Why the UN Cannot Defend Nations — The Veto Powers That Paralyze Global Security
Through Yano Yoshiaki’s analysis, this piece exposes the inherent limitations of Article 5 of the U.S.–Japan Security Treaty and the fundamental impotence of the UN Security Council, given that China and Russia are permanent members with veto power.
The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
Yano:
The wording in the recent joint statement — that “the Senkaku Islands are territories under the administration of Japan and fall within the scope of Article 5 of the U.S.–Japan Security Treaty,” and that the United States “opposes any unilateral action that seeks to undermine Japan’s administration of the Senkaku Islands” — is consistent with the statements made by Secretary of State Tillerson and Secretary of Defense Mattis, shows no change from the Obama administration era, and is nothing more than a continuation of previous policy.
We must not overlook the fact that the object of Article 5 is “territories under the administration of Japan,” and that the United States will respond “in accordance with its constitutional provisions and procedures,” meaning that it does not promise immediate and unconditional military support.
Japan must itself demonstrate, through its own capabilities, that the Senkaku Islands are under Japanese administration, and it remains unchanged that the dispatch of U.S. forces by the American president is constrained by the War Powers Resolution and ultimately requires approval by the U.S. Congress.
And the United Nations is nothing more than a symbol of powerlessness.
The clause in Article 5 stating that “such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the necessary steps to restore and maintain international peace and security” is nothing but empty words.
After all, China and Russia are permanent members of the Security Council (laughs).