Why does Japan want to join UNSC?

By Rizal Sukma

JAKARTA (JP): Recently, Japan has shown a greater willingness to be a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, which currently comprises of the United States, Russia, France, Britain and China. Japan's Foreign Minister, Yohei Kono, explicitly promised that his country is ready to assume full responsibility if it was admitted to the Security Council. Kono also stressed that, as a member of the Security Council, Japan would contribute positively to any efforts of international affairs.

There are two main questions that need to be answered. First, what is the rationale for Japan to become a member of the Security Council? Second, what are the benefits of Japan being a permanent member of the Security Council for the rest of Asia?

The first question is closely related to the increase in international demand to restructure the existing arrangements of the Security Council. It has been widely argued that the present structure of the Security Council reflects the distribution of power since the end of World War II. As the victors of the war, so the argument goes, it was a logical consequence for the five powers (including China when it was under Goumindang's rule and an ally to the allied Powers) to retain the right "to maintain peace" in the post-war world. In other words, the present structure of the Security Council is seen to be in line with the world's needs, as they were then.

Now that the world has undergone significant changes, not just due to the end of post-World War II global political structuring, but also due to the end of colonialism since mid-1960s. Demand by other emerging powers for restructuring the Security Council should reflect the existing reality of world politics.

The Security Council is no longer confined to dealing with the security and military issues of the Cold War. The end of the Cold War has shifted the main driving force of international relations from ideological-military rivalry to that of economic cooperation and competition. The eradication of poverty among great power has come to the top of the world agenda.

This task becomes even more delicate with the emergence of new, economic, related problems such as environmental degradation, disease, migration and refugees.

Therefore, it can be argued, if the Security Council members are supposed to consist of countries capable of dealing with global issues then they should also be capable of dealing with the problems identified above. The present members of the Security Council do not seem to possess such capabilities. For example, Russia, Britain and France are considered to be the waning powers. They are no longer qualified to be regarded as global powers, not to mention their capability in dealing with world issues on a global scale. But one should not ignore the fact that China is an emerging global power.

Based on this line of reasoning, the idea of restructuring the Security Council has found its course. It is also based on the fact that Japan, as a power ranking second only to the U.S. in economic terms, is definitely qualified to be a permanent member of the Security Council. Moreover, as argued by Tadahiro Oda, Japan "will have to become a permanent member of the Security Council if for no other reason than the fact that it is the only nation able to make monetary contributions to the Security Council." (Strait Times, Sept. 29, 1994).

However, reforming the UN Security Council is not an easy task. Although one can be convinced that Japan does have a strong case for the bid, it does not follow that Tokyo should be a permanent member by replacing one of the three fading powers in the Security Council. This is not a feasible option, although some analysts have put forward the idea that the membership of Britain and France can be replaced by some sort of joint membership of the European Union. Moreover, a replacement formula would definitely face strong resistance from the present members of the Security Council. In other words, expanding the membership is seen as a more acceptable option.

The next question to be considered then is: Would Japan's status as a permanent member of the Security Council contribute to the prosperity and stability in the Asia-Pacific region? This is a delicate question indeed. Some Asian leaders have expressed their support to the Japanese bid. For example, Tokyo has received support from Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and Singaporean Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong during Premier Murayama's visit to these countries. But Japan itself has not come up with a clear formulation of its own role once the country is admitted to the Security Council.

The other factor that should be considered is Japan's commitment to represent Asian interests in the international economic realm. No one in Asia would expect that instead of contributing to Asia's economic dynamism, Japan's new status as a permanent member of the Security Council would strengthen the Group of Seven (G-7) position in directing, shaping, and dictating global economy according to their own wishes and designs.

The decision to have Japan as a permanent member of the Security Council should be welcomed, not revoked, by China, South Korea and Southeast Asian countries. This would represent the interests of Asian nations in creating prosperity and promoting peace in the region. Japan should be able to convince these countries that it has no intention of making its membership to the Security Council a stepping stone to embark upon a greater plan of reviving itself as a global power in military terms.

In conclusion, it is up to Japan to formulate what role it should assume in the future.

The writer is a researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta.