Japan Joins the UN, Still has Hurdles to Face in Living Up to Its Obligations
December 18th
On this day in 1947, the massive Zaibatsu, who ran the prewar and wartime economy of Japan (as well as, possibly, large parts of the government) were broken up by GHQ.
But also. . .
On this day in 1956, Japan’s membership in the United Nations was officially accepted. While Japan was already facing pressure from the US to renege on its Article 9 pledge to renounce war and its accoutrements, and there was no shortage of hostility against the country left over from World War II, Japan’s accession to the UN was apparently not hotly contested.
In order to join the UN, a country must be recommended by the Security Council, approved by the General Assembly, and agree to abide by the requirements of the United Nations Charter. Potential political obstacles to Japanese membership in the UN - mainly the objections of China or other victims of Japan’s wartime aggression - were rendered null by the San Francisco Treaty of 1952, which officially ended World War II. In it, its author, John Foster Dulles, included a clause requiring all signatories of the Treaty to not only not oppose Japan’s membership in the UN, but support and promote it. Chinese opposition was rendered moot by the facts that UN membership is decided by the General Assembly, not the UNSC, and that China’s seat, at the time, was held by the Republic of China, or Taiwan, not by the People’s Republic of China.
Japan’s membership in the UN was not only a part of the country’s postwar recovery and rise in international stature, but also in line with a turn towards greater independence in foreign policy after the pro-American Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida (grandfather of Taro Aso) lost his job, in part for supporting future Prime Minister and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Eisaku Sato after his arrest on charges of accepting bribes, and the Prime Ministership was won by the much more nationalistic Ichiro Hatoyama, who pardoned a number of Class A war criminals serving life sentences and was friendly with some who were never tried, such as Eisaku Sato’s older brother, Foreign Minister and future Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi, who was the father-in-law of Shintaro Abe and grandfather of Shinzo Abe. (Don’t you love how this all fits together? Kishi was adopted in the Roman style, hence the name difference with his brother. As TPR readers will have guessed, Ichiro Hatoyama was the grandfather of current pols DPJ Secretary General Yukio Hatoyama and Justice Minister Kunio Hatoyama.)
Anyway, the Occupation had ended four years earlier, Japan was run by people who were certainly not at all products of GHQ, and the country was looking to play a more active role in world affairs.
There would be headaches for Japan, though, as Japan’s Constitution would appear to put it in conflict with the UN Charter, which states:
Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
Oddly enough, the very clause that so obviously qualified Japan as a “peace-loving state,” Article 9, cast the country’s ability to live up to its obligations in doubt.
While Japan might be able to “accept the obligations contained in the present Charter,” its renunciation of the use of force as a means of settling disputes and of the maintenance of war materiel would make it difficult for the country to be “able and willing to carry out these obligations,” especially in light of the fact that said obligations include:
“All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter;”
and
“the Member of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security council in accordance with the present Charter.”
Hard to do all of that if you’re barred from maintaining the equipment your boys would need to fight and barred from sending your boys overseas to do so. And by 1956, with the Korean War having resulted in the deadlock along the 38th Parallel that persists to this day, there was no doubt that giving “the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes” and “agree[ing] to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security council” meant fighting against what would come to be called rogue states.
Despite Japan’s not being suited to taking on all that might be required of it, as early as 1973, less than a year after Okinawa was returned to Japanese sovereignty, thus ending the American occupation of Japanese territory, the ongoing push for a permanent Security Council seat for Japan began. The argument then, under soon-to-be disgraced Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka, as now was based on Japan’s economic might.
Being the second-largest contributor to the UN budget, and the resulting checkbook diplomacy, served Japan well until the first Gulf War, when Japan faced the first test of its international commitment - being called upon to play a role commensurate with its size and economic power - and balked. The meaning of this call - that Japan should send people, as well as money, was clear. Japan, though, couldn’t do it. It was embarrassing.
Many observers look at 1991’s embarrassment as a prime motivating factor behind the conspicuous renewal the quest begun by Japan in 1973: for a more assertive foreign policy crowned by a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Obstacles remain, though - Japan still has no permanent law on the dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces, although that’s slated for the upcoming ordinary Diet session. There’s also the larger specter of Constitutional reform. What to do with Article 9. This past Spring, in the last ordinary Diet session, the Abe administration managed to get a bill laying out the process of the necessary referendum passed, but there is still little agreement on what reform might look like.
Involvement in Peacekeeping Operations is not the only problem in Japan’s relationship with the UN, though. There’s still the fundamental issue of human rights.
The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees a number of rights which still lack the necessary legal recognition in Japan. To wit:
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Japan still has no law explicitly outlawing racial discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
Article 11-1 is particularly problematic for Japan. Japan’s criminal justice system is a joke. There are no reliable checks on law enforcement entities, trials serve to grant the requests of prosecutors, acquitals are almost unheard of, and the overwhelming majority of convictions are based on confessions obtained during secret, lengthy interrogations, usually without defense counsel present.
Relevant to all of the above are the cases of Osayuwamen Idubor, Mr. Valentine, or Mr. Ishikawa of the infamous Sayama case.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
The only meaningful protection against attacks on honor or reputation are meaningful, punitive slander and libel laws, which Japan does not have, often failing to enforce even the weak civil libel laws in place.
Article 23.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Words cannot express Japan’s consistent, intentional, and catastrophic failure on this front, especially as regards equality of the sexes.
_____________________
Japan is not alone in its shortcomings, but it has a long way to go, on most fronts, to meet its obligations to the UN, to which it is highly sympathetic and offers great material support.
Talking the talk, as former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and former Foreign Minister Taro Aso so proudly did on the 50th anniversary of Japan’s membership in the UN last December is not enough. It’s high time for an overdue walking of the walk.
2735Related Posts:
- Affiliates
- Seijigiri #3 - September 9, 2006 (Yasukuni Discussion, Part One)
- Interview with Debito Arudou on the Publication of the Handbook for Newcomers, Migrants and Immigrants
- Seijigiri #33: Fukuda leads to Koizumi leads to Abe leads to Fukuda (with Adam Richards)
- BizCast Japan #5: You Tube, Shareholder’s Meetings, and The Japan Hedge Fund Scene