Japan’s Participation in the Working Group on Security Council Reform

  • Reinhard Drifte
Part of the St Antony’s Series book series (STANTS)


This chapter first provides a short overview of past attempts to reform the Security Council, followed by an analysis of the detailed positions which Japan has taken on Council reform in the working group on Security Council reform which began its work in January 1994.1 These various Security Council reform items can be roughly divided into issues related to equal representation on the Council (for example, scope of enlargement, veto right), membership qualification (for example, financial power) and working practices of the Council (for example, transparency). The final part deals with Japan’s efforts to promote its bid during 1997 which was considered the make-or-break year of Security Council reform. In order to provide a comparative perspective, Japan’s stance and activity in the Working Group are compared with Germany, the only other industrialized country having publicly declared its candidature for permanent Security Council membership.


Member State Security Council Japanese Government Foreign Minister Veto Power 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 6.
    Winrich Kühne and Katja Baumann, Reform des VN-Sicherheitsrats zum 50jährigen Jubiläum. Auswertung und Analyse der Stellungsnahmen der Mitgliedstaaten im Überblick (Reform of the Security Council on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. Evaluation and analysis of a survey of member states’ positions), Ebenhausen: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, July 1995, SWP-AP 2919, p.21.Google Scholar
  2. 7.
    Sam Daws, ‘Seeking seats, votes and vetoes’, The World Today, vol. 53, no. 10, October 1997, p.257.Google Scholar
  3. 9.
    The New York Times, 3 April 1945, p.3, quoted in James E. Todd, ‘The United Nations Security Council Part, 1 & 2’, PhD thesis, 1967 (University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, 1997), p.112.Google Scholar
  4. 14.
    Gundolf Fahl, Der UNO-Sicherheitsrat Analyse und Dokumentation nach dreißigjährigem Bestehen, Berlin: Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz, 1978, p.22.Google Scholar
  5. 16.
    Hanna Newcombe, ‘Reform of the U.N. Security Council’, Peace Research Reviews, vol. VIII, no. 3, May 1979, p.1.Google Scholar
  6. 36.
    Germany also referred in the working group discussion to its non-nuclear status. See, for example, Statement by Ambassador Tono Eitel 25 March 1996, in Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations (ed.), The UN reform. Reform of the Security Council. The German position. Statements and speeches held between 1994 and 1996, New York: Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations, 1996, p.60. This collection is referred to in the following as ‘Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations, 1996’.Google Scholar
  7. 51.
    UN documents GA Res. 2961 B (XXVII) 13 December 1972, quoted in Bruno Simma, (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994, p.310. Before that, the US paid around 40 per cent!Google Scholar
  8. 54.
    Jens Martens, ‘Aussitzen oder mitgestalten? Deutschland in der Debatte um die Reform der UNO’ (Hanging in or shaping the UN? Germany in the debate about UN reform), in UN-williges Deutschland. Der WEED-Report zur deutschen UNO-Politik, Bonn: Dietz Verlag, 1997, p.234. According to Ingo Winkelmann, the reason for this German position was above all the common EU position on financial reform which demands first US payment of its arrears and then a more equitable assessment ratio. Letter to the author 8 December 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 97.
    Japan Economic Research Institute (Nikkeicho) (ed.), United Nations reform and Japan, Tokyo: August 1994 (Chairman: Moroi Ken), p.9.Google Scholar
  10. 99.
    Barry O’Neill, ‘Power and satisfaction in the Security Council’, in Bruce Russett (ed.), The once and future Security Council, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1997, p.65.Google Scholar
  11. 139.
    G. R. Berridge, Return to the UN. UN diplomacy in regional conflicts, Houndmills: Macmillan, 1991, p.3Google Scholar
  12. 140.
    Berridge, quoting Sydney Bailey, The procedure of the UN Security Council, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, p.42.Google Scholar
  13. 167.
    Just before going into retirement, Germany’s UN ambassador Graf Rantzau criticized UN ambassador Albright’s arrogance towards the Third World and obstruction of Security Council reform. He accused the P5 of using the Security Council for national interest policies. See Thomas Schuler, ‘Profillose Mitläufer? Wie deutsche UN-Politik in New York gesehen wird’ (How German UN policy is viewed in New York), in UN-willinges Deutschland. Der WEED-Report zur deutschen UNO-Politik, Bonn: Dietz Verlag, 1997, p.249.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Reinhard Drifte 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reinhard Drifte
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Newcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations