in case of china, which china will do it? in case of korea, which korea will do it? will japan be dealing with 2 chinas and 2 koreas? how exactly will we know when its all finished and everyone is happy? wont elements of chinese and koreans never be satistifed whatever japan officially does? wont elements of chinese and korea still make law suits and still be unsatisfied and still press charges and make more demands even after (if hypothetically) the chinese and korean demands are met?

the aid that the Japanese government has given is great. but that is not a sincere show of remorse and it doesn't equate an apology - both of which can be achieved at much much lesser cost than the amount of aid that the Japanese government has given. but the Japanese government chooses not to do these things and instead spend more money on aid. the way i see it is, for once, a rich government can't buy itself out of doing what's right here.

i think i actually mentioned in my last post what would be considered a sincere apology and show of remorse for the WW2 atrocities.

1) the Chinese and Korean governments are still waiting for a formal issue of apology - that is not the same as a statement saying that the Japanese government feel "regret".

2) Koizumi needs to stop visiting the war shrines.

3) Japanese courts need to issue reparation to those who directly suffered.

4) and they just need to get rid of Ishihara, who by the way, is connected to Koizumi through marriage.

5) there's also the issue of Japanese textbooks. i'll take your word for it that most Japanese kids do learn about the atrocities, but the issue is more that there are elements in the Japanese government that want to downplay the WW2 atrocities. for example - The New History Textbook downplays the WW2 atrocities and make it seem like Japan's actions were justified, but it is only used in an extremely small number of schools. the point is that the book was actually approved by the education minister, who is now actually the foreign minister Nobutaka Machimura. so an education minister approves of a textbook that downplays the WW2 atrocities and he gets promoted to foreign minister? i mean, come on, it's a little hard to imagine that there is a sincere feeling of remorse for the WW2 atrocities inside the Japanese government.

one more idea. arent all of these things just heavily politicized acts and media events used as leverage to get other political purposes? if goverments of china and korea publicaly demands 'apology' (according to their idea of it), and goverment of japan capitulates tommorrow and follows their orders, then is that 'apology' sincere or actually just to appease the persistent chinese and korean political demands? there is much politics occuring on both sides right? the polticians abd bureaucreats of both sides are very hardheaded and slow to move, especially because of the present tenions of east asia. ie. fight over rocks, fight over historical rememberance, fight over japanese internal events, etc.

but if the environment were to change from tension to relaxation. if china and korea would politically support their friend japan to become a normal country again (just as china and south korea are normal countries), then there would be a shift to a new way of seeing east asia, in a more friendlty and sincere atmosphere.

so you see, isnt the issue of sincerity and heartfelt honesty more important than an official public media event? wouldnt a sincere and honest, face to face, heart to heart talk about war atrocities and past events as true friends (when china-japan-korea are together as allies) be more meaningful and sincere and honest?

i agree that it's become a lot of politics, but i don't think it lessens the responsibility of the Japanese government though.

would you chinese and korean people like to see china, korea and japan become the best and closest true friends in the world? i do. it needs to happen honestly, dont you think?

sure, i would love to see that. but what i want to see more is the Japanese government really face up to the WW2 atrocities. again, like i said before, i can't possibly punch someone in the face, and without apologising, tell him to move on.

no offense to anyone, just some questions in my mind. peace

i hope i don't offend anyone either. i hate to sound like a broken record, but again, i have nothing against Japanese or Japanese American people. and for that matter, i have a lot of complaints about the Chinese government itself.

but many Chinese and Koreans do feel strongly about this issue. many of our grandparents or even parents directly suffered because of the Japanese occupation. my own grandparents saw people in their village starve to death during the occupation. they were lucky to have made it alive. and i feel that the facts of the WW2 atrocities need to be taught to future generations or it would be a great disservice to my grandparents and others who experienced them.

[yoMAMA]

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested Sunday that European governments are irresponsible if they sell sophisticated weaponry to China that might one day be used against U.S. forces in the Pacific. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20050320/ap_on_re_as/rice)

so is she implying that the U.S and China will go to war one day?

[Jung Rhee]

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested Sunday that European governments are irresponsible if they sell sophisticated weaponry to China that might one day be used against U.S. forces in the Pacific. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20050320/ap_on_re_as/rice)

so is she implying that the U.S and China will go to war one day?

Good Question. You can read the Neocons' mind set. :wink:

[yuuteya]

the aid that the Japanese government has given is great. but that is not a sincere show of remorse and it doesn't equate an apology - both of which can be achieved at much much lesser cost than the amount of aid that the Japanese government has given. but the Japanese government chooses not to do these things and instead spend more money on aid. the way i see it is, for once, a rich government can't buy itself out of doing what's right here.

i think i actually mentioned in my last post what would be considered a sincere apology and show of remorse for the WW2 atrocities.

1) the Chinese and Korean governments are still waiting for a formal issue of apology - that is not the same as a statement saying that the Japanese government feel "regret".

2) Koizumi needs to stop visiting the war shrines.

3) Japanese courts need to issue reparation to those who directly suffered.

4) and they just need to get rid of Ishihara, who by the way, is connected to Koizumi through marriage.

5) there's also the issue of Japanese textbooks. i'll take your word for it that most Japanese kids do learn about the atrocities, but the issue is more that there are elements in the Japanese government that want to downplay the WW2 atrocities. for example - The New History Textbook downplays the WW2 atrocities and make it seem like Japan's actions were justified, but it is only used in an extremely small number of schools. the point is that the book was actually approved by the education minister, who is now actually the foreign minister Nobutaka Machimura. so an education minister approves of a textbook that downplays the WW2 atrocities and he gets promoted to foreign minister? i mean, come on, it's a little hard to imagine that there is a sincere feeling of remorse for the WW2 atrocities inside the Japanese government.

i agree that it's become a lot of politics, but i don't think it lessens the responsibility of the Japanese government though.

sure, i would love to see that. but what i want to see more is the Japanese government really face up to the WW2 atrocities. again, like i said before, i can't possibly punch someone in the face, and without apologising, tell him to move on.

i hope i don't offend anyone either. i hate to sound like a broken record, but again, i have nothing against Japanese or Japanese American people. and for that matter, i have a lot of complaints about the Chinese government itself.

but many Chinese and Koreans do feel strongly about this issue. many of our grandparents or even parents directly suffered because of the Japanese occupation. my own grandparents saw people in their village starve to death during the occupation. they were lucky to have made it alive. and i feel that the facts of the WW2 atrocities need to be taught to future generations or it would be a great disservice to my grandparents and others who experienced them.

thanks mr.SunWuKong for being very sincere about what you feel which i pretty much agree most what youve said. although i will say something that you will not like, im sorry to say this, but ishihara is a legitimately elected politician so he can't be just removed like that, its not right to have a radial coup de ta, its not democratic, even if we agree his attitudes are very ethnic discrimination.

though i think your last sentence is totally important.

the need to keep the memories going among the youth of asia is important. most outside japan have the mistaken imagination that japanese 'know nothing', but in fact, in reality there have been about 20 detailled books written on nankin massacre over the past 20 years that have been openly available in public libraries and books stores, freely for anybody to read. they range from accounts of personal diaries to more documentary approaches, and textual analysis. in a recent case, a nationalist group wrote a book radically downplaying the nankin massacre as a piece of chinese propaganda. but immediately a counter book written by japanese group to commemorate nankin atrocities was issued that meticulously criticizied the nationalist book as radical lies... they are also japanese books exposing the 731 unit of biological military that did the human rights crimes in manshu, this is known to japanese as nanasanichi-butai, and is available to the public... so you see history and the atrocities are publicaly recorded, available and remembered.. 'japanese people' should not be seen as monolithic, there are many social progressives and socialists in japan that make sure we are the country of peace and humanity. the majority of japanese are not evil racists/nationalists. the good side of japan is very much intact and is very much alive and will stay permanently. despite the chinese/korean nationalist rhetoric, japan is not 'bad'. and also dont let those arrogant old boys in japanese government paint our whole country dark.. in fact much of the details that were released, which exposed the nankin massacre and the 731 unit were research and exposed by various japanese historians and scholars who are experts at meticulous research of japanese colonial archives and personal diaries that pertain to the atrocities. and this information was published and promoted by progressive groups. please also recognize the efforts of japanese majority of social progressives who very much remember the past events.

i remember before when our teacher gave the lecture on nankin-daigyakusatsu, as nankin massacre is called in japanese school textbooks and commercial books, after school heading home this one student started saying stuff about he hated japan, and said swears and rude language about hating to be japanese, fuck the flag, fuck japan, fuck us. (this is a very unhealthy way, dont you think? and can be a dangerous attitude) so i also hope the people in japan will remember, but do it in a way that doesnt make self-hating. that is why i keep sounding like a broken record myself when i say that japan need to be a normal country again, and have a normal attitude about itself and japanese identity...

if the next generation are socially weak/unstable as individuals and have no self 'happiness' (i dont say 'pride') about being japanese, what will happen to the future of this country? japanese youth are not happy to be themselves so they want to be americans? the nationalists naturally blame that its lack of patriotism, which is bad for japan's future, and which is why they tried the controversial 'new textbook' you referred to that caused concern to china and korea. these issues (internal/external) are all intricately connected.. some chinese politicians words in pekin can be connected by a string of events to affect the identity of a japanese teenager in kobe, and vice versa... some tokyo politicians actions will connect in string to affect a young student in shanghai.

i dont want to get too lengthy, but its good that you also realize that just as 'japanese people' is not a monolithic thing, so the 'japanese goverment' is also not a monolithic thing. the ruling coalition, and even inside the ruling party itself there are many sub-factions, that compete (even hate) to each other. part of difficulty of issuing a ceremonial/formal 'apology' in an overt and loudly clear way (which is what i think the chinese/korean sides wishes) is this lack of unified behavior in the party itself. its a limited number of 'old boys' (literally that pull the strings on each other) and thats the internal problem.

as for the external problem, then these old uncles use the public fear of the external problem (seen from japanese perspectives) which is the fear of japan-bashing, chinese/korean nationalism, and anti-japanese attitudes from china and korea. this fear prevents the kind of 'apology' from japan that china and korea would like.

so you see its all inter-tangled. the question is when does it get untangled? again thats why i think the east asian context needs to be in a more relaxed friendly state for any progress to happen. no one is going to take responsibility (on all sides) when there is so much tension in the air. less tension and more mutual co-operation and sincere friendly actions will help to make progress on the wishes of all sides.



but i hope that what you mentioned above can come true because i agree with you.

[nola]

its a limited number of 'old boys' (literally that pull the strings on each other) and thats the internal problem.
as for the external problem, then these old uncles use the public fear of the external problem (seen from japanese perspectives) which is the fear of japan-bashing, chinese/korean nationalism, and anti-japanese attitudes from china and korea. this fear prevents the kind of 'apology' from japan that china and korea would like.

so you see its all inter-tangled. the question is when does it get untangled? again thats why i think the east asian context needs to be in a more relaxed friendly state for any progress to happen. no one is going to take responsibility (on all sides) when there is so much tension in the air. less tension and more mutual co-operation and sincere friendly actions will help to make progress on the wishes of all sides.I'm sure it's the old boys behind this and they doesn't represent the Japanese culture and people. I think a formal apology would improve Japanese diplomacy despite these old boys' fear of it hurting diplomacy. It would also lead to a relaxed state among these Asian nations which would start a process of working with each other without tension and unifying Asia.

[yuuteya]

I'm sure it's the old boys behind this and they doesn't represent the Japanese culture and people. I think a formal apology would improve Japanese diplomacy despite these old boys' fear of it hurting diplomacy. It would also lead to a relaxed state among these Asian nations which would start a process of working with each other without tension and unifying Asia.

have you ever tried to argue with an old japanese dude, ive have lots of horrible experiences with them, like with some old teachers at school in the past, wow its like taking to a toad, they croak and croak but never really say anything, man they are toads.

as for the old boy factions in government, they are the master toads, i dont mean to be negative, but as long as they say sitting on their toad stools in goverment, and pulling each others strings, there will be few movements. but on the bright side, personally i think the apology that asia has been hoping for will happen, but its a question of when, not if.

but im thinking kotaishi might do something controversial (to shock the poilticians as he did) once he becomes emperor. emperor heisei is a liberal but not one to cause a disturbance. while kotaishi he is liberal but has shown to be more vocal when he defended his wife. ironically the imperial family, who used to be the focus of nationalism in the colonial days, might actually do something that supports the chinese/korean sides. emperor heisei and kotaishi are raised as a liberal generation that totally abhor ultra-nationalists and past colonialism. ironically, it might be the current emperor heisei, or more likely future emperor, kotaishi, who could be the one to take a greater stand against the nationalism of some old boy politicians. this is just a hunch based on some past hints of their actions.

[nola]

Koizumi seems cool but it's probably the next guy who would issue an apology.

[pikachupacabra]

I just want to say on a sidenote that I appreciate the frank and honest discussion going on in here about Japan/China/Korea/etc relations concerning WW2 and current day attitudes. Both sides have good points and genuinely seem to be interested in what the other is saying, and if similar mentalites could spread to the people of the involved countries themselves, then I can hope for a better Asian future where we work TOGETHER, instead of being separated, divided, and quartered by foreign troops, investment, and culture.

