Editor’s note: TPR’s Alex Pappas recently visited the Japanese Embassy of Canada in Ottawa to have a chat with Embassy Counselor Jun Yanagi concerning Japan’s role in global security, its place in the United Nations, and its bid to become a permanent member of that body’s Security Council. What follows is his report on that meeting.

In 2005 under the leadership of then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi Japan began its bid along with the countries of India, Germany and Brazil, for permanent seats on the UN Security Council. But good things as it is said do not come so easily to even those who are most eager. And Japan in particular has had a rather difficult run in convincing the world that it too deservers a seat at the round table of international power.

As it inches ever closer to realizing its goal of being a member of an organization that is charged with maintaining peace and security among nations, the country of the rising sun and its leaders are faced with the challenge of convincing the world of its worthiness and simultaneously charged with distancing itself from the uncomfortable memories of its old but not forgotten past.

A little bit of history; On January 17, 1946, the Security Council of the newly formed United Nations held its first meeting at Church House in London England. In attendance were the P5, or rather the Permanent Members of the Security Council who total five nations; France, England, The Soviet Union, the United States, and the Republic of China.

Ever since that inaugural meeting, the Council has held meetings in many cities all over the world although most are located at the UN Headquarters in New York City. And though short its history may be, even the powerful Security Council’s own founding members have seen the landscape of its own creation shift with the sands time.

In 1971 the General Assembly successfully voted to oust the representative of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and give in place a seat to the delegate from the People’s Republic of China (Communist China) dramatically shifting influence in the East.

In 1991 following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation delegation stepped in and took its seat at the council’s table shedding its discarded states such as the Ukraine for a more concentrated circle of power in Moscow.

It is important to note that during the conceiving of the Security Council, the hard fought battles of two world wars were still fresh in people’s minds. And so while the victorious allies of World War Two rebuilt international diplomacy some say as they saw fit, the nation of Japan was occupied and began rebuilding its shattered infrastructure and economy playing a game of economic cat and mouse with the rest of the world. And rebuild it did. “An economic miracle” is how history remembers it. Just 20 years after its crushing defeat, Japan indeed rebuilt and outsourced. It rose anew to become a hub of international business raising its gross national product (or GNP) and its national economy to the second highest in the world next to that of the United States.

Today the world is a very different place nearly unrecognizable when comparing the landscapes of old. Indeed the international community as well has undergone dramatic changes including two major wars in Asia, the start and end of a Cold War, decolonization and globalization.

“The current U.N. Security Council structure is very much a result of the world at the time of 1945” stated Jun Yanagi, Counselor to the Embassy of Japan in Canada who was kind enough to share a few minutes with me to talk about this topic for the purposes of writing this article.

“Since then the world has changed a lot. The number of UN Member States has increased and power has shifted a lot. So unless this Security Council is modernized to meet these new challenges, it may not continue to function effectively.”

Japan is putting its money where its mouth is. The country is the second largest contributor to the UN regular budgets paying as much as 19% of all assessed contributions in 2004 to 2006. In fact when looked at in graph form, it becomes immediately clear that Japan pays a higher percentage of the total U.N. budget then four out of the five permanent members combined. In fact Japan has been an elected member of the Security Council on a number of occasions, most recently serving in 2005-2006. But elected members server a maximum of two year terms and do not have the power of Veto, a negative vote that prevents adoption of a proposal unfavorable to that nation.

Image courtesy the Embassy of Japan in Canada. Click for full size version.

”In terms of substance, Japan is not only contributing financially but also increasingly to peace and stability for the last 15 years, in East Timor, Cambodia, Afghanistan, and so forth. One example is that for the last two years, 2005-2006, Japan was on the Security Council as a non-permanent member for two years. Our performance during these two years was highly appreciated by other countries,” Counselor Yanagi said.

But criticisms of the Security Council are not difficult to find. Some have even gone so far as to criticize its very existence. One such example that has been voiced is that the P5 have created an exclusive nuclear club, it’s detractors pointing out that the very nations charged with securing peace and stability in the world are themselves all confirmed nuclear powers with far too much self interest at heart.

Other nations have advocated abolishing the entire concept of permanency altogether. Canada under the government of Paul Martin advocated that very approach while Stephen Harper’s government has yet to address the issue publicly.

Still, Japan remains undaunted in its quest. Perhaps icing on the proverbial cake, it seems to me that a seat as a permanent member of the Security Council would add a bold exclamation mark to Japans national transformation from a member of the axis 60 years ago to a beacon of hope and a leader of peace around the world.

But there is stiff opposition to Japan’s bid. China, Pakistan, and South Korea have voiced concern if not outright disapproval. China perhaps the most vocal opponent in its opposition has seen its people demonstrate in the streets against the idea. According to the Industry Standard Publication, there have even been petitions with signatures numbering as much as 6.6 million individuals who are against Japans bid. Numbers it should be noted that could not be verified in time of the publication deadline of this article.

Opposition stems from several sources of frustration, the least of which could be said that currently China is the lone Asian country on the Council and conceivably would like to keep it that way. But perhaps just as potent, its continued anger over its occupation by the Japanese military during the 1930’s and 1940’s still lingers in its collective minds eye.

Additionally, official Chinese press reports spoke of disapproval with Japan when it and the United States jointly declared Taiwan as a mutual security concern and therefore sees Japan as a nation standing against its interests. It could veto any attempt in Japan’s quest for permanency thereby keeping Japan out.

But Counselor Yanagi is hopeful. He speaks with a soft but assured sense of hope in the future.

”If we have active support or no resistance from Washington and Beijing and a two-sided majority, we can achieve this… Easy to say difficult to do.”

All Permanent members of the Security Council have been involved in major conflicts and wars since its inception. Many of those conflicts have directly or indirectly involved each other. Vietnam, the Cold War, the Korean War… All three of which pitted P5 allies against each other. Perhaps this very fact alone is reason enough to include new blood.

Indeed many things have changed since the founding of the Security Council. But if the world is to entrust peace and stability to a council of nations, then it is reasonable that it should be entrusted to countries that have lived in peace, avoided conflict and donated precious resources to its very existence. And so the only question that is left to answer is if the establishment will warm to the idea of new blood being brought forward.

As everything, perhaps it is only a question of time.

© 2007 Alexander Pappas