Will Japan finally attain a permanent spot on the Security Council? The nation obtained a rotating seat for the 2005 to 2006 term, and now it wants to stay. Permanent membership has become a priority for Japan. Its leaders have certainly presented a convincing case. In fact, many countries are demanding a reform of the UN’s most influential organ. Until January 2006, Japan united with a number of these nations, namely Germany, India, and Brazil, into an unlikely bloc referred to as the “Group of Four” (G4) and demanded a Security Council reform to establish them as permanent members, with veto rights. Yet Japan has now set off on a new course: rather than oppose an alternative plan offered by the African Union, it will consult with the United States while forming an individual case for membership.

The demands for reform have gained widespread support—many countries feel that the five permanent members, the P5, represent the power structure of 1945 that is no longer relevant. Among these calls for inclusion is Japan’s claim that its contributions to the United Nations and its increased role in peacekeeping operations merit recognition. Japan’s bid is supported by many South Asian nations, but it has drawn sharp criticism from its closest neighbors, China and the Koreas. Although the United States seems to approve of Japanese inclusion, US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton’s statements indicate a conservative stance on Security Council reform. The ultimate outcome of this diplomatic reshuffling could have dramatic implications for Japan, Asia, and the United Nations’ hope to be an effective international organization.

A restructured Security Council with a more accurate representation of the world order is not impossible. Japan, for all the controversy surrounding its bid, must be at the center of any effort. It has one of the strongest cases of any aspiring member and has been lobbying for the longest amount of time. Now, with fellow nation-states becoming serious about reform, Japan may finally have its chance to instigate change.

Reform: Past and Present

The topic of Security Council reform is hardly novel. The P5 nations—the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China—are the product of a post-World War II power configuration that is no longer relevant in the modern world. Many of the challenges faced by today’s United Nations originate in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. With nearly all veto power concentrated in the West, the legitimacy of the Security Council’s decisions is questionable. The Security Council, as it currently stands, is not properly configured for the 21st century.

It is no longer politically acceptable for veto power to be so asymmetrically apportioned, on either the East-West or the North-South axis. To date, the only precedents for Security Council membership change reflect differences in regime. There was a switch in 1971 when the People’s Republic of China was recognized as China and another in 1991 when the USSR was replaced with the Russian Federation. However, besides these changes, the Council essentially remains as it was in 1946.

As the United Nations approaches reform on an unprecedented scale, fundamental questions arise. What type of Security Council does the world need? Should it reflect economic, diplomatic, or military influence? And even if this issue is settled, and a Council reflecting the general balance of power is instituted, who should be included? A seat to represent the interests of the Islamic world has also been discussed, but this is even more controversial, and it is doubtful that current veto holders will approve. Various proposals for the Security Council’s reconstruction have been introduced, even by countries that are not seeking permanent membership. Italy, Mexico, Australia, and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) have each submitted plans. There is a trend toward increased regionalism, with suggestions for an EU-esque “European seat” or a permanent African seat with rotating membership. So far, however, individual countries have occupied UN attention—most notably the G4.

Beginning in 2005, the G4 countries individually made excellent cases for their inclusion: Germany is a major financial backer of the United Nations, Brazil is influential in under-represented South America, and India is both large and growing. The alliance between the nations was primarily one of convenience, as one would assume from their geopolitical dissimilarities. The complete G4 proposal was for six new permanent members (the G4 plus two African countries) and three new rotating memberships, bringing the total to 25. Initially, Japan was one of the bill’s most ardent promoters. Yet Japan will no longer sponsor the G4 proposal, forgoing it in favor of independent negotiation and possible support of the African Union’s initiative, the G4’s major competition during the last session. During the 59th Session, the G4 proposal was presented concurrently with a resolution sponsored by Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, and South Africa. (Nigeria is also promoting itself as a permanent candidate based on its population size and previous UN participation.) This proposal called for 26 total members and six new permanent seats with veto power, although specific countries have not yet been determined by the African Union, which will back the resolution. Meanwhile, Japan’s continuing relations with the G4 are not mutually exclusive with support of this proposal.

Japan in the United Nations

Japan’s importance to the United Nations, and the world community as a whole, has grown. At the time of the Security Council’s formation, imperial Japan had been thoroughly defeated. A period of occupation and reconstruction followed, and Japan did not join the United Nations until 1956. Currently, Japan holds one of the 10 rotating memberships on the UN Security Council. The term began in January 2005 and will last until December 2006, unless the Council is restructured. This is the eighth term that Japan, elected by its regional block, has served. This regularity of representation shows that Japan has maintained an active role in the Council since it became a UN member and that this role is sanctioned by the majority of the East Asian region. The only other non-permanent member to serve eight Security Council terms is Brazil.

However, it was the re-creation of the Japanese state and its subsequent “economic miracle” that brought Japan to the forefront of global politics. A “Pacific Century” did not occur as expected, and Japan’s economy faltered in the 1990s. Nonetheless, Japan remains a global power and provides crucial support to the United Nations. Japan is now second in absolute monetary contributions to the United Nations and has donated considerable amounts for Official Development Assistance. Japan’s budget contributions reflect a larger reality of increased diffusion in terms of monetary responsibility.