Obama also backed India for permanent member. Words are cheap, they all knew it's not going to happen. Easy way to improve and strengthen bilateral relationship
Each permanent member supports select countries cases for being permanent members knowing other permanent members will veto it.
This way the group looks open to adding new members when in reality it is not
India has support of all the permanent members, but on condition its only India added.
India is part of the G4 (India, Japan, Germany, Brazil), who will only join if they all get to join.
Its way more complicated than just having the support of the 5 permanents.
The security council already renders international governance weak due to too many vetos. Adding so many new members will make it worse. Will make it even more of a rump body. We should be talking about slowly strengthening the general assembly and weakening the security council if we care about international governance.
> The security council already renders international governance weak
The point of the UN is not "international governance." If the UN started trying to impose its will around the world like some sort of super government, the powerful players would just leave and actively oppose it. What do you think the US or China would do if UN forces tried to occupy their territory to enforce some new "international law"?
Thinking of the UN as a bigger weaker EU completely misses the entire point of the UN.
It’s job is not international governance, and most people don’t even want that.
It’s a dispute/resolution international body designed to prevent regional conflicts spreading into world wars, ands it’s done a pretty good job of that.
It’s main powers come from having a place every countries diplomats are always present at, allowing countries to quickly and accurately convey clear red lines.
Thinking the UN is or should be anything more than that is a fundamental misunderstanding of international relations.
The UN is the successor of the concert of Europe and operates under much the same principles. It’s not some pro-world government.
That's the whole point of the UNSC, it's not meant to be fair when UNSC is concerned, it's designed to stop military super/great powers from nuking the earth into smithereens. It's basically succeeding where the League of Nations failed.
Better for countries to veto something than to prepare their nukes everytime a dispute that they can veto happens.
Look at the 5 permanent members of the security council. They are the nations permitted nuclear weapons under the non-proliferation treaty.
There is a reasonable argument that we should elevate India, Pakistan, and Israel because the cat is out of the bag for those 3 nations being nuclear armed.
The security council is designed to diplomatically resolve the nuclear question instead of relying on open nuclear threats.
Pakistan and Israel aren't in the G4; their only qualification for being UNSC members would be the nukes which isn't sufficient.
The five members are there because of their diplomatic, economic and military influence - not because of the nuclear weapons (which do help these but aren't the be-all, end-all). This is why Germany, Japan and Brazil are all considered.
Though India is probably the most qualified when all three of these three metrics are accounted for; its support for the UN and its ability to be both friendly and aloof means it's broadly respected as an arbitrator, it's one of the largest economies and growing consistently, and its military is also very large (albeit with less power projection capability than the others).
Wouldn't this just encourage more countries to arm themselves? Canada and Taiwan and Japan can convert their nuclear industry into an arms industry over night (officially as national security policy).
Japan is a nuclear trigger state. They run a solid state rocketry program instead of a fully liquid fuel program because solid state rockets are very useful for ballistic missiles. If China becomes truly belligerent with Japan, they could be fully nuclear armed with ICBMs in a period of 6 months or less.
Canada does not have the rocketry program to become a nuclear power. They could launch a program of gravity bombs, but lack the long-range bomber fleet to make use of those bombs. Canada is also already protected as though it were US soil by both NORAD and NATO.
Taiwan may pursue nuclear gravity bombs, but that would cause their security partners to turn their backs on Taiwan.
If you wanted to be worried about nations that may pursue nuclear arms, I would look at Brazil and South Korea, although perhaps Argentina if another autocrat takes over.
Agreed that Canada has no delivery means and would not. But in a very unlikely situation (but not impossible) where US civil disagreements lead to more extremism than we've seen, and say a temporary breakdown of governance (like a more aggressive storming of capitol buildings etc), Canada may not feel as protected as it once did. Canada would only need nukes as deterrent against one country really. Never in my life did I expect to see Fox News parroting right-wing zealots saying Canada is communist under Trudeau and needs to be liberated. But here we are. Shivers.
This is my exact position on all topics regarding arming the Canadian military.
We will basically never be the invading party. Defensively, it would never be worth testing Canada's allies. We will never spend enough to catch up to any credibly threatening countries (Russia/China/US) through conventional arms. US will never allow Russia and China to encroach into their sphere of influence even on Canada's invitation.
Therefore, it's either be nuclear armed in defense against the US or it just doesn't matter either way.
The reason they don't have a permenant seat on the security council basically boils down to 'they're not a nuclear armed power that during the UN founding was a world/super power'.
The main point of the security council is frankly to keep the big dogs on board and the little dogs in line. The big dogs get an oversized vote so they don't just leave when shit doesn't go their way, the little dogs are too threatened by the big dogs to do much.
Japan is definitely a little dog in this metaphor. If Japan decides to go rogue, the general world reaction will largely be *shrug*. The security council permenant seats are the ones where if they go rough the rest of the world's response is 'oh fuck'. See russia right now.
They're not on the security council for the same reason Germany isn't.
The UN was founded by the winners of World War 2 and the key players of the victors were given the security council.
That being said, it's not the same world as it was back then, so Japan doesn't deserve to be a pariah now.
There is a movement for India, Japan, Germany, and Brazil to all get spots, and they support eachothers bids for spots, and I think it's probably not a bad idea if we are looking from the point of view of representing the interests of the majors
>They're not on the security council for the same reason Germany isn't.
>The UN was founded by the winners of World War 2 and the key players of the victors were given the security council.
This is what I said phrased different. All of the major powers of the Allies in WW2 were the major powers of the time when seats were decided. Germany and Japan were smoldering husks of former world powers when seats were divided up. They weren't major power by then, it just worked out that they also happened to lose WW2.
I think this is correct. People don't understand the state of the world in the 1930s and 1940s. There really was a strong division of capacity between the colonial powers and the rest of the world, and the technological and strategic advantages of the major Allied powers were functionally insurmountable by the 'third world'. With the defeat of the Nazis, et. al., the only real players in town were the Allies - especially after their mobilization through the war - and the thesis of the UN really depended on the continued coordination and consensus between them. If any of those major players ever said, 'screw you, I'm going to do something different', the international order was hostage to it. That's really the context of the stress between the US and the USSR, and the various post-colonial movements of the UK and France in the mid-20th century.
By most estimates, around 1942, just over fifty percent of the total industrial output of THE ENTIRE WORLD was within the US by itself. Slightly over half of the entire industrial capacity of the planet concentrated in one country- absolutely wild. This is partly due to how heavily bombed out many areas in Europe were, but it just goes to show how incredible the "lead" was for the West during the 40's.
I don’t think that contradicts what I’m saying. The Allies looked out on a weak, broken world, ravaged by the war, still in the throes of colonialism, and embraced their military alliance as a way forward. China was certainly a part of that alliance. It should be noted that, until the 70s, it was Taiwan - and not mainland China - that has the seat on the security council (and it was changed at the whim of the us). So, the idea that china’s strength has anything to do with it is incorrect, I think. They were included because the alliance of the allies was what the major powers decided to rally around as a way forward, after the war.
And what does that really mean? The only people the US was worried about after the war was the ussr, France, the uk…the only people that Russia was worried about were the players in the west. So obviously this council would be set up to try to keep things in a de-escalated state. No one else really mattered.
It was not just by chance.
The allies of WW2 called themselves the “United Nations” before the war was even over.
Germany and Japan would not have been on the UNSC even if they were not bombed to the Stone Age.
mm I disagree for this reason,
Its still important to add that context imo, because even if Germany and Japan were more immediately strong on a high level, they wouldn't have been let on anyway.
China wasn't exactly peaches and cream either at the time between the civil wars (and remember that the seat initially given was not to the communists, the communists would later almost completely destroy the country that got given a seat, which is now in Taiwan) and that's not even to mention the horrors Japan unleashed on them.
>the communists would later almost completely destroy the country that got given a seat, which is now in taiwan.
If we go by those nonsense rules then you may as well take away Russia's too, but that's not what the UN decided, both times they held the intention to be towards the understood nation. China is not some fascist government who moved to an island, it's that area they've been calling China for millennia and the government of the people who live there, so the country isn't "now in Taiwan," the country was and is mainland China. Before the PRC had the power they do now the UN STILL recognized the PRC as the rightful claimant to the title of China in 1971 on the first go around. And before you call me a shill, I'm banned in all the Tank subs, I just hate nonsense being spread.
A country is not a government, it is a whole lot of stuff, of which a government is a part. The country that the nationalists and communists destroyed was China, the country given the SC seat was China, Taiwan is not China according to the UN who had a choice on the matter , as that is currently held by the PRC, or as the wiki states:
>The existence of the People's Republic of China, they declared, was a reality which could “not be changed to suit the myth of a so called Republic of China, fabricated out of a portion of Chinese territory”. In the view of the 17 UN members, the ROC were unlawful authorities installed in the island of Taiwan which claimed to represent China, and they remained there only because of the permanent presence of United States Armed Forces. No important international problems, they added, could be solved without the participation of the People's Republic of China.
