Japan's unqualified and futile bid for UNSC permanent seat

Editor's note: Kong Qingjiang, a special commentator for CGTN, is the dean of the Academy for Foreign-related Rule of Law at China University of Political Science and Law. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Japan has long aspired to obtain a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). But despite its efforts, such voracity is doomed to fail. As China's permanent representative to the United Nations, Fu Cong recently addressed the UN General Assembly's plenary meeting on Security Council reform, stating that Japan is "totally unqualified" to do so.

Permanent membership of the UNSC has always attracted global attention and should be viewed objectively from multiple dimensions, including history, reality and international order. Whether a UN member state can have a permanent seat in the UNSC concerns not only its own political ambitions but also the maintenance of international justice, historical responsibility, and the post-war global order. The international community generally holds that permanent members of the UNSC should be countries that respect history, uphold peace, and assume international responsibilities, rather than those that rely solely on economic strength or diplomatic maneuvering.

In light of the above, Japan's pursuit of permanent membership of the UNSC represents a significant gap between its aspirations and the international community's general expectation of a responsible permanent member. Its permanent membership bid is also a deeply flawed aspiration that fundamentally contradicts the nation's historical record and current international conduct.

The UNSC, as established by Article 23 of the UN Charter, was not only envisioned as a platform for diplomatic dialogue and conflict resolution among nations, but bears primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security – a mandate that Japan has repeatedly demonstrated itself incapable of upholding.

Japan's historical baggage remains the most significant obstacle to its ambitions for permanent membership. It was Japan that launched a full-scale aggressive war and committed inhumane crimes in many Asian countries during World War II (WWII). It perpetrated dozens of large-scale massacres, which claimed the lives of dozens of millions of people (in China alone, 35 million casualties were recorded in the war).

Japan carried out colonial rule over Asian countries, engaged in biological warfare and chemical warfare, forcibly recruited "comfort women" and forced laborers and plundered resources wantonly. Its aggressive acts, which violated international law and human conscience, inflicted profound disasters on the people of Asian countries, left indelible historical trauma and were recorded as a dark page in the history of human civilization.

Since the end of WWII, Japan has never thoroughly addressed its war responsibilities, allowing the lingering specter of militarism to persist. Right-wing forces in Japan have long denied heinous crimes such as the Nanjing Massacre and the biological warfare and human experiments by Unit 731, and continued to promote a misguided view of WWII history by revising textbooks, visiting the Yasukuni Shrine honoring Class-A war criminals.

Furthermore, Japan has accelerated its military expansion in recent years, lifted the ban on collective self-defense and significantly increased its defense budget, in an attempt to hollow out its post-WWII pacifist constitution. Japan is already quite close to the abolishing of Article 9, the cornerstone of Japan's pacifist constitution, which restricts its military capabilities.

Disregard for and distortion of history, denying and even glorifying its history of aggression, not only makes it difficult for Japan to gain the trust of the international community but also serves as a constant reminder of Japan's unwillingness to confront its militarist past. Such actions, which deviate from historical justice, contradict the responsibility of permanent members of the UNSC to safeguard peace and justice and pose an intimidation to the human consciousness.

This failure to achieve genuine reconciliation with Japan's neighbors, particularly China and the Republic of Korea (ROK), creates a "missing link" in Northeast Asian peace and stability, as former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted.

Japan's recent actions further demonstrate its unsuitability for permanent membership of the UNSC. Its Prime Minister, Sanae Takaichi, has made erroneous remarks about Taiwan, arousing serious concern. Her claim that "a Taiwan contingency is a Japan contingency" implies possible military intervention in the Taiwan Straits. These remarks seriously interfere in China's internal affairs, violate the one-China principle and undermine regional peace and stability, thus trampling on fundamental norms of international law. Her remarks could deliver nothing but pose a serious challenge to the post-war international order.

By directly contradicting the UN Charter's principles of respecting state sovereignty and territorial integrity, the international community has ample reason to believe that Japan openly interferes in the internal affairs of other nations. It frequently provokes the core interests of neighboring countries and attempts to break its peace commitments, can in no way be entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining international peace and security, and is therefore not qualified to be a permanent member of the UNSC.

From a practical standpoint, Japan's bid for a UNSC permanent seat is doomed to be futile. Article 108 of the UN Charter reads "Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council."

Needless to say, if Japan were to become a permanent member of the UNSC, the UN Charter would have to be amended regarding the composition of the council. Such an amendment would only be possible when all the existing five permanent members of the council have reached consensus, among others. Both China and Russia have opposed Japan's permanent membership, effectively blocking any reform that would grant Japan a permanent seat.

Even in realpolitik, Germany, India and Brazil are also competing for a permanent membership of the UNSC. Moreover, the African Union, which represents about one-fourth of UN members, has its own competing proposal for the council, further complicating Japan's bid. Given its poor record concerning compliance with the Potsdam Declaration in the post-WWII era, Japan has shown no comparative advantage over its competitors.

For example, because of their attitudes and actions regarding their respective war liabilities from WWII, Japan lags far behind Germany in international image and relations with neighboring countries. Germany has always maintained a clear and sincere recognition of its war crimes. It has publicly and repeatedly acknowledged the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime, such as the Holocaust, and has never allowed any form of historical revisionism.

Japan, however, has a contradictory and ambiguous stance. While some Japanese government and political figures have made limited apologies, there has been a persistent instinct to downplay or even deny war crimes within the country. This includes revising history textbooks to whitewash aggressive acts and senior officials visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, which honors Class-A war criminals.

Also, Germany has taken concrete steps to make amends. It has paid massive reparations to Jewish victims and other affected countries and individuals. It has also established numerous memorials, such as the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin, and integrated the Holocaust into national school curricula to ensure historical memory is passed on.

In comparison, Japan has refused to provide formal state compensation to individual victims like "comfort women" and forced laborers, often shifting responsibility to private organizations. Memorials and education about Japan's aggressive history are also lacking or distorted in the country.

As a consequence, while Germany's proactive approach to addressing war liability has helped it gain widespread trust and integration into the international community, especially in Europe, and has become a key pillar of regional stability and cooperation, Japan's failure to adequately address its liability has strained its relations with neighboring countries. These historical disputes often resurface, hindering regional cooperation and casting doubt on Japan's commitment to peace.

Japan often boasts the scale of its economy, and its contribution to the UN. Yet it is worth recalling that as early as 2010, China has overtaken Japan as the second largest economy. Even a simple comparison of development assistance between Germany and Japan reveals a striking disparity.

Germany's development assistance is deeply rooted in its post-WWII introspection. It views aid as a moral obligation to compensate for the devastation caused by Nazi aggression, particularly in Europe, Africa and Jewish communities. This sense of historical obligation is reinforced by a commitment to liberal humanitarian values, such as poverty alleviation and sustainable development, aligned with EU norms.

By contrast, Japan's official development assistance (ODA) emerged partly as a substitute for formal war reparations. Over time, however, it evolved into a tool for geopolitical and economic goals. Securing access to key resource such as energy and minerals expanding markets for Japanese enterprises through tied aid that requires the use of Japanese technology, enhancing regional influence and counterbalancing other powers have all become central aims.

Moreover, unlike Germany, Japan avoids framing aid as a form of compensation for wartime atrocities, thereby sidestepping explicit acknowledgment of war guilt. Instead, it emphasizes "mutual benefit" and "economic cooperation," often using aid as a means to soften or redirect attention from unresolved historical disputes.

As a matter of fact, countries such as China, Russia and the DPRK clearly oppose Japan's bid for permanent membership of the UNSC, believing that Japan has not thoroughly accounted for its historical crimes and its tendencies of military expansion and acts of historical revisionism threaten regional security. The ROK also points out that Japan must first resolve historical issues and gain the trust of neighboring countries before considering permanent membership.

Needless to say, Japan's permanent membership bid is more about its own political ambitions than about its contribution to international peace and development. Its pursuit of permanent membership deviates from the original intention of the UNSC reform, which aims to enhance the representation of developing countries and improve the institution's authority and governance efficiency, rather than providing a platform for power-hungry countries to disrupt the international order.

Japan's pursuit of a permanent seat on the UNSC represents a contradiction between its stated aspirations and its actual conduct. A country that has yet to confront its wartime aggression fully, continues to interfere in the domestic affairs of others and lacks broad international support, cannot credibly claim readiness for such a position of global responsibility.

If Japan truly seeks to be regarded as a "normal country" by the international community, it must first address its historical obligations. This includes offering sincere apologies, providing appropriate compensation to victims and rectifying misguiding narratives in school textbooks that glorify past militarism. It must also renounce aspirations for military expansion, uphold the principles enshrined in its pacifist constitution and assist developing countries through practical actions rather than prioritizing its own interests. Only through such actions can Japan gain respect on the world stage, rather than fixating on the political goal of securing a permanent seat.

Ultimately, Japan should prioritize fulfilling its historical responsibilities and genuine adherence to the principles of the UN Charter before pursuing UNSC membership. Likewise, the international community must uphold fairness and ensure that the reform of the council aligns with the overarching goals of peace and development.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow@thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)