The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) -- the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia -- have one thing in common, i.e., all of them are nuclear-capable countries. In this way, it would not be wrong to liken the United Nations to a nuclear club.
No doubt, many disagreements are visible in the thinking of the members of this club because of their regional interests. Because of privilege of veto, mutual differences emerge on a number of issues. And as every member country has a button of the destruction of the world, the possibility of any clash as a result of disagreement over any issue is making this world an insecure place.
No doubt, many disagreements are visible in the thinking of the members of this club because of their regional interests. Because of privilege of veto, mutual differences emerge on a number of issues. And as every member country has a button of the destruction of the world, the possibility of any clash as a result of disagreement over any issue is making this world an insecure place.
Lingering Problems of World
It is on the record that the right to veto has always increased the lingering problems of the world. Although the UNSC is an organization that should take decisions on most of the issues keeping in view international interests, the decisions taken on the basis of regional affairs, political conflicts, and interests of big powers have adversely affected the credibility of this forum.
The vetoes of United States and Russia on the Kashmir and Palestine issues in southwestern Asia are examples toward this end. Because of these decisions, the Kashmiri people have been deprived of their right to self-determination and Palestinians are the victims of the Israeli aggression even in their own country.
It is surprising that the permanent members of the UNSC do not seem to be willing with regard to accommodating any other country in their group. It would not be surprising if they were just indifferent to a backward country of the Third World on this issue, but a country like Japan is remonstrant of being ignored by these countries (five permanent UNSC members) in spite of his economic power.
Japan, which spends more than the fund, jointly allocated by Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China for the United Nations, is not considered eligible for the permanent seat of the United Nations, although Japan's permanent membership as a nonatomic, democratic country can boost the credibility of the Security Council's image in Asia and throughout the entire world.
Independent Thinking
Japan expressed its desire to join of the United Nations in 1952. However, it was formally given the UN membership in 1956, and ever since it has been seeking the permanent membership of the Security Council on permanent basis. Behind this desire is the Japan leadership thinking that they developed after the Second World War in order to remove the impression about the country with regard to the Second World War and Pacific War; the country's leadership wants to have an independent thinking about various issues of the world and to cooperate and participate in the resolution of the prevailing issues as a peace-loving country.
This natural desire of Japan is not inappropriate because it has a more moderate attitude when compared to other candidates for the Security Council permanent seat, including Germany, Brazil, and India.
In the past, Russia and China had been opposing Japan's permanent membership; it is due to the sour diplomatic relations between China and Japan in the past and the issue of Russian occupation of certain Japanese islands.
To this end, Japan has already presented a good formula, which calls for inclusion of two new members each from Asia and Africa, and one member each from Latin America and Europe in the Security Council.
In addition, Japan has also offered the option in the formula that the countries, nominated by the General Assembly by two-thirds votes, will be able to become permanent members of the Security Council.
Tangible Measures
In this respect, the double standard of the United States are also meaningful because it is Japan's ally on one hand and has set up military bases in Japan, while on the other, the United States avoids taking tangible measures and just gives a lip service to the issue of Japan's permanent membership issue. This is a deplorable aspect of the US policy.
The recent change in Japan's foreign policy with reference to the United States may convince the latter on some breakthrough to do something practical in this regard. Set aside political and diplomatic aspects, a moderate country like Japan -- which is the second largest donor of the United Nations voluntary operations throughout the world -- deserves to be given a permanent seat in the Security Council even on moral grounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment