Insisting on Permanent Member

Japan resumed its effort to join the permanent members of United Nations Security Council. Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, expressed his intention to achieve that status in his speech at U.N. General Assembly. Japan had made an intensive attempt for the issue ten years ago, which resulted in a failure. Without any accurate reflection on the past, this administration seeks making impossible possible.

Abe tried to persuade how Japan was eligible for the permanent status in international community. “It is my wish, with the 70th anniversary as a turning point, countries sharing the same aims all work together to finally resolve a long-standing issue to reform the UN in a way that reflects the realities of the 21st century. In that context, Japan seeks to become a permanent member of the Security Council, and take on an appropriate role that the status requires,” told Abe in the General Debate.

Meanwhile, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fumio Kishida, met with ministers of other three candidates for the permanent members, Brazil, India and Germany, in New York. Ministers from those four nations, or G4 as they named themselves, delivered a statement, which reconfirmed an agreement to support each other as the candidates. “We need to make efforts to get support from other countries as much as possible. I want to cooperate with others with common wishes,” told Kishida making no sense.

G4 made a similar attempt in 2004. At that time, one of the five permanent members that disturbed their effort most was not China or Russia, but the United States. U.S. made its standpoint clear that it would support Japan’s candidacy only, supposedly knowing its opinion would destroy the cooperation of G4. Innocent Japan welcomed U.S. suggestion. For all permanent members, increasing countries with the same status of them, even if it would be a close ally, would bring further mess in that already unworkable framework. Japan had no idea to overcome that contradiction.

Japan still has no hope for joining the permanent members. This agenda is not about raising status of Japan in international community, but for selling Abe’s personal and distorted principle for peace called positive pacifism. Abe uses this concept as a justification for remilitarization of Japan. But it is obvious that Japan cannot bring the world peace by its military power.

If Japan can contribute to peace of the world, it must be through negotiation. In the environment surrounded by great powers, Japan has to work as their catalyst. However, the leader of Japan is making no progress even to have a meeting with the leaders of China or Russia. Lying to the world is embarrassing.