France backs Japan for permanent UNSC membership

International ^ | Tuesday March 02, 2004

[presidio9]

FUKUOKA, Japan: France supports Japan’s desire to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said here on Monday, also urging North Korea to abandon its nuclear programme.

"For France, Japan is naturally cut out to become a member of the Security Council," de Villepin said on his first visit to Japan since he took up the post of foreign minister in 2002.

This would be a reflection of the weight, the influence and responsibilities that Japan holds internationally, he said.

Japan wants to join the elite Security Council, which groups China, the United States, France, Britain and Russia, arguing its hefty UN dues have earned it the right.

Japan’s share of UN funding was last year set at 19.5 percent for 2004-2006, just behind 22 percent for the top contributor the United States. The other permanent members of the Security Council contribute less than 10 percent of the UN budget each.

Addressing several hundred students at Fukuoka’s Kyushu University, de Villepin also said Japan should work to persuade North Korea to drop its nuclear weapons programme. "The nuclearisation of the Korean peninsula threatens the strategic balance in the region, he said.

"We would like to see the rules of non-proliferation applied without exemption and are waiting for North Korea to undertake the complete, irreversible and verifiable dismantling of its nuclear programs," he said.

He said a lasting solution to the crisis over North Korea’s nuclear programme lay in the finding of a global set of rules that included security and economic assurances, particularly addressing countries’ energy needs.

[SolutionsOnly]

If France would like to give up its seat to Japan, I'm all for it!

[brothers4thID]

Ummm.. no.
That their reasoning is basically "We pay for it" is disgusting enough. Then there are the millions of WWII veterans around the world who will spontaneously vomit if this becomes reality.

But then, Russia and France are on the Security Council and a fat lot of good THEY are.

[truth_seeker]

"If France would like to give up its seat to Japan, I'm all for it!"

Patience. One step at a time.

India might be another good candidate, for permanent status (population).

[HolgerDansk]

Then there are the millions of WWII veterans around the world who will spontaneously vomit if this becomes reality.

Not really. Unlike France and Germany, Japan as a nation learned from the experience of WWII. Yes, they still act in their own national interest, but more often than not, in honorable ways. And decidedly unlike France, shame still has meaning in Japanese culture.

[ffusco]

The top 10 contributing nations to the UN budget and peacekeeping activities are the USA, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the UK, Russia, Canada, Spain and Brazil.

Japan, Germany, Italy, Canada, Spain and Brazil are not on the security council. Italy contributes more than 2 member nations.

[Diogenesis]

France should be demoted to the shi$$y country it is where the elderly fry in summer
and the elderly are murdered in HATE crime.

France -- give up your seat to Japan. Now go away.

[presidio9]

You forgot one:

[RonF]

Actually, I have no conceptual problem with Japan taking a seat in the Security Council. But while money is a factor, it's not the only one. A country that literally depends on other countries to fight its battles for it is not one that deserves a seat at the table. Let Japan form an Army and Navy and take responsibility for its share of the world's problems with not just its cash, but with its young men and women, and I'll go along with this. Money doesn't buy everything. Blood is sometimes necessary. Otherwise they're just rich kids. Not everything is for sale.

[GATOR NAVY]

A few things to note about the idea of Japan forming an Army and a Navy:

-Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution (which renounces the use of war) was imposed on the Japanese by the U.S. Not to say that many Japanese aren't perfectly happy with it now, but it wasn't their idea in the first place.

-Japan can't do anything that remotely looks like it's strengthening its military without the rest of Asia howling, especially the Chinese. Not that I care about the Chinese howling, but the Japanese do, and they will need a lot of support from us to help them tell the Chinese to go to hell.

-The Japanese are in fact starting to help in Iraq. It may not seem like much, but considering the vocal domestic opposition and the fact they haven't done anything like this before, it's probably as much as they can do at this time.

-The Self Defense Forces (especially the Maritime SDF) are an Army, Navy and Air Force except in name.

[RonF]

I'm well aware of Article 9 in the Japanese Constitution, the circumstances under which it was written, and Japan's agressive actions against its neighbors.

But Japan reputes to be a sovereign nation. And if they are to take their place among sovereign nations, then they need to act like one and take up their responsibilities. If they aren't going to be able to defend themselves and their own obligations, then they are an American protectorate and they don't deserve a seat in the Security Council.

I can well imagine that China and Korea have no desire to see Japan build up their armed forces. But that's their problem. If Japan did, then China and Korea would have to move some of their focus from us to Japan, which would benefit the U.S. And Japan would also have to spend some of their own resources on a military buildup, which would probably help us compete with them economically. And finally, we could then move the resources devoted to protecting Japan to somewhere else in the world where we need them, or bring them home.

I'd give Japan 5 years, and tell them that at the end of 5 years they should have primary responsibility for their own military needs. I imagine that Japan would decide that they need a real Navy and Air Force (not so much an Army) to defend themselves against Korea and China. The imperial days are over and done with; Japan's not going to invade either of their ancient foes. But why shouldn't China and Korea complain? Dealing with a new Japan would take resources they are otherwise free to direct elsewhere, and if they can stop that with mere words - well, I'd do it too. That doesn't mean that the U.S. should pay any attention.

[LonghornFreeper]

Yeah, lots of Revolutionary War vets must be turning in their graves since Britian is on the Security Council.