The following is from today’s Sankei Shimbun editorial titled “Russia is not qualified for the permanent seat; PM Kishida must work on reform.
It is clear to everyone that Russia, which is invading Ukraine by trampling on the Charter of the United Nations and international law, is not suitable as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
The victorious nations of World War II and the five major nations of the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China, have the privilege of being a permanent member of the Security Council and the right to veto and are responsible for maintaining world peace and security.  
It became clear once again that such an idea was an illusion. 
In an online speech to the Japanese Diet, Ukrainian President Zelensky said, “In this war, international organizations did not function. The Security Council did not work either,” He called for Japanese leadership to create a “new preventive mechanism.”
The “peace of the five powers” is an illusion.　
It is an earnest appeal from a victim of aggression.
Japan must take it seriously and face up to the difficult task.　
The Security Council has primary responsibility for international peace and security and is the only UN body with authority to make decisions binding on member states.
It is, so to speak, the “keeper of the peace,” but it is powerless against the outrages of Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council.　
Immediately after the Russian invasion began, the Security Council attempted to adopt a resolution condemning the attack and violation of sovereignty and calling for the unconditional withdrawal of the Mouthasian forces. Still, it was “rejected” due to the opposition of a single Russian state with veto power.　
At this month’s meeting, Russia made wild claims that the U.S. is involved in developing biological weapons in Ukraine.
UN officials denied that they were aware of any plans, and the Western members of the Council responded by saying that Russia was lying.　
On the 23rd, a “humanitarian resolution” prepared by Russia on the situation in Ukraine was put to the vote.
It was rejected with only two countries in favor, Russia and China, and 13 abstentions.
The draft resolution did not mention any aggression by Russia.　
In the first place, Russia’s insistence that the invasion was a “special military operation” is incoherent.
The members of the Security Council said it was a waste of time.　
North Korea’s ballistic missile launches are all violations of Security Council resolutions.
But at the emergency meeting of the Security Council on August 25, Russia and China opposed the United States, which called for stricter sanctions against North Korea.　
Nothing has changed in the Security Council’s structure since the UN was founded in 1945, except that the number of non-permanent members, which serve two-year terms, has increased from six to 10.　
Reform of the Security Council would require a revision of the UN Charter. However, since the five major powers have substantial veto power over such a revision, some observers see it as tricky from the outset.　
However, we must not give up.
International public opinion calling for reform has been growing in light of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the dysfunction of the Security Council.　
The British Prime Minister’s spokesman’s statement that expelling Russia from the permanent membership of the Security Council is an option is a case in point.　
Face it; the Security Council is powerless against China as well.　
Security Council reform has been discussed so far, with proposals to expand the number of permanent and non-permanent members and place certain limits on the veto power of permanent members.　
First of all, it is worth considering the exclusion of Russia only.
For the exclusion of Russia, it may be possible to consider the inheritance of the former Soviet Union’s seat on the Security Council as a problem.
It is also necessary to abolish the former Enemy Clause, which discriminated against Japan, Germany, and other countries.　
Japan, which attaches great importance to UN diplomacy, has advocated reform of the Security Council and has been working with Germany, India, and Brazil in a “G4” framework to gain permanent membership on the Council.　
Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said at the House of Councilors Budget Committee that “We would like to continue our efforts to reform the Security Council in cooperation” about the situation in Ukraine. With France and other countries willing to reform, “and expressed his willingness.
Prime Minister Kishida also has four years and seven months of experience as a foreign minister.
I hope that he will make Security Council reform a priority for his administration and do his utmost to carry it through.　
China’s permanent seat on the Security Council is a primary concern for Japan’s security.
China has been building military bases on artificial islands in the South China Sea, disregarding international law and threatening Taiwan.　　These are not on the Security Council’s agenda because China is a permanent member with veto power like Russia.　
Even if a contingency were to occur in Japan or Taiwan, Japan must prepare that the Security Council, as it is now, would be completely ineffective, just as it was in dealing with the invasion of Ukraine.