On that note...

There are pros and cons to Japan having a permanent UN security seat. But the main question is, regardless of the current permanent seat members, is "Would a permanent seat for Japan on the UN security council benefit security for all the UN nations?" I don't know the answer. The UN, as theoretically designed, is to ensure the safety, well-being, cooperation, and understanding between all the world's nations. Would Japan tend to move towards its own interests? or would it compromise to allow the majority good over the minority good?

[lethal]

Does it even matter? What is the relevance of the UN in the big picture?

More permananet members would only add more countries with veto power and prevent any resolutions from passing. Not that UN resolutions have any power behind them anyway...

[SunWuKong]

Does it even matter? What is the relevance of the UN in the big picture?

More permananet members would only add more countries with veto power and prevent any resolutions from passing. Not that UN resolutions have any power behind them anyway...

well, Kofi Annan is currently trying to make some major changes in the UN. not sure on the exact details of those changes though, but i think part of it includes increasing the size of the Security Council.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4367015.stm

[yoMAMA]

Does it even matter? What is the relevance of the UN in the big picture?

More permananet members would only add more countries with veto power and prevent any resolutions from passing. Not that UN resolutions have any power behind them anyway...

The UN is still pretty influential, I think.

Otherwise why would Bush and co. waste all that time two years ago in the UN to pass their "war resoultion bill"?

[yuuteya]

a better Asian future where we work TOGETHER, instead of being separated, divided, and quartered by foreign troops, investment, and culture.
yes, yes, yes! :smile:


There are pros and cons to Japan having a permanent UN security seat. But the main question is, regardless of the current permanent seat members, is "Would a permanent seat for Japan on the UN security council benefit security for all the UN nations?" I don't know the answer. The UN, as theoretically designed, is to ensure the safety, well-being, cooperation, and understanding between all the world's nations. Would Japan tend to move towards its own interests? or would it compromise to allow the majority good over the minority good?
while there is debate of u.n. being a cold war anachronism, (the security coucil veto itself as an example of it) there is a growing recognition to reform it and make it truly a 21st century global assembly, which is representative, effective and with legitimate power, and this will take time and much multilateral effort. a key part is japan, which is an economic power whos only leverage is diplomacy and money.

from a japanese point of view, in short, japan is a unbalanced country with an identity crisis, and i think this needs to be addressed and not left to fester. japan needs to be a fully normalized country, and chinese help can make this happen and be truly legitimate. china is meant to japan's natural ally, and vice versa. just as china needs japan's economic assistance, japan needs china's political assistance (sorry to keep repeating this).
from an international perspective, it this happens it will form the backbone of solid chinese-japanese international cooperation in the future, which itself will be the core of the east asian alliance. its a win-win situation if china and japan will truly hug and kiss in the future. look at usa and uk, that white anglo-union relationship is a model idea, they keep supporting each other, yet we all know the agressive history when usa and uk hated each other. yes its a totally different historical/cultural context compared to asia, but its an analogy to follow. in an improved friendly evironment, the past injustices can be jointly investigated, information shared and revealed to the fullest, and there can be a joint chinese-japanese remembrance of the past to ensure that such horrors never happen again. imagine a joint japanese-chinese history museum. if china-japan get together and build something truly marvellous together, politically, economically, socially, then other asian countries will want to join in because they want to be part of something good. thats the international benefit.

if you build it they will come.

[YuheiCarreau]

Ultimately, I think the best argument for Japan getting a permanent seat is that Japan is still the only other nation in east Asia that can actively compete against China - which already has a seat, and has never done anything to "earn" its place other than be the 800-pound gorilla of the region. There has to be another Asian nation on the council for the simple reason that the other council members don't have nearly as much of an interest in the peace and stability of Asia as they do the peace and stability of the western world.

It could be argued that India is also a good regional candidate to balance out the Chinese influence. However, I think in that situation you basically have two gigantic nations with fast growing economies facing off against one another, and the concerns of small, developing nations in SE Asia as well as the concerns of developed nations like Japan and SK will be trampled underfoot. Now, if Japan were to take a seat on the council without first adressing its diplomatic problems left over from WW2, that would greatly weaken its position as an advocate for the other Asian nations - but at the same time, I think there are people in the Chinese and SK government that will never agree to the idea, even if the Japanese government offered a full apology.

[yoMAMA]

Ultimately, I think the best argument for Japan getting a permanent seat is that Japan is still the only other nation in east Asia that can actively compete against China - which already has a seat, and has never done anything to "earn" its place other than be the 800-pound gorilla of the region. There has to be another Asian nation on the council for the simple reason that the other council members don't have nearly as much of an interest in the peace and stability of Asia as they do the peace and stability of the western world.

It could be argued that India is also a good regional candidate to balance out the Chinese influence. However, I think in that situation you basically have two gigantic nations with fast growing economies facing off against one another, and the concerns of small, developing nations in SE Asia as well as the concerns of developed nations like Japan and SK will be trampled underfoot. Now, if Japan were to take a seat on the council without first adressing its diplomatic problems left over from WW2, that would greatly weaken its position as an advocate for the other Asian nations - but at the same time, I think there are people in the Chinese and SK government that will never agree to the idea, even if the Japanese government offered a full apology.

Good point.

However I think an apology by the Japanese government would be a good start for reconciliation with other Asian nations.

[YuheiCarreau]

Good point.

However I think an apology by the Japanese government would be a good start for reconciliation with other Asian nations.

Yes. That's exactly what I said.

No offense, but why do I keep getting that response over and over, even when I make that point myself? I'm starting to feel like no one is actually reading what I write...

[BeTheReds]

No, until the American troops are booted out of Japan.

That won't happen if Japan's self defense force still has the restrictions it has now.

Changing those restrictions is probably going to require a revision of Article 9, which probably will make Japan look militaristic in the eyes of Asian neighbors.

So, to compensate, Japan needs to take responsibility for its past, by issuing real apologies to Asian nations, especially Korea and China and by putting more emphasis on what happened and why in history lessons.

It probably wouldn't hurt to give up the claim over Tokdo and the Diaoyu and try to focus all the territorial angst over the Northern Territories, which are far more valuable and justly belong to Japan, as they were unjustly seized by the Soviets at the end of WW2.

[yuuteya]

Yes. That's exactly what I said.
No offense, but why do I keep getting that response over and over, even when I make that point myself? I'm starting to feel like no one is actually reading what I write...
you too Yuhei? ore mo. yah, sometimes i wonder why i bother anymore

which is why im going to re-post something i already posted in this thread. because my questions still remain...

maybe each side has a different idea of 'apology' and 'reparations'? there is often talk of it but not clear, just for clarification, what is meant by 'apology', and how is it to be done in a proper way according to china and korea? what is mean by 'reparations', and how is it to be done in a proper way according to china and korea? are the chinese and korean definitions identical to each other? hypothetically speaking, let us imagine that after 'apology' and 'reparations' (in accordance to chinese and korean definitions) are done, then what is 'forgiveness' and how is it to be done in a proper way? how will china and korea forgive japan (according to chinese and korean views of forgiveness). in case of china, which china will do it? in case of korea, which korea will do it? will japan be dealing with 2 chinas and 2 koreas? how exactly will we know when its all finished and everyone is happy? wont elements of chinese and koreans never be satistifed whatever japan officially does? wont elements of chinese and korea still make law suits and still be unsatisfied and still press charges and make more demands even after (if hypothetically) the chinese and korean demands are met?

one more idea. arent all of these things just heavily politicized acts and media events used as leverage to get other political purposes? if goverments of china and korea publicaly demands 'apology' (according to their idea of it), and goverment of japan capitulates tommorrow and follows their orders, then is that 'apology' sincere or actually just to appease the persistent chinese and korean political demands? there is much politics occuring on both sides right? the polticians abd bureaucreats of both sides are very hardheaded and slow to move, especially because of the present tenions of east asia. ie. fight over rocks, fight over historical rememberance, fight over japanese internal events, etc.

but if the environment were to change from tension to relaxation. if china and korea would politically support their friend japan to become a normal country again (just as china and south korea are normal countries), then there would be a shift to a new way of seeing east asia, in a more friendlty and sincere atmosphere.

so you see, isnt the issue of sincerity and heartfelt honesty more important than an official public media event? wouldnt a sincere and honest, face to face, heart to heart talk about war atrocities and past events as true friends (when china-japan-korea are together as allies) be more meaningful and sincere and honest?


No, until the American troops are booted out of Japan.

That won't happen if Japan's self defense force still has the restrictions it has now.

Changing those restrictions is probably going to require a revision of Article 9, which probably will make Japan look militaristic in the eyes of Asian neighbors.

funny, thats must been a joke.. given all the 'japan is bad' news and the 'japan is bad' attitudes out there and even supposed 'friends' in here, i dont think japan or japanese people need to do much to make chinese and korean think we're militaristic. we will always be militaristic, right? its already for gone conclusion isnt it? yah im damn proud to be japanese! japan is a great asian power that must reclaim its rightful place as the leader of asia! long live japan!

*militaristic warning bells sounding off in chinese and koreans*


So, to compensate, Japan needs to take responsibility for its past, by issuing real apologies to Asian nations, especially Korea and China and by putting more emphasis on what happened and why in history lessons.

It probably wouldn't hurt to give up the claim over Tokdo and the Diaoyu and try to focus all the territorial angst over the Northern Territories, which are far more valuable and justly belong to Japan, as they were unjustly seized by the Soviets at the end of WW2.
so just korea and china are special? 'apologies' to philippines or indonesia not as special? certain radical elements of japanese soldiers also did human rights violations there too we learned, southeast asian women violated, captured soldiers abused, civilian women and children killings, etc. whats with the yellow asian hierarchy? southeast asian are important too arent they?

yah lets brush off okinawa further, everyone does.

thanks for your support up north though.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I haven't been following everything that people have been writing on this topic, since there seems to be a new thread about Japan and war atrocities that pops up every 5 minutes. I don't advocate anti-Japanese attitudes, I think blind nationalism based upon insulting the Japanese, absurd paranoia, or talking shit on the part of Koreans or Chinese is stupid and hypocritical. But I do believe that the Japanese should make formal apologies, heck, at least acknowledge the existence of such atrocities. I'm not talking about boot-licking bureaucrats saying sorry, I'm talking about official acknowledgment from the head honchos. The fact that there are right-wing people in the upper echelons who approve of a textbook that completely twists and distorts historical events (perhaps equivalent to a U.S. textbook which justifies or completely denies the practice of slavery...or much worse) and what actually happened amazes me.

And what is this justification with "It's not in Japan's political interest right now to apologize, so we should understand because apologizing or acknowledging the war crimes simply would be a stupid move for the Japanese government at this point in time" crap? It was very much arguably in the economic interests of the U.S. to lie about the war and go into Iraq with our eyes upon the prize of oil, that doesn't make it right. You don't see people here supporting the fact that it's okay that Bush lied about WMD because it was for the sake of economic motives and oil, and therefore understandable and okay, do you? What if the U.S. government were to say that it's not in its best political interest both in the national and international scene right now to devote time and energy to socio-economic equality or to lend an ear to the concerns and struggles of various minority groups? Of course everything a government does (or does not do) will be backed by political and/or economic interests, or perhaps the specific self-centered interests of lobbyists, corrupt-ass officials, those with business-related stakes (e.g. multinational corporations), etc.

Just my .02, without having really explored this issue in depth.

[yoMAMA]

you too Yuhei? ore mo. yah, sometimes i wonder why i bother anymore

which is why im going to re-post something i already posted in this thread. because my questions still remain...

maybe each side has a different idea of 'apology' and 'reparations'? there is often talk of it but not clear, just for clarification, what is meant by 'apology', and how is it to be done in a proper way according to china and korea? what is mean by 'reparations', and how is it to be done in a proper way according to china and korea? are the chinese and korean definitions identical to each other? hypothetically speaking, let us imagine that after 'apology' and 'reparations' (in accordance to chinese and korean definitions) are done, then what is 'forgiveness' and how is it to be done in a proper way? how will china and korea forgive japan (according to chinese and korean views of forgiveness). in case of china, which china will do it? in case of korea, which korea will do it? will japan be dealing with 2 chinas and 2 koreas? how exactly will we know when its all finished and everyone is happy? wont elements of chinese and koreans never be satistifed whatever japan officially does? wont elements of chinese and korea still make law suits and still be unsatisfied and still press charges and make more demands even after (if hypothetically) the chinese and korean demands are met?

one more idea. arent all of these things just heavily politicized acts and media events used as leverage to get other political purposes? if goverments of china and korea publicaly demands 'apology' (according to their idea of it), and goverment of japan capitulates tommorrow and follows their orders, then is that 'apology' sincere or actually just to appease the persistent chinese and korean political demands? there is much politics occuring on both sides right? the polticians abd bureaucreats of both sides are very hardheaded and slow to move, especially because of the present tenions of east asia. ie. fight over rocks, fight over historical rememberance, fight over japanese internal events, etc.

but if the environment were to change from tension to relaxation. if china and korea would politically support their friend japan to become a normal country again (just as china and south korea are normal countries), then there would be a shift to a new way of seeing east asia, in a more friendlty and sincere atmosphere.

so you see, isnt the issue of sincerity and heartfelt honesty more important than an official public media event? wouldnt a sincere and honest, face to face, heart to heart talk about war atrocities and past events as true friends (when china-japan-korea are together as allies) be more meaningful and sincere and honest?



funny, thats must been a joke.. given all the 'japan is bad' news and the 'japan is bad' attitudes out there and even supposed 'friends' in here, i dont think japan or japanese people need to do much to make chinese and korean think we're militaristic. we will always be militaristic, right? its already for gone conclusion isnt it? yah im damn proud to be japanese! japan is a great asian power that must reclaim its rightful place as the leader of asia! long live japan!

*militaristic warning bells sounding off in chinese and koreans*


so just korea and china are special? 'apologies' to philippines or indonesia not as special? certain radical elements of japanese soldiers also did human rights violations there too we learned, southeast asian women violated, captured soldiers abused, civilian women and children killings, etc. whats with the yellow asian hierarchy? southeast asian are important too arent they?

yah lets brush off okinawa further, everyone does.

thanks for your support up north though.


The Japanese apologies have to be sincere, and Japan should make legislations to make the right wing's attempt to distort history illegal.

For example, look at Germany. They too were occupied under the U.S, and like in Japan, most of the war criminals of the third Reich were allowed to go free [in exchange, they provided the U.S with intelligence/experimental results].

However Germany after the war was really remorseful for their actions, and the Germany government apologized to the victims of its aggression, especially Poland and Eastern Europe, forever symbolized by chancellor Brandt's kneeling at the Warsaw war memorial. Germany also made multi billion dollar compensations for slave labors of Nazis, and built holocaust memorials.

http://www.serbia-info.com/g3/images/willybrandtjpg.jpg


Also, in Germany, laws were passed that making Nazi sympathizing and holocaust denying a crime, and in Germany, wearing Nazi regalia is illegal and will result in jail time.

No such laws in Japan either, and the lawsuits brought forth by the slave labors of giant Japanese corporations/comfort women/the rape of Nanking victims were all dismissed by Japanese courts.

Again, how one nation’s faces up to its past can determine how it prepares for the future.

I am not a "Japan basher", nor do I have "anti-Japan agendas". I believe a peaceful and prosperous Japan is good for Asia; however Japan needs to face up to its militaristic past and stop denying the war atrocities.

Also, I support Japan getting the 4 northern islands back from Russia. It was a landgrab by Stalin after WW2 and Japan is justified for wanting them back.

[yoMAMA]

kofi anan: japan should get a non veto permanent seat on the security council (http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20050323a3.htm)

[SunWuKong]

kofi anan: japan should get a non veto permanent seat on the security council (http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20050323a3.htm)

he also mentions that Africa should get 2 seats and Latin America should get 1. i'd rather see the UN do this first before putting more members in from Europe, Asia, or North America.

[yoMAMA]

he also mentions that Africa should get 2 seats and Latin America should get 1. i'd rather see the UN do this first before putting more members in from Europe, Asia, or North America.

hell yeah.

It's about time Africa and south america gets some representation, too.

[imturok]

No need. Japan is already represented by the US.

[yoMAMA]

No need. Japan is already represented by the US.

More like, U.S represents itself [and corporate America].

[Lt.Foo]

The New York Times
March 31, 2005
22 Million Chinese Seek to Block Japan's Bid to Join U.N. Council
By JOSEPH KAHN

BEIJING, March 31 - A grass-roots Chinese campaign to keep Japan out of the United Nations Security Council has gathered some 22 million signatures, increasing the chances that China will block Japan's bid to join the group, organizers and analysts said today.

The petition effort, conducted through popular Chinese Web sites, enjoys tacit support from the government, which has allowed state-controlled news media to cover the campaign prominently.

Japan is expected to be among several nations granted a permanent seat on a revamped Security Council under a plan that could come up for a vote in September. As one of the five existing permanent members, China has the power to veto the proposal. Beijing has not said how it plans to vote.

If China prevents Japan's elevation, it would mark the most direct confrontation between Asia's two leading powers since they re-established diplomatic ties in 1972.

Relations between the two countries have deteriorated sharply in recent weeks, strained by competition for energy resources, disputes over the way history textbooks assess Japan's role in World War II, Japan's pledge to aid the United States in defending Taiwan, and the recent incursion of a Chinese submarine into Japanese waters.

By allowing millions of people to sign their names to a petition against Japan, Beijing's new leadership seems determined to show that recent Japanese actions have so inflamed popular sentiment that China has no choice but to adopt a tougher diplomatic line.

But the campaign also has the potential to restrict China's diplomatic leeway, making it harder to reach a quiet compromise. China could also feel pressured to veto the whole United Nations overhaul if the plan promotes Japan, an unusual position for a country that has rarely used its veto power.

"China must vote no and not just abstain," predicted Tong Zeng, a longtime organizer of efforts to force Japan to recognize and apologize for World War II atrocities. "The government may not want to take the lead, but the Chinese people have taken the lead."

The effort to rally anti-Japan sentiment began in late February, when several overseas Web sites began circulating a petition directed at the United Nations, which is currently debating a blueprint for changing the governing structure of the world body.

It gathered momentum last week when leading Chinese Web sites, including portals like Sina, Sohu and Netease, advertised the drive with links on their main pages. Some sites allow users to register their names through text messages sent from mobile phones.

After initially aiming to collect 1 million signatures, organizers now say they think they can gather 30 million before they present the petition to Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations. The New China News Agency reported today that 22.2 million Chinese had signed the petition so far.

"The response was far beyond our expectations," said Lu Yunfei, who has led several grass-roots protests against Japan. "No one - not the United Nations nor the Chinese government - can ignore so many people expressing their views."

Chinese officials have not explicitly endorsed the petition, but they have offered supportive comments.

Liu Jianchao, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, said this week that the effort reflects growing alarm about Japan's treatment of history.

"Japan has to take a responsible attitude toward history to build trust among the people of Asia, including China," he said. He added that China believes the United Nations overhaul should mainly focus on increasing the power of developing countries rather than rich industrialized ones.

Japan has the world's second largest economy and is one of the largest financial contributors to the United Nations. The United States has backed Japan's demand to become a Security Council member.

Mr. Annan also appeared to signal that Japan and Germany would be prime candidates for a revised Security Council lineup when he discussed plans to remake the governing structure last week.

The Council should "increase the involvement in decision-making of those who contribute most of the United Nations financially, militarily and diplomatically, specifically in terms of contributions to United Nations assessed budgets," he told reporters.

Japan and Germany are by far the largest contributors that do not have permanent Council seats. Japan has said it will cut its contributions if it does not get a seat.

North and South Korea, which were colonized by Japan, have already said that they oppose Japan's bid. They argue that Tokyo has not done as much as Germany to atone for its imperialist abuses and that it cannot become a leading member of the international community unless it addresses the legacy of mistrust among its neighbors.

China, which has historically sought to keep relations with Japan on an even keel, has officially remained neutral. The two countries have a robust trading relationship. China last year replaced the United States as Japan's largest export market, and China's strong growth has helped pull the sluggish Japanese economy out of recession.

But Beijing has also encouraged anti-Japanese sentiment. Textbooks, newspapers and government-sponsored films emphasize Chinese suffering after the 1935 Japanese invasion. They largely gloss over the dramatic improvement in relations, including generous Japanese aid packages, that occurred after the two sides re-established relations.

Beijing's attitude also hardened after Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi began steering the country toward more active involvement in regional security affairs while refusing repeated Chinese demands to stop making visits to the Yakusuni Shrine, a war memorial.

Mr. Tong says the Chinese government recently began allowing people to organize anti-Japanese activities rather than repressing such people in the name of social stability. He said Beijing may find that popular sentiment has become harder to control.

"There has never before been a petition campaign of this magnitude in China," he said. "It will be much harder for the government to suppress in the future."

[YuheiCarreau]

I don't see what the point is in gathering Chinese signatures. If the Chinese government wants to veto, they'll veto, and they won't need to show the UN 30 million signatures to prove how popular the decision is among their own people. If they really wanted to make an impact, they should start collecting signatures from other Asian nations.

[SunWuKong]

I don't see what the point is in gathering Chinese signatures. If the Chinese government wants to veto, they'll veto, and they won't need to show the UN 30 million signatures to prove how popular the decision is among their own people. If they really wanted to make an impact, they should start collecting signatures from other Asian nations.

the article said the Chinese government has not said whether or not it'll veto Japan getting a permanent seat, and it said that the campaign was started at a grassroots level on popular websites. it seems to me the story is that there are Chinese people that want their government to veto it.

but obviously the government is not opposed to using its veto in this decision since this campaign has been allowed to continue at all.

i personally would like to see US troops out of Japan before it gets a permanent seat, but i would not be surprised at all if the Chinese government does not veto if the Japanese government offers some sweet economic deals.

[VV o n g B a]

i personally would like to see US troops out of Japan before it gets a permanent seat, but i would not be surprised at all if the Chinese government does not veto if the Japanese government offers some sweet economic deals.would u also apply that metric to germany since US has got plenty of troops there?

i hope the chinese gov't doesn't regret encouraging this petition. economic incentives offered by japan aren't likely to be very important to nationalist chinese if the past is any guide. if they do take the bribe, they might not be able to control the reaction at home.

i've lost a lot of the optimism i had for china when hu and wen came to power. their style might be better adapted for the press but their actions haven't deviated meaningfully from the old guard.

[yoMAMA]

would u also apply that metric to germany since US has got plenty of troops there?

Actually from what i read, Germans want the U.S troops to be there, since it helps the local economy which offers alot of services to the troops.


i've lost a lot of the optimism i had for china when hu and wen came to power. their style might be better adapted for the press but their actions haven't deviated meaningfully from the old guard.

while, I don't think anybody expected Hu and company to go for a wholesale western style democracy overnight.

Although the current crackdown on web activities [shuting down a Qinghua university web portal] is very not cool.

[VV o n g B a]

this almost deserves its own thread, but i didn't want to start a whole new china vs japan thread. it looks like china is realizing they've let a monster stick its head out of a cage and are trying to beat it back. they need to beat it much much harder.

----------------
China seeks to reassure Japan over boycott calls

BEIJING Faced with a spreading grass-roots campaign in China to boycott Japanese goods to protest Japanese war crimes, two high-ranking Chinese government officials met Wednesday with Japanese business leaders and called instead for greater trade between China and Japan.

Tang Jiaxuan, a former Chinese foreign minister and ambassador to Tokyo who now serves as a senior government adviser, met with a senior executive from the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi. Wu Yi, a deputy prime minister in charge of trade, met with the president of the Japanese YKK Group, according to reports on the state-run Xinhua news agency.

The two meetings were evident attempts to counter an anti-Japanese campaign that officials may fear has gotten out of hand. While state-controlled media such as China Daily seem to have encouraged anti-Japanese sentiment, the extent of it may have taken the Beijing government by surprise.

China has conspicuously withheld any endorsement of Japan's efforts to gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and, more recently, has been critical of accounts of Japan's wartime behavior in Japanese textbooks.

full story (http://iht.com/articles/2005/04/06/news/sino.html)

[yoMAMA]

this almost deserves its own thread, but i didn't want to start a whole new china vs japan thread. it looks like china is realizing they've let a monster stick its head out of a cage and are trying to beat it back. they need to beat it much much harder.

----------------
China seeks to reassure Japan over boycott calls

BEIJING Faced with a spreading grass-roots campaign in China to boycott Japanese goods to protest Japanese war crimes, two high-ranking Chinese government officials met Wednesday with Japanese business leaders and called instead for greater trade between China and Japan.

Tang Jiaxuan, a former Chinese foreign minister and ambassador to Tokyo who now serves as a senior government adviser, met with a senior executive from the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi. Wu Yi, a deputy prime minister in charge of trade, met with the president of the Japanese YKK Group, according to reports on the state-run Xinhua news agency.

The two meetings were evident attempts to counter an anti-Japanese campaign that officials may fear has gotten out of hand. While state-controlled media such as China Daily seem to have encouraged anti-Japanese sentiment, the extent of it may have taken the Beijing government by surprise.

China has conspicuously withheld any endorsement of Japan's efforts to gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and, more recently, has been critical of accounts of Japan's wartime behavior in Japanese textbooks.

full story (http://iht.com/articles/2005/04/06/news/sino.html)


I agree.

CCP has always used nationalism as its trump card.

However it's akin to playing with fire, it's very dangerous and the CCP knows that it can get burned if it's out of control.

[Grasshopper]

I think Japan deserves a seat on the UN security council as soon as they stop letting the reactionary freaks dominate the telling of basic WWII history.

