Japan Denied Security… In The Security Council

A clause submitted by Japan is currently being discussed in the Security Council – the clause requests the placement of the Iron Dome defence system along the Korean Demilitarized Zone and west coast of Japan in order to eliminate the threat of a nuclear or aerial attack in the DPRK.

The clause is immediately opposed by the delegate of China, who says:

“We are suspicious of Japan’s clause. North Korea feels threatened and provoked by the actions of neighboring countries. North Korea’s nuclear programme is their only mean of negotiation.” – China

The delegate of Sweden, Russia and the UK, state that this clause, if passed, would be a provocative gesture and could start a nuclear war. The delegate of Ukraine believes that this clause contradicts the purpose of the previous clause which refers to easing sanctions on the DPRK, and states that the borders with Korea are one of the most militarized zones. Another argument is that the Security Council is in place to protect the international community, and not just a select few – it seems that a few delegates are in denial that Japan is a part of the international community.

In retaliation to all the opposition, the delegate of the USA says in a short speech:

“We are dealing with an uncertain North Korea… A North Korea with an irrational leader and a North Korea with weapons of mass destruction. We cannot take our international security for granted. The placing of iron domes will ensure the security of these countries.”

With three of the five permanent members denouncing the clause and only one vocally supporting it, a P5 Caucus is held, where they collectively decided to abstain.

During voting, four delegates vote for, two delegates vote against and the rest abstain. China, who has already planned ahead, puts forth a motion to divide the house, meaning that all delegates have to vote either for or against. This lead to the delegates of China, France and the UK VETO-ing the clause and thus the clause does not pass. This is the third time the permanent five members in this year’s annual session — in comparison, the actual P5 have only exercised their VETO powers on 23 occasions from the beginning of the 21st century.

The P5 Caucus taking place outside the conference room