Sunday May 27, 2012

Order by Time Order by Popularity

46 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    Xeno23

    The question isn't whether they "deserve" it, or not; it's whether for the good of the World, Japan should be a member, or not.

    In my opinion, all of the major players should be on it: basically G8 Plus 5. This is supposed to be about contributing resources to global security, so everyone who can afford it, should do. Also, the broader the membership, the less one-sided the policy; keep the rotating seats to balance things.

    It shouldn't even be considered optional. Once you get big enough to contribute at a significant level, you contribute. Period. No shirking responsibility.

  • 0

    MeanRingo

    No. For the last time. NO!!!!!!!

  • 0

    some14some

    The question isn't whether they "deserve" it, or not;

    true, UN should give permanent seat to Japan unconditionally and even without Japan's consent, in order to make Japan realize what it is to be a responsible nation.

  • 0

    JmannGod

    There should be no permanent members. The members should always revolve.

    If they are to be permanent - then asia is well represented by China. If there needs to be an increase then India and Pakistan are better choices - as clearly India is the next most important Asian country and Pakitsan is Muslim; the UNSC needs a muslim voice (plus India and Pakistan balance each other).

    France and/or Britain should be dropped in favour of a European seat (which could revlove like the european presidency)

    Japan? Why? Because they have a big economy?

    Note: I don't preclude Japan because of their non-existent sensitivity towards the nation's past war-crimes, their atrocious issues with racism, or their distastful lies about whaling. Whilst I care about those things we hardly can make those arguments given the track records of the present 5 permanent members (they are afterall the world's most destructive nations by any measure).

    Simply, why Japan? What do they bring that in any way, shape, or form is more important, or useful, than the alternatives? I suggest nothing.

  • 0

    rjd_jr

    I agree with Xeno's comments, as well as JmannGod's comments too. Very well thought out and a cut above the usual drivel here. Well done.

  • 0

    realist

    Japan should not be a member of the UN Security Council while it does nothing about the gross discrimination against foreigners within its borders, and indeed all the discriminatory practices against various groups here. Antother reason why Japan doesnt deserve a seat is the fact that it tries to re-write history and does not teach its children the truth about its past evil deeds.

  • 0

    gogogo

    Third option, who cares.

  • 0

    tokyokawasaki

    realist - I agree with you 100%

  • 0

    coulrophobic

    Vote 'no' with your feet if that is what you believe.

  • 0

    mushroomcloud

    It really doesn't matter if Japan deserves a permanent seat on the UNSC, because at the end of the day it will never happen.

    The 5 permanent UNSC members have no desire in diluting their exlusive veto power.

  • 0

    fldpi

    God I'm getting tired of descrimination charges.

    In the US, if we'd been descriminating we might have avoided 9/11. If looney liberals were descriminating, ie: not doling out loans to anyone with a pulse under blown up "racism" charges, all countries would be more secure right now. If we'd descriminate against illegals, citizenship might MEAN something. We have a candidate who relies heavily on descrimination claims, yet in his case that's a "feature".. (??)

    If the matter is "deserving" a permanent seat then the US should be uninvited. We're keystone-cops at home undeserving of membership in a neighbohood watch!

    Don't mind me, I'm just sick of the whole liberal mob.

  • 0

    OssanULTRA

    Japan on the PUNSC would simply mean another pro-US seat so really, the only current PUNSC members who would be against it are China and Russia. The 5 members based on the WWII victors is a joke since the ROC was chased out of China by the PRC and the USSR is no longer in existence. The whole concept needs to be revised so that it includes far more nations that are signficiant today, such as India, Brazil and others along with Japan, not significant in 1945.

  • 0

    OssanULTRA

    The question is worded poorly. "Deserve" is a subjective opinion. China, having sent 200,000 troops into Korea to fight and kill UN Troops certainly doesn't "deserve" to be on PUNSC. If Russia can sit on the PUNSC as the heir to the USSRs seat then it too doesn't "deserve" a seat since the USSR sent fighter pilots to shoot down UN planes in the same war.

  • 0

    reddragonguy

    japan has no rights to join the UN and China will denial it agains. China has all the third world countries supports together with Russia this is a strong force to say NO. All the countries around the world that feel being treated unjust and discrimnated can goto seek the support from China and Russia thats why the UN was fair and just than the 1950s. Japan shall never show any sense to these miserables couintries,look at her act in the G7 group, she wont speak up for those miserables countries and never hearing the voices from around the world. Her charities was like bribary that sparing some food for hunger people in return to gain someone just say Yes to them.

  • 0

    reddragonguy

    Without China's agree, Japan shall never having any chances to sit in UNSC permaent seat, China dominating both military and economic influences in asia! Thats the fact, like it or not!

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    Xeno23

    You're dead-on correct with this. It shouldn't be optional and deserve's got nothing to do with it. As nations become more influential economically, socially, or politically, they have a responsibility to be part of the decision making that affects the rest of the world.

  • 0

    Blue_Tiger

    A country like Japan that denies her past, white washes her atrocities, and denies any wrong-doing in a grotesque war that she started has no business being given a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

  • 0

    tclh

    To be in permanent UNSC, Japan needs muscle..the kind of muscle which the great late President Ronald Reagan once said:"Ships like this and men like you..."

  • 0

    mechadamuramu

    Japan on and China should be taken off. Or at least the PRC should be taken off in return for the ROC like it was originally set with Taiwan.

  • 0

    Bogi

    I don't see the point. It would be the same as giving the US 2 seats...

  • 0

    BlackFlag

    the UN does bugger all anyway, doesnt really matter

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Japan doesn't deserve a seat, nor even a guest's chair at the table; they dole out a lot of cash, but contribute next to nothing besides, all the while white-washing over their atrocities and defying the UN on issues like whaling, etc.

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    No, and UN should be disbanded as its a useless tax burden for populations of many countries.

  • 0

    reddragonguy

    The United Nation was a forum to blashing the US hegamony and thats the reason why a country like China who dared to fought an all out war with US in Korea to represent all those populations under oppressions and humilations by G7 countries and that was the legitiamcy of PRC's sitting the UNSC permanent member with veto power backed by most of the third world countries,it was the place that justice and fair was prevailed!

    This is something that Japan couldnt done! Japan's contributions wasnt under her will and she has no sincerely to help those poor countries she just want to boost her own images for domestic nationalisms purpose thats why Japan doesnt deserved to own a seat in UNSC permanent seat,it was a gift already...remember Japan is still listed as a nation at war with UN!

  • 0

    EurajReturns

    I don't see the point. It would be the same as giving the US 2 seats...

    The US already has a second seat. It's called "Great Britain." Japan, with its large economic power and political power, should be permanent on the council, if nations like China and its human rights abuses can. "Deserve" is a POV-ridden term.

  • 0

    usaexpat

    One word for the naysayers: China. Now if China has a permanent seat than pretty much any warlord or maybe even Kim Jong Il should be allowed to as well since obviously the standards aren't very high. I don't personally put a whole lot of faith in the UN anyway but if we are going to play the game then certainly the world's second largest economy deserves a seat at the table. Japan has given up agression, has had no armed conflicts and has not threatened its neighbors for 60+ years. Rehashing WWII is a pretty weak argument after all of these years please find a new reason and maybe you will bring me around.

  • 0

    RakishGadfly

    Gotta echo what others have said - if whitewashing your past, warmongering, massacres and human rights abuses are reasons not to have a UNSC seat (assuming these actually apply to Japan), then what the heck is China doing there?

  • 0

    usaexpat

    Well the moderator felt I was off topic in addressing reddragonguy's claims so lets try to word it this way and stay on topic. The assertion that China stands up for the oppressed and therefore deserves a seat on the UN council is laughable. What China did in supporting crazy KIm's father in the Korean war wasn't sticking up for the oppressed it was merely sticking a thumb in Amrica's eye and flexing their muscles for their own interests. The PRC has no legitimacy and doesn't belong on the UN security council. Either give their seat to Japan or give it back to the ROC whose seat it rightly is.

  • 0

    gonemad

    the UNSC is a panel intended to achieve quick decisions. As such, it's size of 5 permanent and 10 non-permanent members can be considered already too large. When your intention is focused on quick decisions, experience tells you should not have more than 7 to 9 people in your body. Growing the number of members makes just it less effective. The concept of having permanent members on this panel is flawed as well and especially so when they only represent the powers of more than half a century ago, but not today's. If you add new powers today, you will have to do so again in 50 years. So there is neither a reason to increase the UNSC itself nor having more permanent seats at the expense of non-permanent members.

    That said, Japan does have a large economic power, but no political equivalent of that power. The UNSC is a political organ, not an economic one. At least each of the current permanent members represent(ed) some larger groups of states to some extent. But what would Japan stand for, considering it's strained relations with all of it's neighbors? From that point of view, many other states would have a clear precedence.

  • 0

    Zurg

    Of course they deserve it. They may have been a threat over half a century ago, does not mean they should crouch to their knees. ............. With Japan celebrating their rich 2000 year history, and China boasting of their wonderful 6000 year history. Not to forget, Mongolia and Korea have a long endeavor history of 8000 year. ................ Japan has been able to take all of the Asian countries on One Island. In other words, they are an immigrant Island. Thus representing Asia?.?. ............... It's China that is the threat in ALL of Asia, and around the world. Tainting food and clothing is not the way a leading country should exemplify them selves as a leading nation. ** ................. **Japan deserves it and is a must for the UN to succeed as something to be reckoned to.

  • 0

    mushroomcloud

    "Japan deserves it and is a must for the UN to succeed as something to be reckoned to"

    Other than voting in line with every US sponsored resolution, what value does Japan add?

    China and Russia will unfortunately never allow Japan on the UNSC. It is simply Japan's pipe dream.

  • 0

    okapake

    Zurg - Think China has been around longer than Korea. 8000 years? You got to be kidding.

    Japan is now beginning to have it's own "tainted food" problems - Itoham - home-grown and nobody to blame it on. Water from Japan's own wells!

    And look, Australia is going to take over Japan's pledge for fuel to North Korea because Japan refuses. A likely world player!

  • 0

    ptolemy

    You bet Japan does, and so does Iran, Burma (Miyanmar), Cuba and Sri Lanka.

    How many roads must a man walk down...

  • 0

    Shumatsu_Samurai

    defying the UN on issues like whaling

    Better that violating human rights like China does every day.

  • 0

    Shumatsu_Samurai

    At least each of the current permanent members represent(ed) some larger groups of states to some extent.

    Huh? Who do Russia and China represent apart from themselves? No one, that's who.

  • 0

    cwhite

    What value does Russia or China bring? Anyway, why would Japan want to be on the UN anyway, waste of money and resources for such a small country. Amazing that countries like the UK and Japan can be so successful while others with ample natural resources manage to live in poverty and make religion the main factor to start wars in the 21st Century.

  • 0

    Ah_so

    Japan would add no value to the security council and would not like the burden of making controversial decisions. J

    Simply having (for now) the world's 2nd largest economy is not in itself a qualification for a permanent UN seat. If anyone is to get a seat, it should be India. However, Pakistan would kick up too much of a fuss.

  • 0

    grgrgrangry

    Well,I dont think theres a reason to stop them.... The Japanese now are inocent for the wars and they pay over 16% for the UN y not.

  • 0

    grgrgrangry

    Why not make voting for China if people think they should have permenant seat because they are invading East Asia.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in Poll

View all

View all