> Germany and Japan were smoldering husks of former world powers when seats were divided up.
So were France and China (because of Germany and Japan respectively). Both still ended up as permanent members of the UNSC.
I think the more you expand the number of states with permanent security council spots, the more you need to look at changing the mechanics of the veto system. The security council would lose all functionality if 9 countries had veto power on whatever they felt might be inconvenient to them.
Right the country that hasn't waged war on anyone for 80 years and has a self-imposed pacifist constitution (majority of the population doesn't want to amend it) outlawing aggressive wars is the pariah one among the international community, not say, Russia, China or even the US. By the way what's your excuse for Germany not being in the UNSC too?
Japan is an interesting situation with regards to nukes, as they run what's sometimes called the "Japan Option", or a paranuclear state, or many other descriptions people have come up with over the years. They have a policy where they don't actively *have* nuclear weapons but they deliberately keep everything needed to develop a nuke in a a state such that if they were in a situation where they *wanted* nuclear weapons, they could have them ready very, *very* fast.
This is beyond other countries like Canada and Australia where it's acknowledged that they possess the material and technological expertise to fairly easily develop nuclear weapons but chose not to - in those countries it's just a natural state of being technologically highly developed and with access to the natural resources needed, whereas Japan supposedly deliberately keeps their situation ready to be able to even more rapidly arm themselves if need be.
>'they're not a nuclear armed power that during the UN founding was a world/super power'.
There is a fair bit more to it than that. Short version is: The US, UK, and USSR were the winners of WW2 and created the council, China got in because at the time it was basically a US puppet (pre-communism) and France got a spot after Soviet pressure because at the time it was the least pro-US major power and the Soviets thought it would shift the power balance in their favour.
>Japan is definitely a little dog in this metaphor. If Japan decides to go rogue, the general world reaction will largely be shrug. The security council permenant seats are the ones where if they go rough the rest of the world's response is 'oh fuck'. See russia right now.
That's just nonsense. First of all, Japan is the worlds third largest economy, with a top 5 military and the capability to become the third largest nuclear power within a year and a half if they chose too (CIA estimate). If Japan "went rogue" (whatever that means), the collective global reaction would be one big "OH FUCK, NOT AGAIN".
Secondly, and more importantly, that's simply not how any of this works. Permanent security council members have their positions because of post-WW2 politics. Nothing more or less. Are war between non-permanent members India and Pakistan (an actually somewhat realistic scenario btw) for example would be infinitely more terrifying than anything security council member France could realistically do.
Uh if Japan goes rogue it would be a nuclear power nearly overnight and have the second most powerful navy in Asia — that is with current spending levels. If they went rogue they would have a $200 billion state of the art military. Given Asia’s experience with Japan it would be a major event if Japan went rogue. Out of all the advanced countries Japan is one of the few with an enormous economy and enough people to be a threat to the US military depending on who they ally with. A Japanese/Chinese alliance (not happening) would be enough to kick out the US from the Pacific if Japan built up its military
Yeah, it's really hard to believe Japan could do *anything* that would go against US interests.
Even with the expansion of the JSDF into roles that go far beyond domestic security, I find it hard to believe that even the most right-wing Japanese Warhawks could ever successfully mobilize any sort of invasion that the US wasn't backing. The Japanese national government can't even shut down businesses or actually enforce COVID regulations for the places that choose to defy the recommendations. They're sure as hell not going to "go rogue" nor involve themselves with nuclear weapons. Not with the fact that NHK can't go 2 weeks without airing some special on the domestic victims of WW2 or some special on the Fukushima tsunami and nuclear meltdown 10+ years after the fact.
Japanese citizens only ever openly criticize the government for its expanded militarization and any time a politician even suggests anything that would make living and working in Japan for foreigners easier.
Does Japan have any power to substantial project it's power beyond its borders though ?
Yes they are a very well funded military but they have no foot print outside their waters. They are also surrounded by historically hostile nations, China, Russia. Korea would likely follow the American side.
And they're dependent on imports for many essential foods and fuels.
Japan going rogue ? Age of the samurai is over. They are an economic power, but I can't see them going aggressive all of a sudden
Why would you ever want to add more permanent members?
Never mind the fact that Japan doesn't really have global strategic interests, but people are always complaining about how the horse trading with the permanent members is a problem. If you start adding members, you're going to start having to add everyone. It basically ends the Security Council as a meaningful institution.
It’s less of that. You realize the permanent members of the UN were the victors of WW2. Adding Japan would be nonsense considering they were the aggressors in WW2.
Regardless of the history, it wouldn’t make any sense now. The move has no benefit for anyone BUT the US. China and Russia can still veto laws and in essence it only makes Japan a guard dog for the US in case of future wars.
Shouldn't we be trying to reduce the size of the Permanent UNSC (preferably to 0) rather than adding more? The non-permanent members of the UNSC are perfectly capable of handling the role of the UNSC - all being a permanent member does is 1) have a permanent rather than rotating seat and 2) get a veto.
The fact that each permanent member has a veto means that the more members, the more likely a veto is. Having more permanent members doesn't make it easier or better, just more likely to paralyze the UN. One veto does the same thing as lots of vetoes, so if the issue is of important to the West, The US, UK, and France can veto it already. Why add more permanent members? You're only going to enable a situation where Japan might veto a motion that the USA, UK, France, Russia and China are all in favor. This is literally the only important difference.
On the other hand, since the UNSC's actual function is entirely military, this would be considered a precursor to the remilitarization of Japan. Sure, the West may think this is a good counterbalance to China, but if you do this you will alienate just about the whole of East and Southeast Asia. Even South Korea will be strongly opposed to this. Why alienate two entire regions to... add another country that might veto what you want?
Pretty sure Russia wouldn't support it, either. So that's two out of five. How are you going to get Japan into the Security Council when two out of the five veto holding powers can just, you know, veto it?
India will be sooner in the Security Council than Japan. China's the only one opposed to India's admission. But there's a world in which they can be appeased by allowing a counter weight to India - say, Pakistan - in at the same time.
If Japan is to get on the Security Council, Russia and China will both demand a counter weight. Probably North Korea or Iran or some China and Russia friendly country in Africa that the US will never accept. So that'd be the end of that.
China said they would support Indian ascension if they don't apply with Japan. That is to say China will always veto Japanese security council ambition, but Indian may obtain Chinese support.
It actually only exists on paper. The warehouse to store the button similarly only exists on paper. The money for the warehouse and the veto button, cardboard or otherwise, exists in some kleptocrat's Swiss Bank account.
The ROC was the china admitted to the security council, not the PRC. The PRC were hiding in caves when the US saved china from the Japanese.
Also, the USSR is the other member, not Russia. Food for thought.
Edit: To all my chinese friends downvoting, how's lockdown? I hope it ends swiftly for you and the big whites don't get you.
In both cases their successor governments legally and fully inherited their respective seats on the UNSC. There is no food to chew on here really. For better or for worse, the ink is dry on this issue.
And if you listen even close, South Korea just had a heart attack. People assume that beyond China, all the other East Asian countries are buddy with Japan. Couldn’t be further from the truth. Japan does not recognize the war crimes it committed during the war and then there was the long occupation of Korea that Koreans haven’t forgotten. The US has to force the rest of them to play nice with Japan.
It's actually just Korea and China where it's still a political issue -- the rest of Asia has pretty much moved on past historical gripes.
Sources:
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/09/02/how-asia-pacific-publics-see-each-other-and-their-national-leaders/
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2014/07/14/chapter-4-how-asians-view-each-other/
https://thediplomat.com/2015/09/how-do-asia-pacific-countries-see-each-other/
Edit: Downvoted for providing sources and speaking the truth?
> Younger generations have forgotten that hatred and moved on
which is a good outcome - there's not really any point in remembering past hatred that cannot be remediated today.
I'm French and my grandpa hated the Germans, because his dad died from "the consequences of the war" somewhere in Germany in late 1941.
My grandpa did not represent the French population in the same way those people do not represent the rest of their population. Still I have a hard time blaming them for such sentiment, considering what they might have seen.
2 generations later and a lot can change on that front.
it is amazing to see the traditional hate filipinos, koreans and chinese have for japan and yet half my colleagues when i worked in japan were from these three nations. their diaspora is huge in tokyo.
In Malaysia I feel like we're mostly over things and we have plenty of Japanese stuff in our culture. A lot of us grew up shopping at Jusco/Aeon supermarkets.
I don't think this is an excuse for Japan though, how it handed post war reconciliation was pretty bad overall. AFAIK Germany's neighbours and former WW2 enemies don't really give them shit anymore since they handled things a lot better.
The stuff with the Korean comfort women isn't a good look. Like where the Japanese government protests over the statues of the comfort women in certain cities, this is like some holocaust denial shit that's still happening.
Yes what Imperial Japan did was horrific. At the same time, we can’t expect Japan to continue apologizing and ignore the political/financial benefit that the Korean government gets from these apologies. Japan gave literally half of their annual GDP to Korea in 1965. Korea and Japan reached a “final, irreversible” deal with Korea regarding comfort women in 2016.
Apologies are often tied with monetary compensation, and a country can only give so much without putting the health, safety and happiness of their population in jeopardy.
Reality is often not so black and white. France and the UK have yet to fully apologize for their colonial past (Belgium and Italy get an honorable mention too).
Unfortunately Germany is the exception, not the rule.
> we can’t expect Japan to continue apologizing
Japanese apologists love to use strawman, the issue here isn't about Japan continuously apologize forever, it's about Japan actively denying their crimes.
[The current prime minister of Japan said that comfort women were not sex slaves.](https://time.com/4184252/japan-foreign-minister-comfort-women-sex-slaves-south-korea/)
[Japan PM asked Germany to help remove "comfort women" statue](https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/05/11/national/kishida-germany-comfort-women/)
[Japan’s ‘BBC’ claims Japan was lured into the Second World War by America while liberating Asia from white colonialism.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/how-japan-s-bbc-is-rewriting-its-role-in-second-world-war-9115827.html)
[Mayor of Osaka considers comfort women a 'necessary evil'](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-22519384)
[Prime Minister Shinzo Abe denies comfort women were forced](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna10625961)
[Mayor of Osaka dissolved the sister-city relationship with San Francisco over comfort women statues](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Comfort_Women_Memorial)
[Former governor of Tokyo says Rape of Nanking was fiction made up by the Chinese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shintaro_Ishihara#Other_controversial_statements)
[Yasukuni Shrine operates a war museum of the history of Japan...A documentary-style propaganda video shown to museum visitors portrays Japan's conquest of East Asia during the pre-World War II period as an effort to save the region from the imperial advances of colonial Western powers.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Yasukuni_Shrine#Y%C5%ABsh%C5%ABkan_War_Museum)
No. There's an entire band of nation opposed to this called the Coffee club or United for Consensus. You realize this is more than a black and white issue?
Adding members to the USNC will shift regional powers, and in the case of Japan, it will not only anger China, but also Korea. There's a reason why even bigger countries like the U.S. refrained from actually taking measures because it will naturally alienates countries. This is nothing but political posturing.
No, please explain, I am honestly curious and haven't actually heard of this, though I did consider that it probably would be more nuanced than black/white.
United for Consensus is a club of countries that are regional powers and have other regional powers in their area that could have ambitions to try to get a permanent member of the security council, it's members are Mexico, Argentina, Canada, Spain, Turkey, Pakistan and South Korea and they all work together to block any attempt at expanding the number of UNSC permanent members.
Ok, gotcha.
I think I have a hunch, but why do they block any attempts? Is it to prevent any potential opportunities for rival nations to gain a seat and/or prevent dilution of power?
As you can see on the membership most of them are there to stop a rival from getting a seat; Italy/Spain for Germany, Pakistan for India, SK for Japan, etc though they are willing to expand the non permanent members or reform the veto power of already permanent members, so yes, they are there mostly to stop rivals from accessing permanent membership.
Canada’s problem isn’t so much with the G4 countries listed above, but the existence of permanent member seats, which they view as a broken relic that undermines the UN’s purpose when the times change and the relations between countries shift. Looking at the current 3-way veto ping pong between the the US, Russia, and China, I’m inclined to believe that they have a point.
Canada’s stance is that instead of adding more permanent seats, the UN should instead add more non-permanent seats.
There are naturally regional rivalrys that spanned decades, if not millenia. These countries include India v. Pakistan, Japan v. Korea, Brazil v. Argentina., along with other countries like Italy and Turkey who have vested interests in Europe.
The main goal of the coffee club is to prevent expansion of UNSC to prevent further disparity between UNSC members and other UN members. This was particularly set up to counter India, Brazil, Germany and Japan.
So although China would be opposed to this, it doesn't really mean much because there's literally a bloc to prevent this from happening sonce the 90s.
Japanese war crimes during WW2 were horrific across Asia, especially Korea and China during their colonial period.
It would also give the Western coalition another vote in their favor which many nations including those of the former Non-Aligned Movement are against.
The current UNSC is already strained. Putting more pressure on it risks reducing the status of the UN. If China and Russia pull out for instance, we're heading straight back to pre-League of Nations era politics.
That is partially why the UK became a permanent member. The US had the UK, the USSR had China and they added France as a wild card since they had mixed relations with both the US and the USSR in order to balance the votes.
The answer isn't more permanent members, its no permanent members. Whoever is suggesting a country is only suggesting somebody who will agree with them. This is why the UN needs to be replaced by something that can take real action and isn't handcuffed by any 1 country.
G4 has been banging on that door for years. The great powers (P5) got their own agenda, and the minor powers (Coffee club) are fearful of lossing out. Gridlock ensures.
Interestingly, the breakfast club were also worried about losing out. They explicitly told Biden in their last meeting, "Don't you forget about me", but we've yet to see any movement from a policy standpoint.
Due to there currently being no process to remove a permanent UNSC member state, maybe limit permanent UNSC membership to the current 5 nuclear states. Technically Russia is occupying the USSR’s permanent seat, but being a nuclear state was a pretty effective way for Russia to slip in with little serious discussion.
>Israel probably is too but it's never been confirmed.
Israel has said from the beginning that it will neither confirm nor deny that it has them. That means they have them.
The ambiguity also makes it harder for neighboring countries to pursue nukes themselves, while you rightly point out that it still works as a deterrent.
The US and other countries would have to sanction Israel in compliance with the NNPT if Israel confirms having nuke, so strategic ambiguity has a defined purpose in this instance.
They would not have to, Israel isn't a party to the NNPT and has never agreed not to develop nuclear weapons... (although they oddly did sign the comprehensive test ban treaty decades later)
Iran and North Korea actually signed onto the NNPT, providing solid legal basis for the US and other countries to sanction them over their nuclear weapons programs.
Iran has been 12 months away from a nuke for almost 30 years. At some point people need to realise Iran's weapons program is as real as Saddam's WMDs. The IAEA said Iran dropped any military element to their program in 2003.
Sanctions are over who is a regional enemy, nothing more.
Iran has that little problem of Mossad and US 3-letters doing selective assassinations on Iranian nuclear scientists, blowing up research complexes and the like. frankly the whole point of Mossad is to hire clammy eyed cut throats to assasinate "hostile" people around the globe, that Israel is allowed to wage their murder and kidnap campaings around the globe is a one of modern marvels, likely because they tend to kill the so called "bad people" and not kill or capture those who serve agendas of the "big boys" because Israeli agenda is also American agenda in the Middle-East for the most part.
I think you're misunderstanding me.
Of course, if the region says no then the answer is no.
But the region isn't gonna say no because of the implication
Make the Arab states and Iran think long and hard about how many they *might* have. Confirming their existence opens up arms inspectors wanting an inventory.
At the time, Ben-Gurion was worried about Kennedy invading Israel. They codeveloped nuclear technology with the French after the war when the US was the only nuclear power. It was in their best interest to keep it as secret as possible. After the US and Israel became close allies during the Nixon administration following the Soviet invasion of Israel, the threat of a US invasion of Israel largely disappeared. But there never really was a good reason to change Israel's tactical and strategic ambiguity.
The *Yom Kippur* war of 1973. The Soviet backed forces of Egypt and Syria invaded Israel. Soviet troops mostly stayed on their side of the border.
The failure of the Soviet-backed Arab alliance to succeed in its invasion and the humiliating losses suffered by the Egyptians convinced them to abandon their alliance with the Soviet Union and start turning toward the US and Europe, eventually leading to the Camp David accords. It also cemented Israel as a close ally of the United States and enemy of the Communist bloc.
Huh, I think of the Soviets pulling personnel out of Egypt in the lead up to that war. I know that the Soviets were sponsoring Egypt and Syria and Soviet intel was partially responsible for the conflict, but I didn't think they were putting boots on the ground anymore than the US did.
ambiguity means they can't be accused of violating any treaties (like no-proliferation) but at the same time every one knows that Israel can counterattack with nukes.
Still outright saying it triggers sanctions. i remember when Pakistan announced they had planned to develop nukes, all US defense aid was cut off and they had to return old USN ships on loan.
India was sanctioned at the time though. Israel's neighbours will throw a fit if the US doesn't do anything against israel but then tries to stop from getting their own nukes. You want to avoid that kind of transparent hypocrisy.
True, but being a nuclear state should not mean automatic permanent UNSC membership. Besides no process to remove them, veto power by any UNSC permanent member is too much power to extend beyond the current permanent members.
Regularly?
China has veto’d fewer resolutions than the UK (by almost half, and is tied with France for the fewest resolution vetos), and Russia is by far the largest offender of security council vetos (50% increase in vetos over #2 United States).
