Opinion - News Analysis   

China, Japan, and a new vision of the U.N.

P.S. Suryanarayana

CHINESE PRESIDENT Hu Jintao has navigated his country's participation in the United Nations summit held in New York from September 14 to 16 in a clear fashion. Mr. Hu exposed the dangers of the United States' unilateralism and showed up the urgency for multilateralism.

He defined the U.N.'s new role by seeking to uphold "the authority of the Security Council" and by emphasising the need to "steer economic globalisation" towards a "universally beneficial and win-win result." In tune with Beijing's larger agenda of "democratising" international institutions, Mr. Hu said: "We are ready to work with all other countries to make the 21st century truly the `century of development for all'."

Outlining China's proactive role in regard to security and development issues, he neither provoked the U.S. nor sparked a divisive debate.

Beijing's views, especially on the new anti-terror resolution adopted by the U.N. Security Council, acquire much importance on account of its status as the only permanent member from Asia. As was evident at the summit, the nuanced differences between China and like-minded countries, on the one side, and the U.S. as also the United Kingdom, on the other, serve as pointers to the challenges of collective action.

Equally in focus was "a vision of a new U.N." that was outlined by Japan, the other major player from East Asia and a pivotal fund-provider for the U.N. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi passionately called for a "caring, ... strong, ... and effective United Nations."

Now, while China and Japan are not on the same political wavelength on their bilateral front, their independent views about the future role of the U.N. have certainly not put them on a collision course. This is a significant reality check, given the failure of the Group of Four — Japan, India, Brazil, and Germany — to win the support of China (or, for that matter, the U.S.), at the time of the U.N. summit, for permanent Security Council seats for the four.

Gently but firmly pressing Tokyo's claim, while addressing the high-level plenary of the U.N. General Assembly, Mr. Koizumi said: "Japan is convinced that Security Council reform is a just cause for the international community — as is the deletion of long-obsolete `enemy state' clauses from the U.N. Charter." This was a reference to the origins of the U.N. at the end of the Second World War, and he said, "Japan is [now] ready to play a larger role as permanent member."

Japan and Brazil were the only G-4 countries to speak, as non-permanent members, during the Security Council's summit on the new anti-terror resolution. Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura, deputising for Mr. Koizumi, called for the chamber's reform so that it could "play a key role ... in addressing such global challenges as anti-terrorism and conflict-prevention in Africa." Given the format of the summit, there was no scope for in-depth exchanges among Mr. Hu, U.S. President George W. Bush and Britain's Tony Blair on their anti-terror prescriptions.

Mr. Bush emphasised that "we have a solemn obligation ... to attack terrorist networks.'' Mr. Blair maintained that "the root cause" of terrorism "is a doctrine of fanaticism" and not the perceived political grievances in the Islamic world. In contrast, Mr. Hu said that "coercive measures alone will not solve a problem once and for all," be it terrorism or the prevention of future conflicts. He pointed out that the Security Council "needs a rapid-response capacity" and "should address both the symptoms and the root causes of problems."

"To eliminate the breeding grounds of terrorism," Mr. Hu said, "it is essential to promote dialogue among civilisations and earnestly address ... poverty, ignorance and social injustice." From this, it was logical for him to envision "the century of development for all."

The development agenda is a non-controversial principle. However, China's critics argue that its defence of the "authority" of the Security Council, which is founded on the veto powers of existing permanent members, is incompatible with the plea for "democratisation" of international institutions.

Noteworthy in this context, though, are the views of Western China-specialists such as Andrew J. Nathan and Robert S. Ross that Beijing's role on the global stage is "not" likely to lead to "a hegemonic war" for domination.

On the other side, Wang Jisi, a well-known Chinese specialist on America, has drawn attention to the "concerns in Beijing that some of the U.S.' military moves [now] are aimed at containing China."

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

For a two-track response to naxalism
A way out of cable gridlock
Iran and the invention of a nuclear crisis
China, Japan, and a new vision of the U.N.
Some uncomfortable questions
A Prime Minister's road trip and after
Freedom of speech non-negotiable
Is the U.K. Government the obstacle?
Tackling naxalites
BJP matters
Musharraf vs. women
Investigate charge
Timely
Life term
Endless debate

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu