Petition to stop Japan from joining UN

http://www.gainfo.org/Petition-Campaign/petition.asp

This is a petition to go against Japan's attempt to become a permanet member of the UN. I strongly implore you to sign up for this petition because when Japan becomes one of the UN members, they would be able to extend their power even further because now they gained an influence in the UN.

Japan has the 3rd largest economy in the world, maybe 2nd largest. They deserve to be on the security council. Then again, along those same lines, Brazil and India should be on there too. India is the world's largest democracy and a huge burgeoning economy, Brazil is the regional leader of SA and has quite a huge population and economy as well. Leaving the security council the way it is --a snap-shot of the world power structure at the end of world war 2-- is propagating an antequated system of power that will eventually lead to all those other nations who will rise over time to simply not use the UN to peacefully solve problems and eventually the UN will become defunct and abandoned.


Personally I think the whole SS permanent-seat structure should be restructured so that:
the Europeans get 1 seat
the US gets 1 seat
China gets 1 seat
Japan gets 1 seat
Brazil gets 1 seat
India gets 1 seat
the AU gets 1 seat(since there really isn't a single African country big enough, powerful enough or rich enough to merit a seat)


I would also do away with the veto and have it just straight majority vote.

just wanted to clarify the fact that japan is asking for 2 seats, and if it where for me id give them 1 or none.

japan should probably get a permanent seat seeing how they are the biggest donor to the UN and 2nd biggest economy (in decline however).

Russia should keep it seat and I agree that france and the UK should loose permanent seats and that seat be replaced by a common EU seat. (maybe rotate between eu countries or something)

then again the UN is pretty useless

this is bullshit, japan should TOTALLY get a permanent seat.

Why? What's so great about Japan?

money

Yeah DAMN right it is money! As #3 stated, Japan is donating the second most to the UN budget and they are not even on the Security Council. Moreover, the UN is making a fool out of Japan by still pursisting with the "enemy clause" from WWII in their Charter.
 
For those who don't know, the UN security council right now is: China, France, UK, US, and Russia. There is no Japan nor Germany in this list. The five major contributors to the U.N.'s regular budget are the United States, which pays 22 percent of the budget, Japan (19.5 percent), Germany (9.8 percent), France (6.5 percent) and Britain (5.5 percent). I am still suprised that Japan and Germany are still donating for YEARS with what bullshit they are getting from the UN.

Yeah DAMN right it is money! As #3 stated, Japan is donating the second most to the UN budget and they are not even on the Security Council. Moreover, the UN is making a fool out of Japan by still pursisting with the "enemy clause" from WWII in their Charter.
 
For those who don't know, the UN security council right now is: China, France, UK, US, and Russia. There is no Japan nor Germany in this list. The five major contributors to the U.N.'s regular budget are the United States, which pays 22 percent of the budget, Japan (19.5 percent), Germany (9.8 percent), France (6.5 percent) and Britain (5.5 percent). I am still suprised that Japan and Germany are still donating for YEARS with what bullshit they are getting from the UN.

cant we just drop a nuke on the UN? im sick of my country(USA) being used as its police force anyway. the UN is gotta be one of the worst idea's anyone has ever come up with

>>9
And I'm sick of people getting pissed off at the UN because it isn't a rubber stamp for whatever America wants.

I've literally never encountered an intelligent UN-basher. I don't think they exist.

>>10

Yeah. It irritates me that certain U.S. citizens are pleased as punch to have the UN Seal of Approval when they can get it, because it means 'legitimacy'... but the second they do or say something contrary to OUR INTERESTS they're a bunch of useless, godless liberal one-worlders who are trying to infringe on our God-given U.S. national sovreignty!

>>11
Heh. Yep. A lot of people seem to want it both ways. For UN resolutions to be treated like acts of God when they support US policy, and to be completely ignored when they don't support US policy. It was fucking hilarious to hear people talking about Saddam violating UN resolutions as a reason for going to war, and then practically in the same breath saying the UN opposition to the war was irrelevant.

I don't think the UN should be a straight democracy like >>1 suggests. We don't let criminals vote, and with good reason. An oppressive autocracy should not have equal power with a civil, democractic(ish) country. Choosing which is which would present problems, but yeah.

We don't let violent criminals vote, do we?

>>13
Woops, sorry I repeated myself.

Its funny how the US feels that the UN not joining in the Iraq invasion is a failure on the UN's part, while the rest of the world considers that to be a success on the UN's part!

The UN fucking fails because their members are sooo self-centered.  The UN is not really united as such. Each country is there of their own countries interest.

Look at the the opposition to iRaq war. The main opposition to it like France and Germany have their own personal interest in it. There was financial I think and also political. Political as in their citizens showed a strong protest to the war or stupid reason as "war is bad". The Islam nations protested (i think) because they had to back iRaq as their Islam nation brother.

