Japan’s excessive reverence for the United Nations originates in a mistranslation of “United Nations.” This section explains how the UN is not a supranational authority but a forum for sovereign states pursuing their own interests, illustrated by Japan’s failed resolution on North Korean abductions.

This section analyzes how Japan’s perception of the United Nations was shaped by a linguistic misunderstanding.
The UN is not a supranational authority but a forum where sovereign states assert national interests.
Japan’s experience with the UN human rights system—particularly the failed 2003 resolution on North Korean abductions—demonstrates the limits of relying on the UN as a moral arbiter.
To be continued.

2017-06-27
What follows is a continuation of the previous chapter.
The starting point of such faith in the United Nations lay in a uniquely Japanese mistranslation of the organization’s name.
The original English name of the UN is United Nations.
It means a group of multiple nations united together.
The主体 of the term is, without exception, the nation-state.
Therefore, a literal translation would be “a union of nations” or “united states.”
Indeed, both in China and Taiwan, the UN is called “聯合国.”
However, the Japanese translation “国際連合” sounds as though it refers to a supranational organization reigning above individual states.
In reality, the UN is merely a place where sovereign states gather to hold discussions.
The principal actors are the individual states themselves.
It is not a “super organization” that compels nations into obedience.
Thus, the UN is nothing more than a stage operated by its member states, on which each country advances its own claims for its own convenience.
The UN Human Rights Council likewise functions as a venue for self-assertion and pursuit of national interest regarding human rights.
Countries with serious records of human rights repression—such as China, Vietnam, Cuba, and Iran—strive desperately to secure seats on the council.
By doing so, they attempt, from within, to prevent their own human rights abuses from being condemned.
Japan, too, has had bitter experiences with these UN human rights bodies.
In April 2003, when the organization was still called the UN Commission on Human Rights, the Japanese government submitted a resolution demanding the resolution of the abduction of Japanese citizens by North Korea.
North Korea’s human rights abuses were self-evident, and it seemed obvious that the UN, from the standpoint of human rights protection, would condemn the regime.
However, of the 53 member states on the commission, only about half—28 countries—voted in favor of the resolution.
China, Russia, Vietnam, Cuba, Malaysia, and ten other countries cast votes against it.
Fourteen countries, including India, Pakistan, and Thailand, abstained, while South Korea’s representative did not press the voting button and was deemed absent.
The reality of the UN’s approach to human rights is that even Japan’s long-cherished demand for resolution of the abduction issue failed to gain majority support.
Japan’s devotion to the United Nations can thus be described as one-sided love.
Moreover, corruption within the UN runs deep.
To be continued.