PDA

View Full Version : Should Japan be granted a permanent seat on the Security Council?



Bluebird
10-04-2005, 16:35
Feelings are running high in Asia, at the moment. Japan is seeking a permenent seat on the Security Council. However, Japan's neigbours, notably S. Korea and China are fully and vehemently opposed to the idea and very notion of this step.

S. Korea and China state that Japan has not yet fully attoned to its wartime (WW2) atrocities, inflicted against them and their suffering, endured at the hands of their captors.

China and S. Korea state that Japan's textbooks of their accounts of the Second World War, merely gloss over, over what was and is in effect, the "Forgotten Holocaust" - the massacre's of thousands of civilians; men, women, and children, alike. Moreover, hunderds of Chinese women were forced into sex slavery, known as "Comfort Women."

I have to say, that as a British citizen, I do not recall the Japanse ever formally apologising for the way in which they treated the hundreds of British troops (as well as the ex-patriot men, women, and children, alike) captured, starved, and worked to death; on their transport projects in the Burmese jungles. Most notably the Bridge over the River Kwai.

The Chinese have started protesting loudly, with the Japanse Embassy, in China, being given a make-over, recently. The korean's are protesting at diplomatic levels.

Over 400,000 people have signed an on-line petition against this notion too.

I'm trying to understand what the Japanese have actually done, in the past sixty years - as contributors to world policing exercises - apart from send a token contingent of troops to Iraq, where they're doing diddly squat, anyway.

The Germans have more than attoned and publicly apologised...Japan should too. Anyone have views on this subject?

Should the Japanese have a permanent seat on the Security Council?

uninformed
10-04-2005, 17:23
Japan certainly qualifies as a developed country with a democratic system of government, a relatively free economy, freedom of religion, and one without great military ambitions. China fails on all of these points and should NOT be on the security council.

Bluebird
10-04-2005, 18:31
Originally posted by uninformed
Japan certainly qualifies as a developed country with a democratic system of government, a relatively free economy, freedom of religion, and one without great military ambitions. China fails on all of these points and should NOT be on the security council. Hmmm, the question was NOT about whether or not China should be on the Securty Conucil, but should Japan? And, whether or not China falls into the categories, you've mentioned, the fact remains that Japan's still never made formal apologies for the atrocties it committed, as an invading state, during WW.2.

The fact that Japan's a "developed" country's, lies in the fact that it was largely rebuilt, with American money and know how, after the Second World War, and let's not forget that fact. The other thing is...How many brave American soldiers and seamen died; in order for that to happen, in the first place? The Battle of the Pacific was one of the bloodiest and horrific battles of the that war. America's more than aplogised for the two A bombs dropped.

I'd like to see Japan do the same, rightful and honourable, thing too...Apologise and pay up compensation to the surviving relatives, of those who died, at the hands of the (now tamed) aggressor...As Germany has come to terms and attoned for its past aggressive actions; so too, should Japan.

trebor
10-04-2005, 19:34
Originally posted by Bluebird
..............As Germany has come to terms and attoned for its past aggressive actions..............

Bluebird,
the past should be left in the past. A policy of includement will help stop any repeat of past actions.
I can't see Japan ever apologising to China and why should they with their human rights record.
And as for Germany some of my relatives were killed in the blitz in London and my family has never recieved an apology let alone compensation!

Bluebird
10-04-2005, 20:54
Originally posted by trebor
Bluebird,
the past should be left in the past. A policy of includement will help stop any repeat of past actions.
I can't see Japan ever apologising to China and why should they with their human rights record.
And as for Germany some of my relatives were killed in the blitz in London and my family has never recieved an apology let alone compensation! Sorry, but I disagree, so were many of my family killed, during the Blitz - including on the front too...So, sorry, but I do not accept that old chestnut....

So, what you're saying, it's OK for me to smash someone in the face, for no apparent reason - walk away from it, and when the court case and criminal proceedings begin; then I can say...Ahh, it was all in the past, let's forget it, and carry on.

And, when I say that compensation's been or is being paid from Germany, I was obviously talking about the surviviors of the death camps and those who were (including many Russians) into forced labour, in their factories - incase that fact eluded you....Not those killed in action, and/or as a result of the Blitzkreig. Sorry, but innocents get killed and that's fact of war and that's a horrible fact of war, at that too.

