Asia Summit 2015 - The Rising Sun: Japan's Resurgence in the Asia-Pacific Region
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnVFY4Bijn8
Asia Summit 2015 - Asias Future: Perspectives on Prospects and Challenges （SE Asia)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTLtFVGUQR8
The Incomparable Malala Yousafzai
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6Pz9V6LzcU
Exclusive! See the Full Version of Noah's Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBgf2U-VEX4
Editorial: UN should review veto power of UNSC permanent members
The United Nations General Assembly has convened its 70th Session. Seventy years have passed since the United Nations was officially founded on Oct. 24, 1945. General debate is set to begin on Sept. 28 with the attendance of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping and the leaders of other member countries. Although the United Nations has reached an important milestone, it has been pointed out that the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) is dysfunctional in its response to the civil war in Syria, the Ukrainian crisis and other international disputes.
The preamble of the U.N. Charter that was signed 70 years ago declared that the organization would endeavor to maintain world peace and security out of reflection on failures to prevent two world wars. "We the people of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind..."
If the United Nations intends to return to its starting point and strengthen its role, it is indispensable to reform the UNSC.
Intergovernmental Negotiations on U.N. Security Council Reform, which have been held since 2009, will also be held as part of the 70th session of the U.N. General Assembly. It is important to heighten the momentum for such reforms.
The number of U.N. member countries has increased from the initial 51 to 193. However, the UNSC carried out its own reforms only once in 1965 when it increased the number of non-permanent member countries from six to 10. Many countries, particularly developing countries, are dissatisfied with the UNSC, claiming that the composition of the council does not sufficiently represent all members' regions.
Calls for reform of the UNSC intensified following the end of the Cold War. In 2005, then U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan recommended reform measures. G4 nations --- Japan, Germany, India and Brazil -- attempted to put a reform plan to a vote at a U.N. General Assembly session with the goal of becoming permanent members of the UNSC, but the move failed because of opposition from the United States and China and other factors.
The G4 nations are still cooperating closely in their bids to obtain permanent membership on the UNSC. Many member countries support Japan's bid for permanent membership on the grounds that the country, which extends the second largest financial contributions to the United Nations next only to the United States, is qualified to be a permanent member. However, the United States, China, Russia and other countries are reluctant to see drastic reforms of the UNSC. The hurdle is high to amend the U.N. Charter. The United Nations has still been unable to delete the former enemy clauses, which were confirmed effectively dead at a U.N. General Assembly Session in 1995, from the charter. If the United Nations is to seriously aim to reform itself, the organization should review its methods.
In February this year, "The Elders," an international nongovernmental organization headed by Annan, announced its proposals on UNSC reform. In its proposals, the organization stated that it is difficult to understand why the UNSC is still dominated by five victor countries in World War II. We sympathize with its view.
The Elders proposed the addition of a new category of UNSC members who can serve a longer term than non-permanent members and can be re-elected, that the five permanent members be required to pledge not to use their vote power solely to protect their national interests and that behind-the-scene talks in the UNSC or in electing the U.N. secretary-general be abolished, among others.
The proposals are different from the G4 plan, but are a more realistic approach. Particular attention should be focused on the group's calls for restraint on the veto power granted only to the five permanent members of the UNSC -- the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia.
There are views that the veto power is a necessary evil to avoid a conflict of interests between the United Nations and major countries. However, critics point out that this power is the main factor behind the dysfunction of the UNSC. It is also problematic that the five permanent members can use their veto power not only against UNSC resolutions but also revisions to the U.N. Charter and electing the U.N. chief.
The United States has exercised its veto power against Israeli-related resolutions while China has done so to block resolutions regarding Taiwan. The UNSC finds it difficult to even hold discussions on international conflicts in which UNSC permanent members are deeply involved in, such as the Ukrainian crisis and the South China Sea issue.
China and Russia exercised their veto power four times to reject sanctions on the Syrian government of President Bashar Hafez al-Assad and other Syria-related resolutions. The Elders criticized the move saying that situations in which the UNSC cannot take any action even in cases where people are exposed to threats of malicious crimes, such as those in Syria, are intolerable. This thinking is reasonable.
The five permanent members are highly unlikely to agree to restraints on their vested interests. However, there are examples of successfully forming international opinion over themes that major countries such as the United States, China and Russia do not desire. They include the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines and the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It is possible to form international opinion urging the permanent members of the UNSC to have morals.
In 2016, an election will be held to pick the successor of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. It is only natural that there are intensifying calls for a review of its longstanding method of looking for candidates acceptable to all the five permanent members of the UNSC through repeated mock elections behind closed doors.
Japan joined the United Nations in December 1956 after the country resumed its diplomatic relations with the then Soviet Union. Tokyo has since not only contributed massive amounts of funds to the United Nations but also played an important role in peacekeeping operations in Cambodia, East Timor and other regions as well as in the promotion of the adoption of resolutions on nuclear disarmament as the only atomic-bombed country.
However, Japan no longer places emphasis on U.N. centrism, which Japan cited as the pillar of its diplomacy along with its cooperation with liberal countries and its role as a member of Asia, as the country now regards the Japan-U.S. alliance as the core of its diplomacy. The government of Prime Minister Abe appears to have chosen to lean further toward the United States following revisions to the guidelines for Japan-U.S. military cooperation and the enactment of security legislation.
"No country can defend itself alone," Abe repeatedly said in Diet deliberations on the security legislation. If so, his government should pursue a multilateral framework centering on the United Nations and cooperation with Asian countries, in addition to the Japan-U.S. alliance, to maintain peace.
Japan's 11th term as a non-permanent member of the UNSC begins next year. It will be a good opportunity for Japan to demonstrate the direction of UNSC reforms that the country envisions to the international community. If Japan is to show vision different from that of the United States, it would enhance member countries' trust in Japan and allow the country to increase its influence within the United Nations. September 24, 2015 (Mainichi Japan)
社説：国連創設７０年 拒否権のあり方見直せ
毎日新聞 2015年09月24日 02時30分
国連の第７０回総会が開幕した。１９４５年１０月２４日に正式発足して７０年。２８日からは安倍晋三首相やオバマ米大統領、習近平（しゅう・きんぺい）中国国家主席ら各国首脳が参加して一般討論演説が行われる。節目の年だが、シリア内戦やウクライナ危機などで安全保障理事会の機能不全が指摘される.
「われらの一生のうち２度まで言語に絶する悲哀を人類に与えた戦争の惨害から将来の世代を救う」。７０年前に調印された国連憲章前文は２度の世界大戦を防げなかった反省に立ち、国際的な平和と安全の維持に努めることを宣言した。
◇安保理改革は不可避だ
原点に立ち返って国連本来の役割を強化しようとするなら、安保理改革が不可欠だ。２００９年から行われている安保理改革に関する政府間交渉は７０回総会にも引き継がれる。改革の機運を高めることが必要だ。
国連加盟国は当初の５１カ国から１９３カ国に拡大したが、安保理は６５年に非常任理事国の数を６から１０に増やす改革が一度行われただけだ。途上国を中心に安保理の構成が加盟国全体の地域性を十分に代表していないとの不満が強い。
冷戦終結後、改革を求める声が高まり、０５年には当時のアナン国連事務総長が勧告を行った。日本、ドイツ、インド、ブラジルの４カ国グループ（Ｇ４）は常任理事国入りを目指して改革案の総会採決を狙ったが、米中の反対などで頓挫した。
Ｇ４はなお、共同歩調を取っている。国連分担金支出でも米国に次ぐ日本には常任理事国入りの資格があると支持する国は多いが、米中露などはなお大幅な改革に消極的だ。憲章改正のハードルは高く、９５年の国連総会で「死文化」が確認された旧敵国条項の削除も実現していない。真剣に改革を目指すなら戦術を再検討する時期かもしれない。
今年２月、アナン氏が議長を務める国際ＮＧＯ「エルダーズ（年配者たち）」が安保理改革の提言を発表した。「なぜ安保理がいまだに第二次世界大戦の戦勝国５カ国に支配されているのか、理解に苦しむ」。率直な指摘に共感する。
提言は▽非常任理事国よりも任期が長く、連続再選が可能な新たなカテゴリーの理事国枠を設ける▽常任理事国５カ国に自国の利益を守るためだけの目的で拒否権を行使しないなどの誓約を求める▽安保理協議や事務総長選びで密室協議をやめる－－などを盛り込んでいる。
Ｇ４案とは異なるが、より現実的なアプローチともいえる。注目されるのは米英仏中露の５常任理事国だけに与えられた特権である拒否権の制限を求めたことだ。
拒否権については国連と大国の利害衝突を避けるための必要悪との見方があるが、安保理の機能不全を生んでいる元凶との批判も根強い。安保理決議にとどまらず、憲章改正や事務総長選びなど拒否権の範囲が広いことも問題だ。
イスラエル関連の決議案に米国、台湾が絡んだ決議案には中国が拒否権を使った経緯があるし、ウクライナ危機や南シナ海問題のように常任理事国が当事者になれば、安保理での議論すら難しくなる。
シリア内戦では中露がアサド政権への制裁などに反対し、４度も拒否権を行使した。「シリアのように人々が凶悪犯罪の脅威にさらされている場合にも理事会が行動を起こせない事態があってはならない」というエルダーズの指摘はもっともだ。
◇日本の構想が問われる
常任理事国が既得権益の制限に簡単に応じるとは考えにくいが、米中露などの大国が望まないテーマで国際世論形成に成功した対人地雷禁止条約やクラスター爆弾禁止条約の例もある。常任理事国に大国としてのモラルを求める国際世論作りは不可能ではない。
来年には潘基文（バン・キムン）事務総長の後任を選ぶ選挙も実施される。密室で模擬投票を繰り返し、常任理事国全てが受け入れられる候補を探すという旧態依然とした選出方法の見直しを求める声が強まっているのも当然だ。
日本は日ソ国交回復後の５６年１２月に国連加盟を果たし、資金的な貢献はもちろん、カンボジア、東ティモールなどへの国連平和維持活動（ＰＫＯ）や唯一の被爆国としての核軍縮決議採択推進などに役割を果たしてきた。
しかし、加盟直後に「自由主義諸国との協調」「アジアの一員」とともに外交の柱に掲げた「国連中心主義」は日米同盟が外交の中心に位置づけられる中で強調されなくなった。安倍政権は日米ガイドラインの改定や安保法制整備でさらに米国に傾斜する選択をしたように見える。
「どの国も一国では平和を守ることができない」。安倍首相が安保法案審議で繰り返した言葉だが、そうならば、日米同盟だけでなく、国連を中心にした多国間の枠組みやアジア各国との協調の中で平和を維持する方策も模索すべきではないか。
日本は来年、１１回目の非常任理事国に就任する。日本が考える改革の方向性を国際社会にアピールするチャンスでもある。米国とは異なる日本独自のビジョンを示すことが各国の信頼を増し、国連での影響力を強化することにもつながるだろう。