Just tell the truth and move on. The younger generation bares no guilt but enough with this fanatsy world many Japanese live in. Japanese language and culture is so unique and insular it is almost like a cult.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7441686/

Chinese protesters attack Japanese targets

Demonstrators angry over WWII, bid for Security Council seat

April 9, 2005

BEIJING - Thousands of Chinese smashed windows and threw rocks at the Japanese embassy and ambassador’s residence in Beijing on Saturday in a protest against Japan’s wartime past and bid for a seat on the U.N. Security Council.

Protesters pushed their way through a paramilitary police cordon to the gates of the residence of the Japanese ambassador, throwing rocks and water bottles and shouting “Japanese pig come out”.

Some 500 paramilitary police holding plastic shields raced into the compound and barricaded the gates, a Reuters witness said. Protesters threw stones and bricks at the residence, and shouted at police, “Chinese people shouldn’t protect Japanese.”

Demonstrators, who said they had been organized mostly through e-mail and instant messaging, had been marching peacefully under heavy police guard at various places in the capital. One group began throwing bottles and stones when they passed a Japanese restaurant, smashing windows with tiles they had ripped from its roof before police stopped them.

Protesters also attacked a Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi branch and smashed windows before police moved in.

Another group outside the embassy in southeast Beijing threw stones and plastic water bottles, smashing windows in the compound, a Reuters photographer said. Some demonstrators scuffled with police.

But by late afternoon most of the crowd at the embassy had dispersed, persuaded by police to board waiting buses to take them home.

Anti-Japanese sentiment has been running high in China since Japan on Tuesday approved a school textbook critics say whitewashes atrocities committed during World War II, and many Chinese feel the country has not owned up to its wartime aggression.

Large demonstrations rare

The demonstration started in the Beijing neighborhood of Zhongguancun, known for its electronics shops and home to a large student population, and comes less than a week after anti-Japanese protests in other Chinese cities turned violent.

“Japan doesn’t face up to its history,” said Cheng Lei, a 27-year-old information technology professional. “We want to express our feelings so the Japanese government knows what we think.”

Police declined to say how many protesters were on the streets, but the official Xinhua news agency put the number at more than 10,000. Onlookers thronged the streets, cheering on the demonstration and snapping photos as scores of police looked on.

Large scale protests are rare in China, where the Communist leadership is concerned about maintaining stability at a time of wrenching social change and a widening gap between rich and poor.

Past demonstrations outside the Japanese embassy have typically been heavily policed, choreographed events involving about 50 people, with short speeches, some singing and petitions or letters being presented to the mission.

Last week, protesters smashed windows at a Japanese supermarket in the southwestern city of Chengdu after a demonstration there against Japan’s bid for a permanent Security Council seat turned violent. Demonstrators also took to the streets in Guangzhou, Chongqing and the southern city of Shenzhen, where two Japanese department stores were vandalized.

Domestic media said 20 million Chinese had also signed an online petition opposing the bid for a seat.

Kicking a Toyota

Many Chinese harbor deep resentment of Japan’s wartime aggression and what they see as its failure to own up to atrocities.

“Across the country, the mood to refuse Japanese goods is high, but nothing has been done about this. Therefore, patriotic students have organized themselves,” said a notice circulated by e-mail on Friday urging people to protest.

On Saturday, the mostly student protesters carried signboards with lists of Japanese brand names crossed out and chanted slogans outside an electronics plaza urging the boycott.

Some wore red signs pasted to their chests bearing a traditional Chinese dragon and reading “Reject Japanese goods”. Others began kicking a Toyota car caught in the middle of the crowd before it managed to drive away.

Police guarded the entrance to the electronics plaza to stop demonstrators from pushing inside, and at least 20 police vans stood by to prevent the protest from escalating as the group chanted “Rise up, rise up, rise up."

________________________________________

I don't know but there's something about a morally outraged protest in a warm up outfit that just doesn't work! :biggrin:

http://timesunion.com/Shared/Graphics/NewsDB/AP/CHINA%20JAPAN%20PROTEST%20BEJ12704091215.jpg


A Chinese protester throws a rock at the Japanese Embassy in Beijing as a police officer looks on Saturday April 9, 2005. About 1,000 protesters threw rocks and bottles at the Japanese Embassy on Saturday following a march by more than 6,000 demanding a boycott of Japanese goods to oppose new textbooks that critics say whitewash the Japanese military's wartime atrocities. (Greg Baker / AP)

[SunWuKong]

threads have been merged.

[YuheiCarreau]

I think Japan deserves a seat on the UN security council as soon as they stop letting the reactionary freaks dominate the telling of basic WWII history.

Just tell the truth and move on. The younger generation bares no guilt but enough with this fanatsy world many Japanese live in. Japanese language and culture is so unique and insular it is almost like a cult.

Yes, that's right. We're a goddamn cult.

[Jung Rhee]

Only if the Japanese government sincerely apologize to China and Korea and stop whitewashing the history textbooks. Then we may consider allowing them in the UN.

[VV o n g B a]

i agree w/ the author that if japan had taken the lead in some of humanitarian or peacemaking efforts their bit for security council membership would be much stronger. unfortunately for japan, koizumi's snap elections in september will be held much too late to help the UN security council reform vote that same month. can't say i'm too broken up about his impending departure tho. if the opposition takes over, i hope their new leader isn't dumb enuf to keep going to yasukuni every year in the same fashion.

----------------------
The Price of Membership

By William J. Dobson

Japan deserves a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, but the chances aren’t good. Why? Because writing fat checks is no substitute for leadership.

Japanese diplomats are working long hours these days. The country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs knows that its best chance to gain membership to that most exclusive preserve of international diplomacy—the United Nations Security Council—will come this September, when the General Assembly convenes to take up Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s proposals for reforming the world body. A chance like that comes once a generation, if at all. No one can dispute that the United Nations’ political high table is an anachronism: The council’s five permanent members, Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States, reflect the global power structure of 1945, not 2005. The body is ripe for change, and Annan’s recent reform push offers Japan a brief window of opportunity.

Unfortunately for Japan, the United Nations is many things, but one thing it is not is a meritocracy. The staffing of senior political positions often shows more concern for regional diversity than qualified expertise. Regimes that are serial human rights abusers have long occupied seats on the world body’s Human Rights Commission. And, if the exclusive membership of the Security Council is reformed—and that remains very much an “if”—a country’s bona fides for membership will only be one factor among many.

No matter how skilled a campaign Japan wages, opening the council’s doors wider isn’t going to be easy. Expanding the body requires the support of 128 nations, or two thirds of the United Nations’ 191 members. When Annan asked 16 respected diplomats and public servants to study the issue and make a recommendation as to how to expand the body, even they couldn’t agree on a single blueprint. And political rivalries and past grievances ensure that every aspirant has a countervailing foe: Italy opposes the German bid, Pakistan can’t stomach the thought of India’s elevation, Argentina and Mexico are gunning for Brazil, and China, of course, isn’t about to relent in its opposition to Japan.

Of course, based on the merits, Japan is a natural candidate to take a permanent seat at the council’s table. Its share of financial contributions to the U.N. budget—now at 19 percent—has been second only to the United States since 1986. Indeed, its share is greater than the combined contributions of Britain, China, France, and Russia. During those years that the United States was in arrears to the world body, Japan actually stood as the single greatest underwriter of the U.N. system. Although Tokyo has trimmed its official development assistance in recent years, scores of Japan’s fellow U.N. members have benefited from the country’s generosity for decades. Nor are Japan’s diplomats strangers to the Security Council’s corridors. This year, Japan is serving its ninth term as one of the nonpermanent members to the council. Aside from Brazil, no country’s diplomats have logged as much time in this role.

But these same qualifications raise an important question: Has Japan truly conducted a foreign policy worthy of a world leader? What difference does it make if Japan frequently serves as a rotating member of the Security Council if its diplomats are seen as wallflowers? When has Japan introduced bold new initiatives or helped build coalitions to lead an international effort? How much stronger would Japan’s bid for membership be if Tokyo had led a global effort to address the crisis in Darfur? How many times has Japan’s foreign ministry offered to help broker a peace between disputing parties? Critics are mistaken to assume that a pacifist nation has no place on the Security Council. (You could argue that Japan’s modern incarnation is one of the most in keeping with the United Nations’ mission.) But it’s also true that Japan cannot use its “peace constitution” as an excuse for its own diplomatic inaction or lack of imagination.

Japan’s foreign policy has allowed its critics to characterize it as an international lender, not a leader. Many of the high-water marks for Japanese diplomacy have come from the number of zeroes that appear on their checks. In an era when the costs of international action too often limit what can be accomplished, Japan’s financial contributions are important and needed. Nevertheless, Japan’s critics have successfully pigeonholed Japan as being a country not willing to pay the human price for membership. It may be infuriating for the Chinese foreign ministry to say that Japan should not equate the Security Council with a “board of directors.” But it is also true that the comment receives many approving nods.

Tokyo will claim that taking a leadership role is the very thing that stokes regional fears. And they are right. Japan’s dispatch of its Self Defense Forces to assist in medical and engineering projects in Iraq was met by howls of protest from South Korea and China. But that shouldn’t dissuade Tokyo; its regional rivals will resist Japan’s assuming a larger role regardless of how they go about it. More important, in the eyes of the rest of the world, a robust Japanese foreign policy will make its claim to positions of leadership more convincing. Tokyo’s dispatch of naval vessels in support of the war in Afghanistan, its participation in a growing number of peacekeeping missions, and its deployment of forces to Iraq has done more for Japan’s international image than any amount of checkbook diplomacy.

Japan’s Security Council aspirations have roots that go back farther than most people know. As early as 1959, three years after Japan joined the United Nations, it was Ambassador Koto Matsudaira who proposed setting up a committee to study the expansion of the Security Council’s membership. Whether the Japanese public realizes it or not, Japan’s diplomatic corps knows its chances are slim. If the bid fails, it will be tempting for the country to turn inward once again, to reduce its contributions to the U.N. system, or to reevaluate its involvement in other international efforts. Of course, it’s up to the Japanese people and their politicians to decide how much money they want to contribute from their own bottom line. But the truth is that, when it comes to showing the world the significant role the country can play, Japan has only begun to come into its own. And there is certainly merit in that.


This article first appeared in Newsweek Japan.


William J. Dobson is managing editor of FOREIGN POLICY.

[yoMAMA]

if the opposition takes over, i hope their new leader isn't dumb enuf to keep going to yasukuni every year in the same fashion.



the opposition guy, head of the democratic party of Japan, is against sending troops to Iraq (he says he will pull out the troops completly if elected), and against visiting the yasukuni shrine.

can't say i'm too broken up about his impending departure tho.

not even the hair?

:biggrin:

[SunWuKong]

Only if the Japanese government sincerely apologize to China and Korea and stop whitewashing the history textbooks. Then we may consider allowing them in the UN.

i'm more concerned with the fact that US has so much influence over Japan's foreign policy. what value does Japan really add as a permanent seat member given that fact?

[pikachupacabra]

They add another vote for the US's position. Duh.

[yoMAMA]

They add another vote for the US's position. Duh.

yet the US and China made a deal that blocked Japan's chance of joining.

:tongue:

[SunWuKong]

They add another vote for the US's position. Duh.

yes and no. the UN security council only needs one veto for something to be voted down. so the US doesn't really need that "extra" vote.

[Chad]

If India and Japan are given a permanent seat, does that not mean the escalation of the boiling degree of the Chinese hydrogen kiln?
The UN security council is an international equivalent to the rich boys' club that runs town hall and the mayor's office. It should be dissolved and its responsibilities handed over to the General Assembly. As it is, the UN security council is the only instrument of power in the UN since it can veto any decision made and the General Assembly is a useless charade. This is a backwards situation.

[yoMAMA]

If India and Japan are given a permanent seat, does that not mean the escalation of the boiling degree of the Chinese hydrogen kiln?
The UN security council is an international equivalent to the rich boys' club that runs town hall and the mayor's office. It should be dissolved and its responsibilities handed over to the General Assembly. As it is, the UN security council is the only instrument of power in the UN since it can veto any decision made and the General Assembly is a useless charade. This is a backwards situation.

I agree.

not to mention that the permanent members structure is a relic of WW2.

[pikachupacabra]

The (permanent) security council is pretty unfairly representative of the entire UN anyways, isn't it? I.E. no African, Middle Eastern, or South American countries. Do they do anything else besides having a "super" veto? I'm not really up to snuff with the dynamics of all of it. Besides having that veto and always being on the council, are there any other benefits?

[SunWuKong]

The (permanent) security council is pretty unfairly representative of the entire UN anyways, isn't it? I.E. no African, Middle Eastern, or South American countries.

yeah, that's why India and Brazil both want permanent seats. and i think the African Union also wants a permanent seat.

[Chad]

In addition to the veto, having a permanent seat means you're entitled to possess nuclear weapons. No other countries are supposed to have nuclear weapons (although some do anyways like N. Korea, India, Pakistan?).
Having a middle eastern country in the security council with a permanent seat could create a roadblock for wars of aggression against countries in the region. Not that the US respects the UN's decisions anyways. The League of Nations didn't work out when Germany re-armed itself and Mussolini invaded North Africa. The UN failed to stop the US from invading Iraq.

[yoMAMA]

well, the good ole boy's will never want to give up their prviliges, though.