Japan's_Inclusion_in_Un_Security_Council

The inception of the United Nations in 1945 provided a global forum for nations to work cooperatively and improve the world as a whole. What was initially a group of 51 nations, the UN has grown to include over 190 countries which form five main councils in addition to the general assembly (United Nations Organizational Chart) (United Nations member States - Growth in United Nations membership, 1945-present). However, even as the UN has increased its membership from the original 51 countries to its current 192 countries, the Security Council has remained the same with only five permanent members who are endowed with veto-powers (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2). This concentration of power in the organization has evolved discontentment among the member nation and are constantly striving for a reform of the Security Council; the most notable of these nations are the G4. The G4 is a group of nations consisting of Japan, Brazil, India, and Germany; all of whom have been lobbying for permanent seats on the Security Council (G4 Nations Bid for Permanent Security Council Seat). Japan, for its part, has presented an array of arguments to defend its case for being a permanent member including the out-datedness of the current Security Council, its current body of work in the Security Council and UN in general, and also Japan’s efforts in promoting the agenda of the Security Council with much rigor. One of the primary arguments that Japan has presented to further its cause of attaining a permanent seat on the UN Security Council is the out-dated format that the Security Council currently has. The current hierarchy of the organization represents the global distribution of power in 1945 when World War II ended, but since then the world has changed significantly and the UN has to adapt to the changing times in order to be more effective. For instance, in the current state of affairs in the world, most conflicts originate in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia; but all the veto-powers of the Security Council are concentrated in the West, with the exception of China. As a result, most sanctions passed by the Security Council are questionable since none of the nations partaking in the conflicts are actually participating in the formulating of solutions to their problems. ( (Bruemmer), 1) As a result, Japan’s inclusion in the UN Security Council makes sense since China, the sole, permanent, Asian member of the Security Council ,itself cannot represent the interests of a region as dynamic and diverse as Asia. Also, the addition of Japan will even out the power balance in the Security Council since it will bring together nations more familiar with the conflict regions allowing for the committee to formulate sanctions and solutions which are better suited for the regions in accordance with their geographic and infrastructural capabilities. ( (Bruemmer), 2) Moreover, it will lead the way towards a more even balance of veto powers between the East and the West and allowing developing regions to voice their opinions in what is currently an organization dominated by developed countries. However, Japan brings to light more than just the power imbalance in the UN as it makes a bid for a permanent seat. Japan also believes it deserves a permanent seat on the UN Security Council as recognition for its unparalleled commitment to the UN and the Security Council. Japan is the second largest financial contributor to the UN, behind the US, contributing approximately 20 percent of the fiscal budget. Also, Japan is the world’s largest aid donor and ranks in the top two for contributions in the fields of agriculture, education, health, and water and sanitation as it works vigorously to achieve the Millennium Development Goals set by the UN at the beginning of the new millennium (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 6). A prime example of Japan’s efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals can be witnessed in Africa where Japan has launched the “African Village Initiative” which provides African villages with the necessary resources so they can develop their infrastructure as needed (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 7) In addition, “Japan's financial contributions exceed the combined contributions of the four remaining permanent members of the Security Council” thus making its current position in the organization unrepresentative of its body of work (An Argument for Japan's Becoming Permanent Member). Furthermore, Japan has been elected by other regional nations to a non-permanent term on the Security Council eight times throughout the duration of its membership in the UN which signifies its political and economic strength in the region since all the other nations accept Japan as a representative of the region in the Security Council ( (Bruemmer), 1). All in all, its strong economic base fortify its standing as a regional superpower which makes Japan’s push for a permanent seat in the Security Council even more compelling. Nonetheless, China, one of the current permanent members which is against Japan’s inclusion, has stated that the “UN [is] ‘not a board of directors’ whose composition could be decided by ‘the financial contribution of its members’ in order to undermine the Japanese campaign for a permanent seat ( (G4 Nations Bid for Permanent Security Council Seat). As a result of the arguments presented by the opposition, Japan has also presented its formidable military strength as a contributing factor to its being an ideal candidate for permanent membership on the Security Council. Even though at the end of World War II Japan was forced to sign off on the “Peace Constitution” which prevents it from developing an “offensive military force”, a fact many opposing nations state as a reason that weakens Japan’s ability to carry out Security Council mandates and peacekeeping missions, Japan has still managed to preserve a formidable military which has been displayed time and time again as Japan has carried out UN Peacekeeping missions ( (Bruemmer), 2). Japan has been on the forefront when it comes to carrying out and enforcing sanctions or missions commissioned by the Security Council as it has partaken in eight UN peacekeeping operations (PKOs) and five international humanitarian relief operations. In addition, Japan provides one-fifth of the funding for UN peacekeeping missions making it an indispensible partner in the international peacekeeping coalition (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 5). Furthermore, Japan has been a strong proponent of promoting disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. It played a key role in passing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and also promotes disarmament of small arms such as land mines in the interest of “human security” (An Argument for Japan's Becoming Permanent Member). To further the cause of “human security”, Japan also created a “Trust Fund for Human Security” within the UN in order to support nations as they try to counteract “poverty, conflicts, refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) problems, and infectious diseases” ( (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), 7). Lastly, Japan has played an important role in brokering peace across the world in places such as Cambodia, and its personnel are also actively partaking in the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) (An Argument for Japan's Becoming Permanent Member). Therefore, Japan’s impeccable track record of insuring “human security” and prosperity throughout the world makes it well deserving of a permanent position on the United Nations Security Council. All in all, Japan makes a compelling argument to be included in the United Nations Security Council which has been long overdue for reform. The council’s current hierarchy misrepresents the current state of the world and since Japan has been a very active member of the council and has a proven track record when it comes to insuring the safety and security of people, it fits the mold to be a permanent member of the Security Council. However, in order to make any permanent change to the council and current permanent members would have to all vote in favor of the proposal. While Japan may have strong support from the United States, the deciding factor will be China’s vote since allowing the inclusion of Japan will to an extent weaken their influence in the region. So it remains to be seen whether the world can in fact cooperate and truly live up to the name of “The United Nations” or whether the nations hold each other back in order to promote personal agendas.