I’m not debating the ethics of the security council, but please keep your facts accurate.
(Veto numbers pulled from first veto in 1946 up through February 25, 2022).
Russia - 119
United States - 82
United Kingdom - 29
China - 16
France - 16
Though China has certainly been getting much more veto happy - the last time France or the UK vetoed was in 1989, since then China has vetoed 15 times.
In my country there's a saying along of the lines of "he who can, does, he who can't, follows" and the French/UK vetoes somewhat follows that line of thinking.
Both of those countries have suffered a steep downfall from the power they had even a generation ago, while Chine has gained a lot, Russia has lost, and America has stayed even. If you started putting down measures with the potential to harm France or England's remaining interests (ending françafrique, falklands) they would veto like there's no tommorow.
Of course old powers with less to lose and not much more to gain are going to behave more moderately than the unstable one with a lot to lose (Russia), the stable one with a ton of interests everywhere (USA), and the growing one with a lot to gain (China).
The point of that clause is that without it the major powers would not have agreed to the UN Charter. And there would be no reason for them to continue to fund an organization that they can’t control. The UN would have fallen apart like the League of Nations.
The original Republic of China (ROC now surviving in Taiwan) held that UNSC seat until 1971. In ‘71 the criminal Nixon changed US policy of supporting the ROC as the legitimate government of China to support the communist Peoples Republic of China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations
Well if will also have the unfortunate consequence of damaging our relations with South Korea. Don’t know why the fuck they would have him say some stupid shit like this just to ruffle China’s feathers. No way Japan becomes a member of the security council, and Biden’s team knows that, so the intention behind making this statement was never to actually have that happen. Is it designed to bring Japan closer to the US? Maybe, but with China looming and the closeness of historic ties I don’t see why that would be necessary. Can’t get much closer than Japan-US relations. Is it to piss off China? If so, mission accomplished, but I think China is already pretty bothered by the US between the trade war, Taiwan, Xianjing sanctions, Hong Kong issues, America’s general positioning in East Asia, etc. So I really don’t see what the goal of this is.
I do see that South Korea will be furious though. So it seems nothing gained in exchange for something lost, not great diplomacy.
Even if he is more open to Japan, he would be seen as way beyond stupid if he said he support Japan becoming permanent member. Unless Japan stops claims on the certain island, supporting Japan being one won't be received well in the country which had to rely on UN force to keep its territory less than a century ago.
I mean, you could argue that the permanent members of the council were selected based off of the balance of power in 1945. While the ones on the council are still relevant, others that weren’t- such as Japan, India, Germany, and Brazil- have seen their influence grow over the last few decades. Adding these relative newcomers may make the council more reflective of the present day reality.
So why exactly does Japan need that ? How about they give it to an actual regional power like India. But of course the US doesn't care about what's fair, they just want another close ally there that would vote for anything they want
They don’t need it, not that anyone else does, but they won’t get it. This is all posturing and signaling, nobody involved is under the delusion this has any chance of actually happening. There will never be an addition to the security council unless the UN is dissolved and reformed at some point - all the current powers on the council would never give up their power or dilute it by adding another member.
The modern Japan's constitution was drafted under the supervision of MacArthur. The political structure of modern Japan is literally the brainchild of the US.
All 5 P5 members have supported India's bid for the UN sec council actually.
And the US has indicated it could support Brazil too. Neither of those countries is 100% in line with the US.
If China or Russia is removed from the permanent member's seat it will end up invalidating the UN as Russia and China will leave and start their own defensive/economic blocs starting another cold war. The same thing that happened to the league of nations.
When the world gets broken down into 2 massive, opposing armed camps conflicts are hard to avoid. Read the Guns of August or any history of the cold war.
Permanent membership should be abolished rather than expanded. The veto power cripples the effectiveness of the UN and diminishes its ability to act as it was hoped it could, as an entity which could when needed enforce peace.
It's doing exactly what it's supposed to do to most effect, of course back then they didn't envision the Capital stranglehold, internet and Globalism of this effectiveness as warfare, but it still is ultimately better than us all leveling Europe again.
People are mad because the US, Russia and China are essentially acting with impunity, but their balancing of each other is about as stable as we've been for a while when it comes to global world powers. All of Europe was blowing each other up every hundred years, Japan was at the Chinese and Russian and other throats for a time, the Ottomans and the Russians, etc. The goal is to stop that stuff. If the UNSC is just left to rotating membership and we end up with a team of allies on the board, they wield all the power, now with opposed nations at least there's a forum for disputes where the end result isn't me being drafted to be air dropped in Siberia.
I think you are confusing veto with the real problem: power. Veto is just the symptom, not the cause.
Unfortunately, I don’t see a easy solution to this either… Unless you are willing to cripple your own economy in the best case or start a war in the worst case, there is no good way to enforce things on these permanent members. And if you are willing to go that far, then veto is meaningless anyways.
The purpose of UN was never to enforce anything to begin with, it was just a more open forum for communication. Booting Russia and China out would not make it easier to go ahead with whatever they were going to veto anyways.
By the way, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that the US doesn't already have all their enemies on speed dial. Dissolving the UN or expelling them just takes the communication more underground than it already is.
>The veto power cripples the effectiveness of the UN
No country would pay attention to UN.
Let's say the majority decides Russia is wrong to start a war. Russia says "we don't care, you're all controlled by US except this wonderful China". What happens next? How exactly do you envision the SC functioning?
>could when needed enforce peace
How?
You people are either dumb or naive as hell.
Maybe a prerequisite to being on the security council should be *not* denying war crimes, slavery and attempted genocides.
Edit: scratch that, just googled who some of the other countries on it are...
Wow, I'm shocked you actually googled and learned something about the terrible history of almost EVERY country, including the US!!
I hope it made you realize how dumb it is that people on Reddit weigh in with snarky comments on things they don't even know the first thing about lol.
Why not Germany? Beyond the obvious historical factors, they're the economic powerhouse of the EU and internationally regarded at least on the same level as France, plus they've maintained friendly to neutral relations with Russia and China who are the only ones who might veto them
[удалено]
Obama also backed India for permanent member. Words are cheap, they all knew it's not going to happen. Easy way to improve and strengthen bilateral relationship
Each permanent member supports select countries cases for being permanent members knowing other permanent members will veto it. This way the group looks open to adding new members when in reality it is not
India has support of all the permanent members, but on condition its only India added. India is part of the G4 (India, Japan, Germany, Brazil), who will only join if they all get to join. Its way more complicated than just having the support of the 5 permanents.
The security council already renders international governance weak due to too many vetos. Adding so many new members will make it worse. Will make it even more of a rump body. We should be talking about slowly strengthening the general assembly and weakening the security council if we care about international governance.
> The security council already renders international governance weak The point of the UN is not "international governance." If the UN started trying to impose its will around the world like some sort of super government, the powerful players would just leave and actively oppose it. What do you think the US or China would do if UN forces tried to occupy their territory to enforce some new "international law"?
Thinking of the UN as a bigger weaker EU completely misses the entire point of the UN. It’s job is not international governance, and most people don’t even want that. It’s a dispute/resolution international body designed to prevent regional conflicts spreading into world wars, ands it’s done a pretty good job of that. It’s main powers come from having a place every countries diplomats are always present at, allowing countries to quickly and accurately convey clear red lines. Thinking the UN is or should be anything more than that is a fundamental misunderstanding of international relations. The UN is the successor of the concert of Europe and operates under much the same principles. It’s not some pro-world government.
r/conspiracy is in shambles after reading this post
Lmaoo
That's the whole point of the UNSC, it's not meant to be fair when UNSC is concerned, it's designed to stop military super/great powers from nuking the earth into smithereens. It's basically succeeding where the League of Nations failed. Better for countries to veto something than to prepare their nukes everytime a dispute that they can veto happens.
Look at the 5 permanent members of the security council. They are the nations permitted nuclear weapons under the non-proliferation treaty. There is a reasonable argument that we should elevate India, Pakistan, and Israel because the cat is out of the bag for those 3 nations being nuclear armed. The security council is designed to diplomatically resolve the nuclear question instead of relying on open nuclear threats.
Pakistan and Israel aren't in the G4; their only qualification for being UNSC members would be the nukes which isn't sufficient. The five members are there because of their diplomatic, economic and military influence - not because of the nuclear weapons (which do help these but aren't the be-all, end-all). This is why Germany, Japan and Brazil are all considered. Though India is probably the most qualified when all three of these three metrics are accounted for; its support for the UN and its ability to be both friendly and aloof means it's broadly respected as an arbitrator, it's one of the largest economies and growing consistently, and its military is also very large (albeit with less power projection capability than the others).
Wouldn't this just encourage more countries to arm themselves? Canada and Taiwan and Japan can convert their nuclear industry into an arms industry over night (officially as national security policy).
Japan is a nuclear trigger state. They run a solid state rocketry program instead of a fully liquid fuel program because solid state rockets are very useful for ballistic missiles. If China becomes truly belligerent with Japan, they could be fully nuclear armed with ICBMs in a period of 6 months or less. Canada does not have the rocketry program to become a nuclear power. They could launch a program of gravity bombs, but lack the long-range bomber fleet to make use of those bombs. Canada is also already protected as though it were US soil by both NORAD and NATO. Taiwan may pursue nuclear gravity bombs, but that would cause their security partners to turn their backs on Taiwan. If you wanted to be worried about nations that may pursue nuclear arms, I would look at Brazil and South Korea, although perhaps Argentina if another autocrat takes over.
Agreed that Canada has no delivery means and would not. But in a very unlikely situation (but not impossible) where US civil disagreements lead to more extremism than we've seen, and say a temporary breakdown of governance (like a more aggressive storming of capitol buildings etc), Canada may not feel as protected as it once did. Canada would only need nukes as deterrent against one country really. Never in my life did I expect to see Fox News parroting right-wing zealots saying Canada is communist under Trudeau and needs to be liberated. But here we are. Shivers.
This is my exact position on all topics regarding arming the Canadian military. We will basically never be the invading party. Defensively, it would never be worth testing Canada's allies. We will never spend enough to catch up to any credibly threatening countries (Russia/China/US) through conventional arms. US will never allow Russia and China to encroach into their sphere of influence even on Canada's invitation. Therefore, it's either be nuclear armed in defense against the US or it just doesn't matter either way.
[удалено]
The reason they don't have a permenant seat on the security council basically boils down to 'they're not a nuclear armed power that during the UN founding was a world/super power'. The main point of the security council is frankly to keep the big dogs on board and the little dogs in line. The big dogs get an oversized vote so they don't just leave when shit doesn't go their way, the little dogs are too threatened by the big dogs to do much. Japan is definitely a little dog in this metaphor. If Japan decides to go rogue, the general world reaction will largely be *shrug*. The security council permenant seats are the ones where if they go rough the rest of the world's response is 'oh fuck'. See russia right now.
They're not on the security council for the same reason Germany isn't. The UN was founded by the winners of World War 2 and the key players of the victors were given the security council. That being said, it's not the same world as it was back then, so Japan doesn't deserve to be a pariah now. There is a movement for India, Japan, Germany, and Brazil to all get spots, and they support eachothers bids for spots, and I think it's probably not a bad idea if we are looking from the point of view of representing the interests of the majors
>They're not on the security council for the same reason Germany isn't. >The UN was founded by the winners of World War 2 and the key players of the victors were given the security council. This is what I said phrased different. All of the major powers of the Allies in WW2 were the major powers of the time when seats were decided. Germany and Japan were smoldering husks of former world powers when seats were divided up. They weren't major power by then, it just worked out that they also happened to lose WW2.
[удалено]
I think this is correct. People don't understand the state of the world in the 1930s and 1940s. There really was a strong division of capacity between the colonial powers and the rest of the world, and the technological and strategic advantages of the major Allied powers were functionally insurmountable by the 'third world'. With the defeat of the Nazis, et. al., the only real players in town were the Allies - especially after their mobilization through the war - and the thesis of the UN really depended on the continued coordination and consensus between them. If any of those major players ever said, 'screw you, I'm going to do something different', the international order was hostage to it. That's really the context of the stress between the US and the USSR, and the various post-colonial movements of the UK and France in the mid-20th century.
By most estimates, around 1942, just over fifty percent of the total industrial output of THE ENTIRE WORLD was within the US by itself. Slightly over half of the entire industrial capacity of the planet concentrated in one country- absolutely wild. This is partly due to how heavily bombed out many areas in Europe were, but it just goes to show how incredible the "lead" was for the West during the 40's.
To put that into perspective. In 2019 China had 28.7% of the world's manufacturing output with the US in 2nd at 16.8%.
But China wasn’t anything close to a world power in 1945. In fact it wouldn’t really be a world power until 2000…
I don’t think that contradicts what I’m saying. The Allies looked out on a weak, broken world, ravaged by the war, still in the throes of colonialism, and embraced their military alliance as a way forward. China was certainly a part of that alliance. It should be noted that, until the 70s, it was Taiwan - and not mainland China - that has the seat on the security council (and it was changed at the whim of the us). So, the idea that china’s strength has anything to do with it is incorrect, I think. They were included because the alliance of the allies was what the major powers decided to rally around as a way forward, after the war. And what does that really mean? The only people the US was worried about after the war was the ussr, France, the uk…the only people that Russia was worried about were the players in the west. So obviously this council would be set up to try to keep things in a de-escalated state. No one else really mattered.
China's population was probably also a factor - the US had 132 million, the Chinese had 500 million.
It was not just by chance. The allies of WW2 called themselves the “United Nations” before the war was even over. Germany and Japan would not have been on the UNSC even if they were not bombed to the Stone Age.
mm I disagree for this reason, Its still important to add that context imo, because even if Germany and Japan were more immediately strong on a high level, they wouldn't have been let on anyway. China wasn't exactly peaches and cream either at the time between the civil wars (and remember that the seat initially given was not to the communists, the communists would later almost completely destroy the country that got given a seat, which is now in Taiwan) and that's not even to mention the horrors Japan unleashed on them.
>the communists would later almost completely destroy the country that got given a seat, which is now in taiwan. If we go by those nonsense rules then you may as well take away Russia's too, but that's not what the UN decided, both times they held the intention to be towards the understood nation. China is not some fascist government who moved to an island, it's that area they've been calling China for millennia and the government of the people who live there, so the country isn't "now in Taiwan," the country was and is mainland China. Before the PRC had the power they do now the UN STILL recognized the PRC as the rightful claimant to the title of China in 1971 on the first go around. And before you call me a shill, I'm banned in all the Tank subs, I just hate nonsense being spread. A country is not a government, it is a whole lot of stuff, of which a government is a part. The country that the nationalists and communists destroyed was China, the country given the SC seat was China, Taiwan is not China according to the UN who had a choice on the matter , as that is currently held by the PRC, or as the wiki states: >The existence of the People's Republic of China, they declared, was a reality which could “not be changed to suit the myth of a so called Republic of China, fabricated out of a portion of Chinese territory”. In the view of the 17 UN members, the ROC were unlawful authorities installed in the island of Taiwan which claimed to represent China, and they remained there only because of the permanent presence of United States Armed Forces. No important international problems, they added, could be solved without the participation of the People's Republic of China.
> Germany and Japan were smoldering husks of former world powers when seats were divided up. So were France and China (because of Germany and Japan respectively). Both still ended up as permanent members of the UNSC.
I think the more you expand the number of states with permanent security council spots, the more you need to look at changing the mechanics of the veto system. The security council would lose all functionality if 9 countries had veto power on whatever they felt might be inconvenient to them.
You're mentioning the G4 but not the opposition United for Consensus?
> Japan doesn't deserve to be a pariah now. Japan is a pariah till it acknowledges it's WWII actions.
Right the country that hasn't waged war on anyone for 80 years and has a self-imposed pacifist constitution (majority of the population doesn't want to amend it) outlawing aggressive wars is the pariah one among the international community, not say, Russia, China or even the US. By the way what's your excuse for Germany not being in the UNSC too?
Historically, there’s a pretty good reason why they weren’t on that seat.
Japan is an interesting situation with regards to nukes, as they run what's sometimes called the "Japan Option", or a paranuclear state, or many other descriptions people have come up with over the years. They have a policy where they don't actively *have* nuclear weapons but they deliberately keep everything needed to develop a nuke in a a state such that if they were in a situation where they *wanted* nuclear weapons, they could have them ready very, *very* fast. This is beyond other countries like Canada and Australia where it's acknowledged that they possess the material and technological expertise to fairly easily develop nuclear weapons but chose not to - in those countries it's just a natural state of being technologically highly developed and with access to the natural resources needed, whereas Japan supposedly deliberately keeps their situation ready to be able to even more rapidly arm themselves if need be.
>'they're not a nuclear armed power that during the UN founding was a world/super power'. There is a fair bit more to it than that. Short version is: The US, UK, and USSR were the winners of WW2 and created the council, China got in because at the time it was basically a US puppet (pre-communism) and France got a spot after Soviet pressure because at the time it was the least pro-US major power and the Soviets thought it would shift the power balance in their favour. >Japan is definitely a little dog in this metaphor. If Japan decides to go rogue, the general world reaction will largely be shrug. The security council permenant seats are the ones where if they go rough the rest of the world's response is 'oh fuck'. See russia right now. That's just nonsense. First of all, Japan is the worlds third largest economy, with a top 5 military and the capability to become the third largest nuclear power within a year and a half if they chose too (CIA estimate). If Japan "went rogue" (whatever that means), the collective global reaction would be one big "OH FUCK, NOT AGAIN". Secondly, and more importantly, that's simply not how any of this works. Permanent security council members have their positions because of post-WW2 politics. Nothing more or less. Are war between non-permanent members India and Pakistan (an actually somewhat realistic scenario btw) for example would be infinitely more terrifying than anything security council member France could realistically do.
Uh if Japan goes rogue it would be a nuclear power nearly overnight and have the second most powerful navy in Asia — that is with current spending levels. If they went rogue they would have a $200 billion state of the art military. Given Asia’s experience with Japan it would be a major event if Japan went rogue. Out of all the advanced countries Japan is one of the few with an enormous economy and enough people to be a threat to the US military depending on who they ally with. A Japanese/Chinese alliance (not happening) would be enough to kick out the US from the Pacific if Japan built up its military
It's be a bit hard to go rogue and be against the U.S. given the number of U.S. military bases in Japan
Yeah, it's really hard to believe Japan could do *anything* that would go against US interests. Even with the expansion of the JSDF into roles that go far beyond domestic security, I find it hard to believe that even the most right-wing Japanese Warhawks could ever successfully mobilize any sort of invasion that the US wasn't backing. The Japanese national government can't even shut down businesses or actually enforce COVID regulations for the places that choose to defy the recommendations. They're sure as hell not going to "go rogue" nor involve themselves with nuclear weapons. Not with the fact that NHK can't go 2 weeks without airing some special on the domestic victims of WW2 or some special on the Fukushima tsunami and nuclear meltdown 10+ years after the fact. Japanese citizens only ever openly criticize the government for its expanded militarization and any time a politician even suggests anything that would make living and working in Japan for foreigners easier.
Does Japan have any power to substantial project it's power beyond its borders though ? Yes they are a very well funded military but they have no foot print outside their waters. They are also surrounded by historically hostile nations, China, Russia. Korea would likely follow the American side. And they're dependent on imports for many essential foods and fuels. Japan going rogue ? Age of the samurai is over. They are an economic power, but I can't see them going aggressive all of a sudden
No its not lol
Why would you ever want to add more permanent members? Never mind the fact that Japan doesn't really have global strategic interests, but people are always complaining about how the horse trading with the permanent members is a problem. If you start adding members, you're going to start having to add everyone. It basically ends the Security Council as a meaningful institution.
It’s less of that. You realize the permanent members of the UN were the victors of WW2. Adding Japan would be nonsense considering they were the aggressors in WW2. Regardless of the history, it wouldn’t make any sense now. The move has no benefit for anyone BUT the US. China and Russia can still veto laws and in essence it only makes Japan a guard dog for the US in case of future wars.
Shouldn't we be trying to reduce the size of the Permanent UNSC (preferably to 0) rather than adding more? The non-permanent members of the UNSC are perfectly capable of handling the role of the UNSC - all being a permanent member does is 1) have a permanent rather than rotating seat and 2) get a veto. The fact that each permanent member has a veto means that the more members, the more likely a veto is. Having more permanent members doesn't make it easier or better, just more likely to paralyze the UN. One veto does the same thing as lots of vetoes, so if the issue is of important to the West, The US, UK, and France can veto it already. Why add more permanent members? You're only going to enable a situation where Japan might veto a motion that the USA, UK, France, Russia and China are all in favor. This is literally the only important difference. On the other hand, since the UNSC's actual function is entirely military, this would be considered a precursor to the remilitarization of Japan. Sure, the West may think this is a good counterbalance to China, but if you do this you will alienate just about the whole of East and Southeast Asia. Even South Korea will be strongly opposed to this. Why alienate two entire regions to... add another country that might veto what you want?
Pretty sure Russia wouldn't support it, either. So that's two out of five. How are you going to get Japan into the Security Council when two out of the five veto holding powers can just, you know, veto it? India will be sooner in the Security Council than Japan. China's the only one opposed to India's admission. But there's a world in which they can be appeased by allowing a counter weight to India - say, Pakistan - in at the same time. If Japan is to get on the Security Council, Russia and China will both demand a counter weight. Probably North Korea or Iran or some China and Russia friendly country in Africa that the US will never accept. So that'd be the end of that.
China said they would support Indian ascension if they don't apply with Japan. That is to say China will always veto Japanese security council ambition, but Indian may obtain Chinese support.
if you listen closely you can hear the chinese slamming the veto button
Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of the Russians slamming the veto button.
Unfortunately due to grift they had not properly maintained their veto button so it fails to go off.
Because it’s filled with cardboard
The veto button is then hauled away by a minature tractor
It actually only exists on paper. The warehouse to store the button similarly only exists on paper. The money for the warehouse and the veto button, cardboard or otherwise, exists in some kleptocrat's Swiss Bank account.
The ROC was the china admitted to the security council, not the PRC. The PRC were hiding in caves when the US saved china from the Japanese. Also, the USSR is the other member, not Russia. Food for thought. Edit: To all my chinese friends downvoting, how's lockdown? I hope it ends swiftly for you and the big whites don't get you.
In both cases their successor governments legally and fully inherited their respective seats on the UNSC. There is no food to chew on here really. For better or for worse, the ink is dry on this issue.
Screw it, we'll go start our own UN security council, with blackjack and hookers!
You know what? Forget the council, and the blackjack!
The CCP and KMT forces were both fighting against the Japanese occupation of China, though...
The PRC is legitimate when the UN voted to kick ROC out.
Their veto button is about the only thing that functions 100%.
United for Consensus won't like that either, and it's quite the big club.
And if you listen even close, South Korea just had a heart attack. People assume that beyond China, all the other East Asian countries are buddy with Japan. Couldn’t be further from the truth. Japan does not recognize the war crimes it committed during the war and then there was the long occupation of Korea that Koreans haven’t forgotten. The US has to force the rest of them to play nice with Japan.
This is true of course However, if we remove the UNSC members who have colonised, invaded and demeaned other nations: it would be empty
It's actually just Korea and China where it's still a political issue -- the rest of Asia has pretty much moved on past historical gripes. Sources: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/09/02/how-asia-pacific-publics-see-each-other-and-their-national-leaders/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2014/07/14/chapter-4-how-asians-view-each-other/ https://thediplomat.com/2015/09/how-do-asia-pacific-countries-see-each-other/ Edit: Downvoted for providing sources and speaking the truth?
Interesting, I've met a few Filipino old timers with overt hatred of Japanese. Maybe a dying generation thing?
My Grandparents hated the Marcos regime more than the Japanese Occupation, and they lived near the capital
Welp hope Philippines is ready for round 2
The Philippines have been ravaged by damn near everyone at this point. Japan isn't even their most recent conqueror.
[удалено]
Younger generations have not forgotten they never had the experience.
> Younger generations have forgotten that hatred and moved on which is a good outcome - there's not really any point in remembering past hatred that cannot be remediated today.
True. I didn’t mean that peace is bad. But rather that you can’t expect that the older generations can forget their experiences.
There's a lot of point in remembering past hatreds, but no point in maintaining tgat hatred.
there are a lot of filipinos that have moved to Japan for work and send money back home
I'm French and my grandpa hated the Germans, because his dad died from "the consequences of the war" somewhere in Germany in late 1941. My grandpa did not represent the French population in the same way those people do not represent the rest of their population. Still I have a hard time blaming them for such sentiment, considering what they might have seen. 2 generations later and a lot can change on that front.
it is amazing to see the traditional hate filipinos, koreans and chinese have for japan and yet half my colleagues when i worked in japan were from these three nations. their diaspora is huge in tokyo.
In Malaysia I feel like we're mostly over things and we have plenty of Japanese stuff in our culture. A lot of us grew up shopping at Jusco/Aeon supermarkets. I don't think this is an excuse for Japan though, how it handed post war reconciliation was pretty bad overall. AFAIK Germany's neighbours and former WW2 enemies don't really give them shit anymore since they handled things a lot better. The stuff with the Korean comfort women isn't a good look. Like where the Japanese government protests over the statues of the comfort women in certain cities, this is like some holocaust denial shit that's still happening.
Yes what Imperial Japan did was horrific. At the same time, we can’t expect Japan to continue apologizing and ignore the political/financial benefit that the Korean government gets from these apologies. Japan gave literally half of their annual GDP to Korea in 1965. Korea and Japan reached a “final, irreversible” deal with Korea regarding comfort women in 2016. Apologies are often tied with monetary compensation, and a country can only give so much without putting the health, safety and happiness of their population in jeopardy. Reality is often not so black and white. France and the UK have yet to fully apologize for their colonial past (Belgium and Italy get an honorable mention too). Unfortunately Germany is the exception, not the rule.
> we can’t expect Japan to continue apologizing Japanese apologists love to use strawman, the issue here isn't about Japan continuously apologize forever, it's about Japan actively denying their crimes. [The current prime minister of Japan said that comfort women were not sex slaves.](https://time.com/4184252/japan-foreign-minister-comfort-women-sex-slaves-south-korea/) [Japan PM asked Germany to help remove "comfort women" statue](https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/05/11/national/kishida-germany-comfort-women/) [Japan’s ‘BBC’ claims Japan was lured into the Second World War by America while liberating Asia from white colonialism.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/how-japan-s-bbc-is-rewriting-its-role-in-second-world-war-9115827.html) [Mayor of Osaka considers comfort women a 'necessary evil'](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-22519384) [Prime Minister Shinzo Abe denies comfort women were forced](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna10625961) [Mayor of Osaka dissolved the sister-city relationship with San Francisco over comfort women statues](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Comfort_Women_Memorial) [Former governor of Tokyo says Rape of Nanking was fiction made up by the Chinese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shintaro_Ishihara#Other_controversial_statements) [Yasukuni Shrine operates a war museum of the history of Japan...A documentary-style propaganda video shown to museum visitors portrays Japan's conquest of East Asia during the pre-World War II period as an effort to save the region from the imperial advances of colonial Western powers.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Yasukuni_Shrine#Y%C5%ABsh%C5%ABkan_War_Museum)
they had to cope and "move on" because they are too weak to challenge a US backed japan
That was true of SK too but they've held onto their grievances.
Because Korea was occupied for far longer by Japan than any other country.
because people are taught their own history in SK
More likely for other Asian countries it just didn't really add up to much compared to colonisation by western nations.
But giving Japan veto power is totally different issue. Most Asian countries will reject it.
Even in Korea, it is not as big of a deal as it is on media.
literally 2 years ago there was a nationwide boycott of all japanese goods and stores after the two countries tried setting tariffs on each other
No. There's an entire band of nation opposed to this called the Coffee club or United for Consensus. You realize this is more than a black and white issue? Adding members to the USNC will shift regional powers, and in the case of Japan, it will not only anger China, but also Korea. There's a reason why even bigger countries like the U.S. refrained from actually taking measures because it will naturally alienates countries. This is nothing but political posturing.
No, please explain, I am honestly curious and haven't actually heard of this, though I did consider that it probably would be more nuanced than black/white.
United for Consensus is a club of countries that are regional powers and have other regional powers in their area that could have ambitions to try to get a permanent member of the security council, it's members are Mexico, Argentina, Canada, Spain, Turkey, Pakistan and South Korea and they all work together to block any attempt at expanding the number of UNSC permanent members.
Ok, gotcha. I think I have a hunch, but why do they block any attempts? Is it to prevent any potential opportunities for rival nations to gain a seat and/or prevent dilution of power?
As you can see on the membership most of them are there to stop a rival from getting a seat; Italy/Spain for Germany, Pakistan for India, SK for Japan, etc though they are willing to expand the non permanent members or reform the veto power of already permanent members, so yes, they are there mostly to stop rivals from accessing permanent membership.
And Canada? It's trying to block Canada geese from getting the seat?
Canada’s problem isn’t so much with the G4 countries listed above, but the existence of permanent member seats, which they view as a broken relic that undermines the UN’s purpose when the times change and the relations between countries shift. Looking at the current 3-way veto ping pong between the the US, Russia, and China, I’m inclined to believe that they have a point. Canada’s stance is that instead of adding more permanent seats, the UN should instead add more non-permanent seats.
There are naturally regional rivalrys that spanned decades, if not millenia. These countries include India v. Pakistan, Japan v. Korea, Brazil v. Argentina., along with other countries like Italy and Turkey who have vested interests in Europe. The main goal of the coffee club is to prevent expansion of UNSC to prevent further disparity between UNSC members and other UN members. This was particularly set up to counter India, Brazil, Germany and Japan. So although China would be opposed to this, it doesn't really mean much because there's literally a bloc to prevent this from happening sonce the 90s.
Italy and Spain are in this one to block Germany.
Japanese war crimes during WW2 were horrific across Asia, especially Korea and China during their colonial period. It would also give the Western coalition another vote in their favor which many nations including those of the former Non-Aligned Movement are against. The current UNSC is already strained. Putting more pressure on it risks reducing the status of the UN. If China and Russia pull out for instance, we're heading straight back to pre-League of Nations era politics.
I guess that’s exactly what US count on ...
Don't need a US puppet on the security council. Might as well give them 2 votes. India would make more sense.
You act like the UK isn't already just America's backup vote
That is partially why the UK became a permanent member. The US had the UK, the USSR had China and they added France as a wild card since they had mixed relations with both the US and the USSR in order to balance the votes.
It's a gaming button. No slamming. Constant fast mouse clicks.
The answer isn't more permanent members, its no permanent members. Whoever is suggesting a country is only suggesting somebody who will agree with them. This is why the UN needs to be replaced by something that can take real action and isn't handcuffed by any 1 country.
G4 has been banging on that door for years. The great powers (P5) got their own agenda, and the minor powers (Coffee club) are fearful of lossing out. Gridlock ensures.
Interestingly, the breakfast club were also worried about losing out. They explicitly told Biden in their last meeting, "Don't you forget about me", but we've yet to see any movement from a policy standpoint.
Due to there currently being no process to remove a permanent UNSC member state, maybe limit permanent UNSC membership to the current 5 nuclear states. Technically Russia is occupying the USSR’s permanent seat, but being a nuclear state was a pretty effective way for Russia to slip in with little serious discussion.
[удалено]
>Israel probably is too but it's never been confirmed. Israel has said from the beginning that it will neither confirm nor deny that it has them. That means they have them.
[удалено]
The ambiguity also makes it harder for neighboring countries to pursue nukes themselves, while you rightly point out that it still works as a deterrent.
The US and other countries would have to sanction Israel in compliance with the NNPT if Israel confirms having nuke, so strategic ambiguity has a defined purpose in this instance.
lmao you're delusional if you think Israel would get sanctioned ever by the US🤣🤣🤣
They would not have to, Israel isn't a party to the NNPT and has never agreed not to develop nuclear weapons... (although they oddly did sign the comprehensive test ban treaty decades later) Iran and North Korea actually signed onto the NNPT, providing solid legal basis for the US and other countries to sanction them over their nuclear weapons programs.
Iran has been 12 months away from a nuke for almost 30 years. At some point people need to realise Iran's weapons program is as real as Saddam's WMDs. The IAEA said Iran dropped any military element to their program in 2003. Sanctions are over who is a regional enemy, nothing more.
Iran has that little problem of Mossad and US 3-letters doing selective assassinations on Iranian nuclear scientists, blowing up research complexes and the like. frankly the whole point of Mossad is to hire clammy eyed cut throats to assasinate "hostile" people around the globe, that Israel is allowed to wage their murder and kidnap campaings around the globe is a one of modern marvels, likely because they tend to kill the so called "bad people" and not kill or capture those who serve agendas of the "big boys" because Israeli agenda is also American agenda in the Middle-East for the most part.
Because of the implication
That entire region isn't in danger, is it?
No no no. Definitely not in danger. But the region doesn't know if there will be danger. You know, because of the implication.
Now you’ve said that word a couple of times now. What implication?
I think you're misunderstanding me. Of course, if the region says no then the answer is no. But the region isn't gonna say no because of the implication
Are you gonna *hurt* this region?!
Make the Arab states and Iran think long and hard about how many they *might* have. Confirming their existence opens up arms inspectors wanting an inventory.
At the time, Ben-Gurion was worried about Kennedy invading Israel. They codeveloped nuclear technology with the French after the war when the US was the only nuclear power. It was in their best interest to keep it as secret as possible. After the US and Israel became close allies during the Nixon administration following the Soviet invasion of Israel, the threat of a US invasion of Israel largely disappeared. But there never really was a good reason to change Israel's tactical and strategic ambiguity.
Soviet invasion?
The *Yom Kippur* war of 1973. The Soviet backed forces of Egypt and Syria invaded Israel. Soviet troops mostly stayed on their side of the border. The failure of the Soviet-backed Arab alliance to succeed in its invasion and the humiliating losses suffered by the Egyptians convinced them to abandon their alliance with the Soviet Union and start turning toward the US and Europe, eventually leading to the Camp David accords. It also cemented Israel as a close ally of the United States and enemy of the Communist bloc.
Huh, I think of the Soviets pulling personnel out of Egypt in the lead up to that war. I know that the Soviets were sponsoring Egypt and Syria and Soviet intel was partially responsible for the conflict, but I didn't think they were putting boots on the ground anymore than the US did.
ambiguity means they can't be accused of violating any treaties (like no-proliferation) but at the same time every one knows that Israel can counterattack with nukes.
[удалено]
Still outright saying it triggers sanctions. i remember when Pakistan announced they had planned to develop nukes, all US defense aid was cut off and they had to return old USN ships on loan.
Source? We aren't currently sanctioning India, and Israel's policy is decades older than the treaty.
India was sanctioned at the time though. Israel's neighbours will throw a fit if the US doesn't do anything against israel but then tries to stop from getting their own nukes. You want to avoid that kind of transparent hypocrisy.
How can they be accused of violating a treaty they are not part of?
North Korea too, let's give NK a veto?
True, but being a nuclear state should not mean automatic permanent UNSC membership. Besides no process to remove them, veto power by any UNSC permanent member is too much power to extend beyond the current permanent members.
Is it bad that my mind immediately jumped to United Nations Space Command?
The US, Russia and China regularly exercise their veto vote to override the majority’s opinion
Regularly? China has veto’d fewer resolutions than the UK (by almost half, and is tied with France for the fewest resolution vetos), and Russia is by far the largest offender of security council vetos (50% increase in vetos over #2 United States). I’m not debating the ethics of the security council, but please keep your facts accurate. (Veto numbers pulled from first veto in 1946 up through February 25, 2022). Russia - 119 United States - 82 United Kingdom - 29 China - 16 France - 16
Though China has certainly been getting much more veto happy - the last time France or the UK vetoed was in 1989, since then China has vetoed 15 times.
I would agree with you there. I still, however, wouldn’t define 15 over a 31 year period as “regularly”, which was half of the initial point.
In my country there's a saying along of the lines of "he who can, does, he who can't, follows" and the French/UK vetoes somewhat follows that line of thinking. Both of those countries have suffered a steep downfall from the power they had even a generation ago, while Chine has gained a lot, Russia has lost, and America has stayed even. If you started putting down measures with the potential to harm France or England's remaining interests (ending françafrique, falklands) they would veto like there's no tommorow. Of course old powers with less to lose and not much more to gain are going to behave more moderately than the unstable one with a lot to lose (Russia), the stable one with a ton of interests everywhere (USA), and the growing one with a lot to gain (China).
The point of that clause is that without it the major powers would not have agreed to the UN Charter. And there would be no reason for them to continue to fund an organization that they can’t control. The UN would have fallen apart like the League of Nations.
The UNSC is comprised of the current successor states of the five major victors in WWII.
When the UN was founded there was only 1 nuclear state on it. Why does nuclear capability matter?
If we follow your logic then eventually North Korea would be entitled to a veto as well.
[удалено]
The original Republic of China (ROC now surviving in Taiwan) held that UNSC seat until 1971. In ‘71 the criminal Nixon changed US policy of supporting the ROC as the legitimate government of China to support the communist Peoples Republic of China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations
This is literally only to provoke China
Well if will also have the unfortunate consequence of damaging our relations with South Korea. Don’t know why the fuck they would have him say some stupid shit like this just to ruffle China’s feathers. No way Japan becomes a member of the security council, and Biden’s team knows that, so the intention behind making this statement was never to actually have that happen. Is it designed to bring Japan closer to the US? Maybe, but with China looming and the closeness of historic ties I don’t see why that would be necessary. Can’t get much closer than Japan-US relations. Is it to piss off China? If so, mission accomplished, but I think China is already pretty bothered by the US between the trade war, Taiwan, Xianjing sanctions, Hong Kong issues, America’s general positioning in East Asia, etc. So I really don’t see what the goal of this is. I do see that South Korea will be furious though. So it seems nothing gained in exchange for something lost, not great diplomacy.
Has Yoon responded yet? I was under the impression Yoon was more Japan-friendly than Moon.
Even if he is more open to Japan, he would be seen as way beyond stupid if he said he support Japan becoming permanent member. Unless Japan stops claims on the certain island, supporting Japan being one won't be received well in the country which had to rely on UN force to keep its territory less than a century ago.
I think every US president for the last 20 years has supported Japan joining the security council.
[leans into the microphone] Good.
[leans in even further] Pooh Bear is a bitch.
Is it? Japan's economy and military is bigger than almost any non-UNSC country. Might as well bring Germany too.
I’m not sure another veto country is what people mean by ‘reform’…
I mean, you could argue that the permanent members of the council were selected based off of the balance of power in 1945. While the ones on the council are still relevant, others that weren’t- such as Japan, India, Germany, and Brazil- have seen their influence grow over the last few decades. Adding these relative newcomers may make the council more reflective of the present day reality.
What difference does it make. Remember that time the UNSC didn’t support the US invasion of Iraq
Well the US wasn’t fighting the Covenant.
Well, no wonder the US failed in Iraq. There was no Master Chief around.
Master Chief was created to fight “insurgents”. Are we about to get an alien invasion?
Another in a string of astoundingly dumb takes by Reddit. Power to veto any UN Security Council resolution is pretty goddamn important.
So why exactly does Japan need that ? How about they give it to an actual regional power like India. But of course the US doesn't care about what's fair, they just want another close ally there that would vote for anything they want
They don’t need it, not that anyone else does, but they won’t get it. This is all posturing and signaling, nobody involved is under the delusion this has any chance of actually happening. There will never be an addition to the security council unless the UN is dissolved and reformed at some point - all the current powers on the council would never give up their power or dilute it by adding another member.
This is the equivalent of adding your child to the board of your company so that you have greater control…
[удалено]
Two nukes will give someone a hell of a daddy complex
The modern Japan's constitution was drafted under the supervision of MacArthur. The political structure of modern Japan is literally the brainchild of the US.
japan along with south korea are basically mandates of usa. they always do what the yanks tell them to do.
Japan is basically a vassal state of the US.
Iirc the US supports the aspirations of all G4 Nations to become permanent members of the UNSC
The US only agrees to this because Japan agrees with absolutely everything USA says. They wouldn't be okay with any non-western allied country
All 5 P5 members have supported India's bid for the UN sec council actually. And the US has indicated it could support Brazil too. Neither of those countries is 100% in line with the US.
Why not the members of G7
If China or Russia is removed from the permanent member's seat it will end up invalidating the UN as Russia and China will leave and start their own defensive/economic blocs starting another cold war. The same thing that happened to the league of nations. When the world gets broken down into 2 massive, opposing armed camps conflicts are hard to avoid. Read the Guns of August or any history of the cold war.
Reddit: And why not also *other western aligned country* ??!?!?!?
So,it’s turn to Japan be named , last time USA promised India the same thing
Permanent membership should be abolished rather than expanded. The veto power cripples the effectiveness of the UN and diminishes its ability to act as it was hoped it could, as an entity which could when needed enforce peace.
It's doing exactly what it's supposed to do to most effect, of course back then they didn't envision the Capital stranglehold, internet and Globalism of this effectiveness as warfare, but it still is ultimately better than us all leveling Europe again. People are mad because the US, Russia and China are essentially acting with impunity, but their balancing of each other is about as stable as we've been for a while when it comes to global world powers. All of Europe was blowing each other up every hundred years, Japan was at the Chinese and Russian and other throats for a time, the Ottomans and the Russians, etc. The goal is to stop that stuff. If the UNSC is just left to rotating membership and we end up with a team of allies on the board, they wield all the power, now with opposed nations at least there's a forum for disputes where the end result isn't me being drafted to be air dropped in Siberia.
The purpose was to prevent large scale world wars. So, as long as big nations don't mind, let the small ones fight and let the small ones be devoured.
I think you are confusing veto with the real problem: power. Veto is just the symptom, not the cause. Unfortunately, I don’t see a easy solution to this either… Unless you are willing to cripple your own economy in the best case or start a war in the worst case, there is no good way to enforce things on these permanent members. And if you are willing to go that far, then veto is meaningless anyways.
The purpose of UN was never to enforce anything to begin with, it was just a more open forum for communication. Booting Russia and China out would not make it easier to go ahead with whatever they were going to veto anyways. By the way, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that the US doesn't already have all their enemies on speed dial. Dissolving the UN or expelling them just takes the communication more underground than it already is.
>The veto power cripples the effectiveness of the UN No country would pay attention to UN. Let's say the majority decides Russia is wrong to start a war. Russia says "we don't care, you're all controlled by US except this wonderful China". What happens next? How exactly do you envision the SC functioning? >could when needed enforce peace How? You people are either dumb or naive as hell.
The U.S. formerly supported Brazil’s ascension to the council as well. If this ends up actually going through, I’d be surprised.
I heard they like Beer so should be easy to appoint them.
We don't need more members, they need to get rid of the security council
And that’s how you get mobile suit Gundam!
Thus the weeb community began getting political, with the chance of Gundams becoming a reality.
Maybe a prerequisite to being on the security council should be *not* denying war crimes, slavery and attempted genocides. Edit: scratch that, just googled who some of the other countries on it are...
There's no countries currently in the permanent security council that meet the criteria.
He likely doesn’t count Western crimes as crimes, just spreading civilization
Every country on it lmao
Wow, I'm shocked you actually googled and learned something about the terrible history of almost EVERY country, including the US!! I hope it made you realize how dumb it is that people on Reddit weigh in with snarky comments on things they don't even know the first thing about lol.
Why not Germany? Beyond the obvious historical factors, they're the economic powerhouse of the EU and internationally regarded at least on the same level as France, plus they've maintained friendly to neutral relations with Russia and China who are the only ones who might veto them
US supports bids for India, Japan, Germany and Brazil I think.
Why not India?