>>16

Those are very serious allegations you're making.  Can you back them up with evidence?

>>16
WTF, are you an idiot? That's the entire point.

These sorts of problems used to be solved at the point of a gun. The UN is an attempt to solve conflicts of national interest in an organized forum. What, you thought membership in the UN suddenly made nations self-sacrificing little angels?

Some people are born stupid. Or is this a YHBT?

>>18

Those are very serious allegations you're making.  Can you back them up with evidence?

>>19

Those are very serious allegations you're making.  Can you back them up with evidence?

>>16

Find an example where the countries you bash were actually WRONG, 'kay?

>>21
Would taking bribes from a dictator in return for political favors in the U.N. be considered wrong? (http//www.telegraph.co.uk/...

a) The "bribe" was not accepted.

b) This is different from interest groups in other countries how?

It is my opinion that no country should surrender its sovreignity to an outside organization like the UN. Therefore, I think the UN is an absolutely terrible idea.

Is that reasonable enough?

>>24

Your opinion is wrong, strictly speaking.  The ultimate project of mankind is to develop a universal civic society which administers law among men.  This is one of the prerequisites to a perpetual peace.  Read Kant. 

Of course clearly we have nothing of the kind at present.  One of many presumable reasons why you say that a country ought not to surrender its sovereignty to a UN-type organization is that such an organization is composed of selfish, and often, frankly, morally inferior governments.  I do think the US's apprehension toward the UN is warranted in these circumstances. 

However, among the obstacles to be overcome on the road to a perpetual peace are religion and imperialism.  For how can we really boast of a perpetual law among men when there is always the possibility lurking in people's minds of a superior law of God?  So basically, on this long road toward the purported global stateform, we must have increasing secularism, a decline in cynical imperialism both territorial and cultural (the contradiction imposed by increasing secularism notwithstanding), and a greater appreciation for human rights.  Yes, it may in fact happen that any of these obstacles are insuperable.  I know.  But what I'M supposing is that after a lengthy period, we arrive at a state where each nation is somewhat secular, republican, and has a comprable distance from its human rights abuses.  Then, it becomes both possible and necessary for these nations, in a state of nature with respect to one another, to establish a 'legitimate' league of nations-with enough checks and balances built in to prevent exactly the sort of cynical abuses that any one nation might fear at the hands of others.

That said, it most probably happen that such an arrangement can never be realized-our shameful attachment to religion being foremost among the roadblocks.  However, no matter how cynical a person may be as to WHETHER a state of Earth can be achieved where human rights are respected and war is absolutely and in all circumstances precluded, almost everybody would assent that there OUGHT to be such an apparatus, or way of life, that defends humans in this way.  So all our politics tends in this direction.

First of all, I am one of those people who doesn't agree that there ought to be such an apparatus. Also, I despise Kant.

That aside, I think that politics should be based on realities and not fancies. If we fancy that things ought to be so nice, that there ought to be world peace / universally respected human rights / what have you, that is all well and good. But political science must deal with realities, not fancies. So I would say that it matters very much how cynical a person may be as to whether such an improbable state may be achieved.

A political system can have the best intentions in the world and still be a miserable failure for failing to deal with realities.

Mostly I'm saying that World Peace is highly improbable. As for Human Rights violations, I think that if a country has a problem with the way another country treats people, then the former country can gather a group of like minded nations for that specific purpose, or deal with it itself.

In this situation, it is not the selfishness individual members of the UN may or may not posess which concerns me. Rather, it is the lack of selfishness in joining such a body that I find anathema. The duty of a nation is to look after its own best interests, whatever it may percieve those interests to be. In surrendering, partially or in full, your sovreignity to a foreign body you give up in equal measure your power to look after your best interests - you are agreeing to place the desires of other nations before your own.

European countries against Iraq: France, Germany, Russia, Belgium, Sweden, Greece, Belarus.
European countries in favor of Iraq: Spain, Portugal, Italy, the UK, Denmark, Hungary, Polance, and the Czech Republic.
Helping --19.  Eastern europe doesn't want to support Russia or Germany.  Western Europe doesn't want to support France or Germany.  Except Sweden, who probably were just voting against the war on basis of national Soverignity.

Japan deserves a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. (They're not the only ones getting one.  India and Germany are two other favorites)  The new permanent seats do not have veto power.  The general assembly would take veto away from the Big 5 if they could, because it stops so many GA decisions.  On the other hand, it's been very effective so far in avoiding a total war.