Fact...Germany's apologised! Fact....Japan's never once said sorry, nor dipped into their pockets! And, until that happens, I for one do think that they are entitled to have a permanent seat on the Securitry Council...And, whatever the current political situation in China and S. Korea, I think that they have a right to say screw em, having that seat.

trebor
11-04-2005, 09:58
Originally posted by Bluebird
.............Sorry, but innocents get killed..................

Hitler or Hirrohito couldn't have put it better themselves.

joners66
11-04-2005, 09:59
and they bombed my Nans chip shop.........................

crom
11-04-2005, 10:11
Originally posted by Bluebird
.

Fact...Germany's apologised! Fact....Japan's never once said sorry, nor dipped into their pockets!

we now pay through the nose for german goods while japanese is cheaper. maybe their way of payback

Bluebird
11-04-2005, 16:21
Originally posted by trebor
Hitler or Hirrohito couldn't have put it better themselves. No comment to such a pathetic, personally insulting, and pedantic answer....Infact your answer's not even on topic and point of discussion. Better keep to yer stocks and shares....Perhaps you do a better job there, of keeping in line with what it's all about...:rolleyes::nerd:

APW
11-04-2005, 17:21
Bluebird

I guess the question can't really be answered without discussing the future structure of the UN. Does the organization want a security council that reprsents the whole world? In this case we should probably include some South American or African countries. If political power should be represented I also don't see why Japan must be included. But it makes sense to include them if economic power and therefore the donors of the organization want to have a bigger say.

Furthermore, as Japan is the biggest ally of the U.S. in the region, I guess the changes to be included are not too bad. What an apology for the past atrocities are concerned, it would be a noble gesture but don't think it will be the decisive factor for the current members of the security council.

trebor
11-04-2005, 18:32
Originally posted by Bluebird
No comment to such a pathetic, personally insulting, and pedantic answer....Infact your answer's not even on topic and point of discussion. Better keep to yer stocks and shares....Perhaps you do a better job there, of keeping in line with what it's all about...:rolleyes::nerd:

Bluebird,
Hitler and Hirrohito were to blame for starting a pointless war(s) in the first place.
So why do you write off the loss of innocent lives taken by both men so lightly?
I quote you:
"...............sorry. Innocents get killed.........."
If their respective wars had been justified your comments would have merit but they weren't and so they don't.
Okay, i'll still keep doing your thinking for you..................
If the wars wern't justified then why are the innocents not entitled to compensation as well.
Now i have spelt it out for you. Do you understand the implications of my statement?

PS. Why are you so sensative?

trebor
11-04-2005, 18:35
Originally posted by APW
Bluebird
Furthermore, as Japan is the biggest ally of the U.S. in the region, ..........................

Bigger than S. Korea? Who's very existance is down to the US?
I very much doubt it.

J.D.
11-04-2005, 18:39
Originally posted by Bluebird
captured, starved, and worked to death; on their transport projects in the Burmese jungles. Most notably the Bridge over the River Kwai.



I thought "Bridge over the River Kwai" was a work of fiction.
That being the case I guess Hollywood should apologise to Japan.

trebor
11-04-2005, 18:49
Originally posted by J.D.
I thought "Bridge over the River Kwai" was a work of fiction.

Its real enough JD.
I have been to see it. Its not far outside Bangkok.
In the film it looks very big but in real life its very small and hard to believe such controversy could surround such an insignificant bridge.
That's not to take away from all the atrocities the Japanese commited during the last world war.
But tell me a country which doesn't have blood on its hands?
The last world war was 60 years ago!
Why should todays peacefull Japanese be accountable for the actions of the forefathers? Especialy when they were made to suffer themselves to bring the war to a conclusion.
And, where do you draw the line? If they havn't apologised in 100 years time are they still omitted from the security council?
Let it go.......................get over it!

J.D.
11-04-2005, 18:53
Trebor, think about it now. At the end of the movie it was blown up.
Now are you absolutely sure you saw it?

J.D.
11-04-2005, 19:00
http://www.walkabouttravelgear.com/kwai.htm




The 1957 movie is fiction. In fact, the novel was written by the same author who wrote Planet of the Apes (actually first called "Monkey Planet"), Pierre Boulle. Oh, there is a bridge, and yes, Allied prisoners and forced local laborers built the Death Railway under horrific conditions. But The Bridge on the River Kwai is a concrete and steel structure, low to the water, nothing like in the film.


http://www.filmsite.org/bridge.html


[The film's story was loosely based on a true World War II incident, and the real-life character of Lieutenant Colonel Philip Toosey

trebor
11-04-2005, 19:05
Originally posted by J.D.
Trebor, think about it now. At the end of the movie it was blown up.
Now are you absolutely sure you saw it?

