Time for a tea party
I think it’s time the Japanese held a tea party—and I don’t mean the kind in which kimono-clad women serve matcha to aesthetes admiring the ceramic bowls. I’m talking about a party in which the hosts dump the tea in the harbor to protest taxation without representation.
The Jiji Press is reporting that Japan will submit a proposal requiring all UN Security Council members to pay a minimum proportion of the UN budget. Though not a Security Council member, Japan will be responsible for 19.5% of the 2006 budget, second only to the United States’22% share. They may not be the tea party’s official hosts, but they’re certainly footing the bill.
In contrast, the combined share of permanent Security Council members Britain, China, France, and Russia is 15.3%. As the report (which I can’t find online) states:
A senior Foreign Ministry official said it makes no sense for countries with budget contributions of 1 percent or 2 percent to have vetoes while Japan does not.
This refers to China’s 2.1% share and Russia’s 1.1% share of the UN budget.
The proposal is unlikely to pass—China and Russia will see to that—but if I were setting Japanese policy, I might forget to put the check in the mail until either a realistic payment balance was achieved or Japan was given a Security Council seat.
The only reference I could find online was this UPI article, but it’s not as detailed as the Jiji Press account.
And while we’re talking about the Japanese developing a much-needed set of cojones in international affairs, it’s also worth mentioning that they apparently have told South Korea to take a hike when the latter country asked Japan to support Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon’s candidacy for UN Secretary General.
The Dong-A Ilbo of South Korea expressed the reason most succinctly:
It is believed that the strongest reason that the Japanese government declined to give an immediate agreement on supporting Ban is because Korea opposed Japan’s bid to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council last year.
I was going to write that it was surprising for South Korea to be so presumptuous as to ask for Japanese support for its own UN bid so soon after voting to scuttle Japan’s, but then I remembered that presumption is a hallmark of South Korean diplomacy.
Keep in mind that when the Chinese and South Koreans talk about the possibility of a resurgence of Japanese militarism, what really bothers them is Prime Minister Koizumi’s implementation of a new policy in which Japan stops turning the other cheek in international affairs.
I wonder if all that Japanese tea in New York’s East River next to UN headquarters would be a navigational hazard.
Japan should really just cut back its payments, pretty ridiculous that they pay that huge amount and don’t have a seat on the security council.
March 9th, 2006 at 6:38 amThe security council should be abolished anyway. Where’s the democracy in that?
March 9th, 2006 at 6:43 amYeah, let’s just ask them politely not to veto their own abolishment..
I really hope Japan asserts itself and just doesn’t pony up. It’d be interesting to just sit back and watch the fur start flying.
March 9th, 2006 at 8:01 amThe UN is a joke staffed by a corrupt bunch of pigs. Oil for Food. Peacekeeper sex scandals. I could go on, but it’s too discouraging. Send them home, convert the UN Headquarters building to condos.
March 9th, 2006 at 10:47 amDoes America still withhold 15% of its payments, as it did back in the 90s?
March 9th, 2006 at 1:53 pmWow, excellent observations as usual! Keep up the great work.
March 9th, 2006 at 2:33 pmIt does seem that the UN is becoming less and less useful. There was a time when it was needed in the world, but it’s a new world order today. Maybe it’s time to scrap the UN model and build a new one.
And give fair representation to all the nations that deserve it.
Tea party, good idea!
March 9th, 2006 at 4:41 pm[...] in South Korea, Japan
Over at Japundit, Ampontan discusses why Japan should forget to mail its check to the UN until either a “ [...]
March 9th, 2006 at 4:59 pm“Prime Minister Koizumi’s implementation of a new policy [...]”
What new policy is that?
March 9th, 2006 at 5:23 pmThe UN is a socialist, gun-banning piece of garbage. Also, weren’t China and Cuba on the human rights council or something like that?
Reading the part about South Korea gave me deja-vu, but I guess that’s because the politics of victimhood have been around so long there.
March 9th, 2006 at 5:29 pm‘presumption the hallmark of korean politics…’
yeah, like assumptions about wmds, greetings as liberators, and links to al quaeda, huh?
i’ve noticed you love to slam korea. just another western guy who found a date in japan, huh?
‘fear of japan resurgence…’
not because japan might not turn the other cheek but because japan’s leaders pay homage to war criminals. think about it.
pawikirogi
March 10th, 2006 at 4:10 amI don’t speak for Ampontan, but I’m responding to this anyway.
“yeah, like assumptions about wmds, greetings as liberators, and links to al quaeda, huh?”
I don’t recall anyone sticking up for the USA here.
Who wouldn’t want to slam Korea anyway? Nobody I know who’s been there had anything good to say about it. It’s a poor man’s Japan, which makes Korea’s pathological hatred of it ironic.
“japan’s leaders pay homage to war criminals”
It’s the paying homage to war criminals canard again. If you can’t see through Korea’s wallowing in victimhood to get what it wants, then I can get you a great deal on the Brooklyn Bridge.
March 10th, 2006 at 4:49 am“It’s the paying homage to war criminals canard again. If you can’t see through Korea’s wallowing in victimhood to get what it wants, then I can get you a great deal on the Brooklyn Bridge.”
that’s so true, paul. to add another point…i’m also sick of the jews playing off the holocaust…like, geez…get over it!
March 10th, 2006 at 6:15 ami’ve noticed you love to slam korea. just another western guy who found a date in japan, huh?
He’s probably lived in Japan longer that you’ve been alive.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:57 amHe’s probably lived in Japan longer that you’ve been alive.
:lol::lol: good rebuttal to the generic overly-used (and lame) remark about westerner being in a non-western country.
Come on, people lets try harder for better insults. I’m not amused! 
March 10th, 2006 at 10:43 amThe UN is a stale institution populated by whinging windbags.
March 10th, 2006 at 11:16 am“i’m also sick of the jews playing off the holocaust…like, geez…get over it!”
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
First of all, I don’t recall hearing much yapping from Jews about the holocaust lately. Perhaps they’re better at growing up and moving on than Korea. Secondly, playing the Hitler card basically announces that you have no real argument.
The longer a debate goes on, the more likely it becomes that one side will compare the other to Hitler or Nazis.
March 10th, 2006 at 11:47 amI thought this was a UN-bashing thread, not Korea-bashing..?
Hey Paul, specifically referring to Godwin’s Law in a thread is just as bad form as the initial Nazi comparison, you know that don’t you?
March 10th, 2006 at 12:41 pmYou guys must got stuck in the Far East for too long. Just last month, some British writer is sentenced to jail just for questioning the extend of the holocaust. Yet in Japan, certain politicians continues to diminish history. So what if Korean and Chinese remind them once in a while? Who are you to forgive Japan for them?
Also, that previous post didn’t mention Nazi or Hilter. So, technically Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply.
Since both Koreans and Jews are victims during WWII, comparison to Holocaust seems pretty legitimate to me.
But it is true that the Japanese is more forgiving cosidering that they did get nuked twice by US.
March 11th, 2006 at 2:25 amIf we believe that there was atrocity of Imperial Japan during the WW2, it is not good way to avoid discussing that matter and categorising it easily as the holocaust.
March 11th, 2006 at 5:22 am