Galaril
03-09-2006, 10:07 AM
This was an intersting news item I came across in apopular japanese blog run by an expat:
3/9/2006
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.
Japundit (http://japundit.com/archives/2006/03/09/2083/)
3/9/2006
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.
Japundit (http://japundit.com/archives/2006/03/09/2083/)