＜prologue＞
I started a blog called “The Baby Boomer Generation’s Miscellaneous Blog”（Dankai-sedai no garakutatyou:団塊世代の我楽多（がらくた）帳） in July 2018, about a year before I fully retired. More than six years have passed since then, and the number of articles has increased considerably.
So, in order to make them accessible to people who don’t understand Japanese, I decided to translate my past articles into English and publish them.
It may sound a bit exaggerated, but I would like to make this my life’s work.
It should be noted that haiku and waka （Japanese short fixed form poems） are quite difficult to translate into English, so some parts are written in Japanese.
If you are interested in haiku or waka and would like to know more, please read introductory or specialized books on haiku or waka written in English.
I also write many articles about the Japanese language. I would be happy if these inspire more people to want to learn Japanese.
my blog’s URL:https://skawa68.com/
my X’s URL:団塊世代の我楽多帳（@historia49）さん / X
<added on 2/5/2020>
WHO Director-General Tedros’ “blatantly pro-China statements” about “novel coronavirus pneumonia” (COVID-19) are also of great concern.
＜「露骨な中国寄りの発言」＞
The current United Nations seems to be causing many problems for Japan, but in order to understand this, I think it is essential to look back at the history of the founding of the United Nations and to become familiar with the enemy state clause in the UN Charter, permanent members, veto power, UN dues, and peacekeeping operations.
What exactly is the United Nations? Generally speaking, the United Nations is an organization for international peace, with its headquarters in New York, USA. The permanent members of the Council are the five victorious countries of World War II: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China, and they have veto power.
However, I believe that the United Nations is, in the extreme, a “ money-eating monster ” organization that does nothing for Japan’s national interests.
This may seem like an outrageous idea, but let’s think about it step by step.
１．The history of the founding of the United Nations and the “enemy states clause”
The United Nations was originally established by the victorious nations of World War II (the Allied Powers). Therefore, Article 53 of the UN Charter stipulates that “in the event of an act of aggression by a nation that was on the side of the Axis powers in World War II (especially Japan and Germany), the victorious nations may take compulsory action without the approval of the Security Council, and Article 107 states that “the United Nations Charter shall not be binding on actions taken against former enemy nations.” In other words, “If you win, you’re the government; if you lose, you’re the enemy.”
These two articles and Article 77, which includes the word “enemy,” are known as the “Enemy Clause,” and although a resolution was adopted to delete them when the UN Charter is revised, 73 years after the war, they still have not been deleted. Although ratification by more than two-thirds of the member states, including the five permanent members of the UN Charter, is required to amend the Charter, there is no movement to actively amend the Charter.
On the contrary, the former Soviet Union cited Article 107 as the basis for its claim to the Northern Territories during negotiations for the Japan-Soviet Peace Treaty, and current Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov also frequently invokes the “enemy state clause.”
In 2012, China also made a completely baseless claim about the Senkaku Islands at the United Nations, saying, “A defeated country in World War II should not occupy the territory of a victorious country, China,” and raising an enemy clause.
２．The problem of “permanent members”
The five victorious nations (Allied Powers) of World War II, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China, have always been “permanent members” of the Security Council, and Japan has been a “non-permanent member” 12 times, but has never been a “permanent member.” Perhaps Japan will never be able to become a permanent member under the current United Nations organization.
３．The problem of veto power
The permanent members of the Security Council are given the outrageous privilege of veto power. This makes it difficult to call the Security Council a fair and democratic organization.
Therefore, in situations where there is conflict between the “liberal camp” including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France and the “communist camp” including Russia and China (recent resolutions for sanctions against North Korea and Syria), the “veto” is always exercised, and the sanctions are “failed.”
Therefore, the Security Council remains dysfunctional.
４．”UN contributions” are an excessive burden on Japan
Since the organization was originally established by the victorious nations of World War II (the Allied Powers), “UN contributions” are primarily borne by the five permanent members of the Security Council, and non-permanent countries such as Japan should only be required to contribute as a courtesy, like a “donation.”
However, in reality, the ranking of donors is as follows: 1st United States (22%), 2nd Japan (9.7%), 3rd China (7.9%), 4th Germany (6.4%), 5th France (4.8%), 6th United Kingdom (4.5%), 7th Brazil (3.8%), 8th Italy (3.7%), 9th Russia (3.1%), and 10th Canada (2.9%).
All the other permanent members of the Security Council, except for the United States, contribute less than Japan. Even China, the world’s second largest economy, is in third place, and Russia is in ninth place. It is clear at a glance how Japan is being forced to bear a “disproportionate burden.”
In addition, following the 2018 “Review of Contribution Ratios (reviewed every three years),” China, the world’s second largest economy, finally became the second largest contributor for the period from 2019 to 2021. However, until now China had been avoiding bearing its fair share of the burden by using the excuse that it is a “developing country.”
５．The meaninglessness of “PKO (peacekeeping operations)”
In reality, conflicts in each country or region should be resolved by each country or region. “Refugees” are often an issue, but this is a problem that should be dealt with by the country of origin of the refugees. However, the United Nations steps in under the guise of “for the sake of international peace,” “humanitarian issues,” and “humanitarian assistance.”
The United States is a country that possesses nuclear weapons and sees itself as the “world’s policeman,” and is engaged in a “struggle for hegemony” with Russia and China, which also possess nuclear weapons, so it is not surprising that it would embark on an international conflict.
However, the participation of the Self-Defense Forces in the United Nations’ “PKO (peacekeeping operations)” not only risks being caught up in fighting, but is also contrary to the Self-Defense Forces’ original mission in the first place.
Rather, the focus should be on defending against North Korean, Chinese, and South Korean fishing boats that have recently violated Japanese territorial waters and entered the EEZ near the Yamato Seamount and Musashi Seamount in the Sea of Japan.
６．The need to strengthen Japan’s territorial waters and land defense
In addition to the rampant activities of Chinese, Korean and Russian fishing boats in the Sea of Japan, China is sending warships around the Senkaku Islands and building a military airfield in the East China Sea. South Korea continues its illegal occupation of Takeshima. Russia is further strengthening its effective control over the Northern Territories(北方領土) and is proceeding with the construction of a military base there.
In this way, Japan’s neighboring countries are constantly threatening Japan’s territorial waters and land. This situation can be called a “modern Mongol invasion.”
There is a legal saying that “Those who sleep on their rights are not worthy of the protection of the law.” I believe that Japan has been “tolerant” and “avoiding making things worse” up until now, but the reality is that we have exceeded our “limits of tolerance.”
If Japan continues to tolerate the actions of lawless nations and does nothing, a tragedy could occur in which “territory is taken away” through “effective control.” (It may be better to say that it has already happened.)
In particular, Russia violated international law by breaking the Japan-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact (Japan-Soviet Neutrality Pact), invaded the Northern Territories from Manchuria, and has been illegally occupying them for 73 years. Russian buildings and military bases have been constructed in the Northern Territories, and many Russian immigrants and Chinese people work there.
Two seafood processing factories are being built on Kunashiri and Shikotan islands with large amounts of Chinese capital as part of a project led by the Russian government and the Sakhalin Oblast government.
Prime Minister Abe negotiated with the aim of “returning the two islands first.” However, Russia has made the incomprehensible claim that “we will return them, but sovereignty remains with Russia.” I hope that Japan does not end up “giving money to a thief,” where Russia only takes money in the name of economic cooperation.
７．Problems with the Japanese media and opposition parties
The Japanese media rarely raises the issue of “illegal acts” by Russia, China, or South Korea, or writes about them in articles. The same goes for the opposition parties.
Furthermore, they do not point out the problems of the UN as mentioned above. It is as if they have decided that the UN is on the side of justice, and they seem to think that “contributions to the UN” are a natural part of international cooperation.
The media and opposition parties seem to lack the perspective of “protecting Japan’s national interests.”
８．Japan would be better off gradually withdrawing from the United Nations
Although it would be difficult in reality, what about refusing to pay UN contributions? An organization with a Charter that treats Japan with hostility, and in which only the Allied Powers have the privilege of veto power, is an organization that is of no benefit to Japan. If it is not possible to reform the UN system to be favorable to Japan, I think it would be wise to consider withdrawing from the organization, even though it is an extreme example.
In October 2017, US President Donald Trump announced that the US would withdraw from UNESCO, citing “continued prejudice against Israel, an ally of the US”.
In 2014, the contribution rate of UNESCO member states was as follows: 1st place, the United States at 22.00%, 2nd place, Japan at 10.83%, 3rd place, Germany at 7.14%, 4th place, France at 5.59%, 5th place, United Kingdom at 5.14%, and 6th place, China at 5.14%, with Japan bearing an excessively large burden.
Japan should take advantage of the US withdrawal as an opportunity to negotiate a significant reduction in its contribution, even if it does not withdraw.
In addition, Japan should once again strongly urge the UN Human Rights Commission to “retract” its erroneous reports on “comfort women” (the “Coomaraswamy Report” and the “McDougall Report”), which were based on the erroneous information in the Asahi Shimbun’s “fabricated article.”