Why does Japan want to join UNSC?

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.