Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, suggesting the U.N. Security Council needs to be reformed. (NHK)
© Japan TodayVoices
in
Japan
quote of the day
There's a need to increase the number of permanent and non-permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council to deal with increasing new challenges.
©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
8 Comments
Login to comment
FernGully
I agree with this, despite my opinions about the UN being ineffective. Japan and India should get permanent seats. Maybe Germany, too. They're first-world countries with large populations and influence.
nath
Inb4 Japan = US comment. Also China = Russia.
gaijinfo
I'll bet if Japan had a permanent seat, they'd believe the opposite.
dcog9065
Is there any real purpose of the security council? It's so divided at the moment that nothing could get passed. I'd prefer a more representational council with all UN members
Kaerimashita
Yes this should be changed. current seats represent the world as at end of WW2, lot has changed. although giving more seats and keeping veto will mean even less gets decided ar agreed.
TrevorPeace1
It's not the Security Council that needs to be reformed, it's the whole gravy-train institution that gives despots and dictators full membership, and allows them to attend the General Assembly and rant about the wickedness and depravity of more civilized countries than their own.
As for the Security Council, it's membership should be limited to the G-20 nations, NATO, and SEATO, and it's influence should not be limited by anyone's veto. Majority rule, split votes determined by the Secretary-General.
SamuraiBlue
Just revoke the Veto and the Enemy Clauses and it will regain it's original function.
Fadamor
I once heard a Corollary to Murphy's Law that went something like this:
With that in mind, and the fact that ANY Security Council member can veto any pending resolution, it would seem to me that MORE members would render the Council even more dis-functional than it already is.