Author Topic: Japan to become permanent member of UN council? (Read 897 times)

Rolex · « **Reply #30 on:** September 24, 2004, 06:45:29 PM »

@mosgood: I agree about self interest.

@dead: I don't disagree about more vetos creating even less efficacy - if that is even possible. I'm an advocate of a complete change of charter and across-the-board restructuring, including rethinking veto power.

I'm also not an advocate for 'all things Japanese' but the non-apology issue is a non-issue. Japan has apologized many times and in many ways, but it is in the interest of China's policy makers to continue to foster this misconception.

Now, Yasukuni is a valid issue. Just to set the record straight for those who may not know, Yasukuni is not simply a memorial to Japan's war dead. If it were, then no visit would be controversial. You certainly don't see any foreign leader getting within 1,000 yards with a wreath in hand because Yaskuni is a thinly veiled monument to Japan's colonial glory. It is operated by a group that openly promotes a return to Japan's war-time political structure and pre-war, colonial aspirations with the emperor returned as head of state and elevated back to god status.

Mr. Koizumi's image is one of a reformer, but he is no real reformer. It is a very Japanese thing to view the outside image for what it appears to be (the tatemae), know the truth (the honne), but still maintain the facade of the image. Mr. Koizumi is a politician's politician.

How many politicians would heed the advice of his party and political backers to divorce his wife because she didn't want to actively campaign? She wanted to stay at home and raise their children, but Mr. Koizumi followed the party advice and divorced her many years ago when she was pregnant with their 3rd child. Getting elected was so important, that he has never seen, and refuses to even meet, the grown son.

Anyway, have to go. duty calls.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #31 on:** September 24, 2004, 07:32:09 PM »

Rolex thats the kind of insight I appreaciate. Thanks.

Do you have anything more to add?

Nash · « **Reply #32 on:** September 24, 2004, 07:34:33 PM »

"Do you have anything more to add?"

Going somewhere?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #33 on:** September 24, 2004, 07:35:05 PM »

Going somewhere? I dont get it Nash, what u mean?

Nash · « **Reply #34 on:** September 24, 2004, 07:38:15 PM »

"Do you have anything more to add?" is usually followed by storming out of the room.

Not that this pertains to your situation; just playin' off of what you said.

Hey, when you're shooting for comedy gold, not everything's going to work. Just the law of numbers. And you have to take some risks. The important thing is to keep trying.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #35 on:** September 24, 2004, 07:40:36 PM »

So I post this:

"Rolex thats the kind of insight I appreaciate. Thanks. Do you have anything more to add?"

And you infer that I'm upset? Man talk about comedy gold Nash...

Nash · « **Reply #36 on:** September 24, 2004, 07:43:47 PM »

Yes absolutely I infered that you were mad - because you disagreed.

Aint that how it works?

But seriously... no: was a joke gone awry.

Everybody calm down and retake your seats, the show will continue shortly.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #37 on:** September 24, 2004, 07:50:09 PM »

Why would I be mad if he disagrees with me? I didnt like the attidute he took initially and I asked him if he could provide more info. If he thinks I'm misinformed then I'd like for him to share his perspective and experience so I can add it to my views and understanding..

Sometimes I just dont get you nash...

Nash · « **Reply #38 on:** September 24, 2004, 08:07:52 PM »

lol - I agree... cuz you certainly aint getting me right now.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #39 on:** September 24, 2004, 08:11:14 PM »

Must be a language thing, eh?

Nash · « **Reply #40 on:** September 24, 2004, 08:12:49 PM »

Oh geeze eh!!?

JBA · « **Reply #41 on:** September 24, 2004, 08:59:08 PM »

thier constitution won't perment them to join. something about soliders sent to battle.

Torque · « **Reply #42 on:** September 24, 2004, 09:04:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -dead-
The UNSC should have absolutely no permanent members and no country should have a veto. This risible practice is probably the biggest cause of UNSC ineffectuality, and its disgracefully uneven enforcement of the UN charter.

Any country with a veto can act with impunity and break the very charter they're nominally enforcing. Giving more vetos and more permanent memberships just increases the number of countries the UN can do nothing about.

With the exception of France (who stuck strictly to the good old-fashioned imperialist goals of fighting to keep Africa and Indochina French), every veto-bearing member has invaded another country without provocation in direct contravention of the UN charter. You have to be in some seriously venal
company to have France turn out to be the most moral of the bunch.

None of them have been even been censured for these actions. Two permanent members are currently engaged in the contravention of the UN charter, according to UN Secretary General himself. Yet the UNSC is powerless to do anything. Indeed the two countries' justification for their breaking the UN charter is that the UNSC was rendered powerless to act by the veto powers of other permanent members.

So throwing more vetos at the problem is like putting out a fire with a bucket of alcohol.

It's wonderfully ironic to see some of the UN=ineffectual crowd clamouring to introduce measures to make it even more so.

Of course, if it get's left to the UNSC to decide, China will veto it, no doubt citing Japan's lack of apology for war crimes, and the curious habit that nice Mr Koizumi has of going off to honour the grave of Japan's very own Hitler - General Tojo - twice a year.

Well said, and oh so true.

Rolex · « **Reply #43 on:** September 25, 2004, 06:34:12 AM »

JDA: Yes, you are correct. But only because you are a normal person and not a weasel. Below is article 9 of the Japanese Constitution:
----------------------
Article 9
(1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.
(3) The right of aggression of the state will not be recognized.
-------------------------

To us normal folks, section (2) seems like pretty clear language, but to the government, being comprised mostly of weasels, as all governments are, have determined that this is very fuzzy language and open to interpretation.

So, they added the words Self Defense (SD) to all the military branches to create the JASDF (Japan Air Self Defense Force), JMSDF (Japan Maritime Self Defense Force), etc. and now maintain land, sea and air forces, but not really because the constitution doesn't allow it. Japan has the 4th largest military budget in the world, but not really since it's not allowed. See how easy that was?

It's all moot since the constitution will likely be changed shortly. Even if it isn't changed, the fuzzy language will allow it - assuming you look at it through weasel eyes.

GRUNHERZ: Unfortunately, a 14+ year data dump on Japan in this thread about the UN may be a little hard, and off topic. But, if you're interested in Japan (which most people are not) you can pick up my book at Amazon this coming spring (probably April). Assuming I can get away from AH and this BBS long enough to finish it on time...

lazs2 · « **Reply #44 on:** September 25, 2004, 09:05:06 AM »

yeah.... "fuzzy" language that needs to be interpreted.... sorta like kerrie and the 2nd Amendment over here.

lazs