In political and economic terms, it is reasonable for Japan to
have a permanent seat. The seat holders for the security council is
based on a old system in which is reserved for the major victors of
world war two. 60 years later, we see that new political and
economic heavy weight surfaced while the influence of some of the
permanent members go down hill. If we will to continue to based the
security council on a old going-to-outdate system, stability wont
be governed optimumly.
We need political and economic heavy weights to be in the security
council. Their presence means that economic and political advises
can be given readily, actions can be done effectively. To be
honest, i see that Japan have more weight than Russia and France.
If thats the point, why shouldnt they be given a place in the
security council?
Singapore was elected without objection into the security council
as a non-perm member a few years ago because of the fact that our
political and economic weight is significant. We have to be
grateful that the world sees our importance and not our physical
and historical insignificances. Since we made it into the security
council because of wise judgement, why shouldnt we support another
country whom truely deserve the position?
Although Japan just surfaced from depression this year and China is
rising at a amazing pace, we cant say that Japan is falling. Japan
have the largest national reserve of a few trillion dollars far
ahead of the second runner up. Japan can be considered by far as a
small nation while at the same time, it holds the second most
technologically powerful and third largest in the world. It's
industries are substaining high annual growth, penetrating a wide
spread of markets and by far succeeding rivals by a distance in
terms of technology, innovation and quality.
The problem about Japan now is that it refuses to admit it's war
time atrocities. The world intepret their lack of remorse through
loud actions such as the historical whitewashings and it's
governmental visit to the yasukuni shrine. As japan is refuting any
allegations, germany on the other hand is officially taken up
responsibilities on it's historical wrong doings. The lack of
resonsibility in japan and the sincerity of germany made matter
worse.
To be honest and as i try not to be politically bias, i think that
it is a sin to deny the surfacing of historical truth. It is not
just politically wrong and not just an act of dishonesty, but i see
it as a sin. Denial of historical events is denial of historical
truth which is in turn can be considered as cheating and lying to
the mass public and your future generation. Historical facts are
there for which lessons are to be drawn. Lessons drawn are to
enlight our future generation and it is through this perpentual
enlightenment that we humans became a better entity. It is lessons
from history that taught us to work, to love, to trade and to fight
together. It is from simple sentences in our history text books
that lead to major decisions made which benefit the life of people
somewhere on earth. All in all, cheating truth, denying the facts,
lying to your future generation is nothing but a sin.
Mr Lee is being pragmatic in his support of Japan's bid for a
permanent seat. I see no fault in it. He also made a gentle but
clear comment that Asians are uncomfortable with Japan's action
towards historic-irresponsibility. He also brought up Germany as a
role model in this case. I dont know how China would react but on
how China should reaction, in my opinion, is to say nothing or at
least dont be in a position to condemm Singapore. Why?
Japan's seat in UN will not affect China's position in global
leadership in any significant extent. While the world sees that
Japan is important, the world wont be dumb to treat china is a sick
dragon. Would the world not heed or at least listen to the chinese
opinion? I dont think so. The problem about Japan is that, it is
highly possible that she will be an american loyalist. However as
we know that decisions in the security council are frequently
influenced by america and even if it is not so, nothing can stop
america's foreign policy, i dont see how would it worsen China's
position. In another words, with or without Japan, US still have a
comparative advantage in the council.
For many years to come, North korea will still be a East Asia
security pandora box. The situation in north korea is commune to
East asia and the pacific rim stability. China and Japan share a
common objective in which is a disarmed north korea is a national
interest. I strongly believe the security council will put in more
efforts to stablised the region as Japan sees the korean crisis as
a national piority as well as a global interest. Japan and China
can influence US to step down alittle while she add on more to the
affair. This will ease the uneasiness of uncertainity behind the
questioned motive of US pushing for a disarmed north korea which
hindered many advancement.
The Chinese word for crisis is 'wei ji'. While 'wei' is for danger,
'ji' is for opportunity. Japan's seat in UN could very possibly be
a danger but if the Chinese and the Japanese will to understand
their mutual importance, work towards unity and stability, the
Japanese entry can well be seen as an opportunity for China and
Japan to work towards many common goals. The entry of Japan can be
seen as giving the world an opportunity to be much more
stable.
All these, the interest of China.