Absolutely JD.
can't vouch for what happens in the film although i do remeber i saw it once. But the bridge is there and a very popular excursion for tourists from Bangkok.

Bluebird
11-04-2005, 22:41
Originally posted by trebor
Bluebird,
Hitler and Hirrohito were to blame for starting a pointless war(s) in the first place.
So why do you write off the loss of innocent lives taken by both men so lightly?
I quote you:
"...............sorry. Innocents get killed.........."
If their respective wars had been justified your comments would have merit but they weren't and so they don't.
Okay, i'll still keep doing your thinking for you..................
If the wars wern't justified then why are the innocents not entitled to compensation as well.
Now i have spelt it out for you. Do you understand the implications of my statement?

PS. Why are you so sensative? Trebor, I'm kinda little bit upset that my comments have been alikened to those of (according to how I've interpreted your last comment(s) re: "Hitler and Hirohito.") I did state, that, that is a "horrible fact of war too."

And, with all due respect, I do not need anyone else to do my thinking for me either. My wife already does enough of that, without others' adding to it. And, here I'm being tougue in cheek - nothing personal.

As to why I'm sensitive....Cos, I've devloped a stinker of a cold, had to quit the office and a full day's work early, as a result, and had a splitting headache to boot....This man's in a bad mood...

Another reason is....We (both) went right off topic here.

:)

Bluebird
11-04-2005, 22:55
Originally posted by J.D.
http://www.walkabouttravelgear.com/kwai.htm




The 1957 movie is fiction. In fact, the novel was written by the same author who wrote Planet of the Apes (actually first called "Monkey Planet"), Pierre Boulle. Oh, there is a bridge, and yes, Allied prisoners and forced local laborers built the Death Railway under horrific conditions. But The Bridge on the River Kwai is a concrete and steel structure, low to the water, nothing like in the film.


http://www.filmsite.org/bridge.html


[The film's story was loosely based on a true World War II incident, and the real-life character of Lieutenant Colonel Philip Toosey JD Thanks for the great url's, but isn't this topic a little more than just Hollywood classics?

trebor
11-04-2005, 23:26
Originally posted by Bluebird
JD Thanks for the great url's, but isn't this topic a little more than just Hollywood classics?

Bluebird,
i think the discussion has probably run its course. Maybe there will be more additions later.
But rather than trying to dictate the EXACT confines of the discussion rather than let it evolve due to lack of other imput, it might be helpfull if you yourself added something to the debate based on what has been written or to elaborate on your original ideas.
Here's one that might help.
China isn't seriously critising Japan because of its reluctance to atone for atrocities commited 60 years ago. Surely?
With their history of internationaly recognised crimes?
Those demos in 3 major cities in China over the past few days went without very little intervention from the authoroties. Perhaps they were stage managed?
Pity the demonstrators in Tianamen Sq. about 15 years ago wern't treated so leaniently.
China and Japan now find themselves competing neck and neck as the major economic force in East Asia.
Its a political game, thats all.

J.D.
12-04-2005, 07:04
Originally posted by Bluebird
JD Thanks for the great url's, but isn't this topic a little more than just Hollywood classics?

Agreed
But the original post listed this Hollywood Classic as if it were gospel which it is not.
I do agree that such things did actually occur. In fact many times more Japanesses were executed for war crimes than Germans were.
Perhaps I should have let this point pass.

Bluebird
12-04-2005, 13:20
Originally posted by trebor
Bluebird,
i think the discussion has probably run its course. Maybe there will be more additions later.
But rather than trying to dictate the EXACT confines of the discussion rather than let it evolve due to lack of other imput, it might be helpfull if you yourself added something to the debate based on what has been written or to elaborate on your original ideas.
Here's one that might help.
China isn't seriously critising Japan because of its reluctance to atone for atrocities commited 60 years ago. Surely?
With their history of internationaly recognised crimes?
Those demos in 3 major cities in China over the past few days went without very little intervention from the authoroties. Perhaps they were stage managed?
Pity the demonstrators in Tianamen Sq. about 15 years ago wern't treated so leaniently.
China and Japan now find themselves competing neck and neck as the major economic force in East Asia.
Its a political game, thats all. Trebor, this time I thank you for your more constuctive critique, and I take on board the points you've made. When I'm feeling a little better, I'll try to address those observations....I'm off for a nap now, but I'll try to address things later. :)