Japan IS really powerful.  They have the second strongest economy in the world and the third largest military.  They pay the UN's bills.  They need constant representation on the security council, because almost anything happening in the world is going to directly effect them, either through the money the UN is going to spend on it, the aid Japan is goign to send by its own decision, or by the Japanese companies with interests abroad.

>>26
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think your position is inconsistent. Think carefully about what you have just said.

A state should only act in the interest of a state, right?Sometimes it is in the interest of a state to surrender some of its power, in return for certain other benefits.

Strange concept, I know, but look around you, it happens all the time. It's not just the UN, but the myriad treaties that bind many nations together. If accepting a binding treaty, or a position at the UN, wasn't a state interest, why would any state do so in the first place?

Besides, the UN is little more that a forum for discussion. Only the most deluded political scientist thinks otherwise.

Currenly in China there's a demonstration revoking Japan's right to be on the UN.  The reason being, Japan apparently refuses to claim damage done to China and much of the south eastern Asia during WWII.  Also, i'm not sure if this is propaganda, apparantly Japan have also been supporting Taiwan in their demands of independence for China. 

>>29
This is a lie. Japan acknowledged and apologized not once but 33 times for what they did in WW2.

I think the security council should include all large countries, the top 10 rich countries, and at least one representative of all major cultures of today and empires of the past. This is to say, UK, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Russia, India, China, Japan, Indonesia, USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, and probably more should all have a seat.

it's funny seeing how china opposes japan, when they themselves did probably 10 times as much damage to there own people. the chinese see the japanese as nothing more then escape goats.

>>30
The security council already has 15 members, 10 of which rotate by batches of five every year. But I'm guessing you mean more countries should be handed permanent seats, I which case what you propose poses many problems:

First of all, there should be a definition on what is a large country. A line will have to be drawn somewhere, but all hell will be broken loose by the countries that barely fail to reach that line. Also, some countries' population is declining, others' rising quickly -- should some countries give up their seats or new countries constantly admitted once they cross the line of size of population? I'll assure that no country will willingly give up a position they already have. Same thing with wealthiness -- would countries that fall out of the top10 have to give up the seat? I don't think such a system will ever be accepted.

But the biggest problem with admitting new countries to permanent positions, especially a large number of them, is that the whole structure of the Security Council would have to be reworked. The current system where every permanent member has a veto cannot be continued when there suddenly are 20+ permanent members. On the other hand, current SC members won't be happy to see the absolute veto power replaced with a, say 4/5 majority on decisions, cause again they'd give away some of theire power.

The recent proposition by the G4 -- Brazil, Japan, Germany and India -- that they'd forego the veto for 15 years is IMO somewhat short-sighted, cause in 15 years the SC would be 11 in size (current 5 + G4 + 2 more according to the reform plan) and with everyone having a veto I doubt they'd ever agree on anything. I think the best bet for reform would still everyone give up on the veto and have a 4/5 or even larger majority make decisions, but as long as influential countries like the US don't want to give up some of their power, nothing will move.

In principle I agree with the Security Council growing and including countries such as Japan and Germany, but as long as there's no reform in the system, there's no point.

Japan gaining a seat will just make it even harder for the UN to get anything done. Until the Security council is destroyed or dissolves, noone else should be included in these decisions.

>>33
Japan gaining a seat might make it harder just like any other country gaining a seat, don't forget this.

I think the major countries, cultures and regions of the world should all have seats in the security council, and any two of them vetoing should stop anything from being done, but they shouldn't be allowed to do this more than twice a year (and propositions shouldn't be repeated within a year).

I'd be happy the day all USA, Brazil, Spain, UK, France, Italy, Germany, Poland, South Africa, Russia, India, China, Japan, Indonesia, and Australia have seats.

We should all hold hands and sing 'heal the world'.

We should all realize the UN is the "United Nations", not the "Nations do what XYZ says".

You should realize that the security council is all about power and no one is going to give up power just because.

Exactly, if we have 30 nations in a SC and one of them doesn't like it for whatever reason and vetoes, NOTHING WILL EVER GET DONE. That's why we must wait for the UN to change or start a New World Order. HACK THE PLANET

YES. THe new world order! Hell Yeah. Captain Planet for president!

stop viet nam!!!!!!
viet nam isn a horrible evil country!

>>38
Of course, that's why, while expanding the security council to cover all major countries, powers, cultures, and regions, you should also make it so that a percentage of them have to veto to actually stop something.

Japan will just suck US cock anyway. Who would want two votes from the US instead of one.

>>42
I will take all the cute school girls, while you can take the rest, especially the male population, to pleasure your peewee.

>>42
I want the Japanese Empire back. No more cocksucking. More Japan.

The UN, as well as the world at large is a joke.

>>45

A joke that makes me LOL OUT LOUD every day anew!

bump

this thread = retarded.