Should Japan be the permanent member of Security Council?
About this, I exceptionaly share the same opinion with Mr Koizumi.
I mean, Koizumi 10 years ago.
10 years ago, an organization was set up, whose aim was
"to stop Japan from dashing to be the permanent member of Security Council"
And Koizumi was the leader of this org.
http://www.asahi.com/column/funabashi/ja/TKY200407150169.html
Supposing Japan could be the permanent member, it'll be benefitial for Japan.
Not to say, the stronger political power and power of speech in the world.
But unfortunately, as Koizumi mentioned 10 years ago,
Japan doesn't have enough political power in the world.
and It is unlikely that Japan can play the same role as other 5 countries.
Japan has got the second largest economic power and share 20% of UN finance.
And this is why so many people insist of being the permanent member.
The world has changed greatly in this 10 years, but still Japan remains politically weak.
In other words, most of power rely on the US, and this is why japan shouldn't be the permanent member.
On the other hand, Germany gained stronger power after 1989, and thinking of being the permanent member, which Russia (and ironically Japan) supports so far.
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1432_A_1152465_1_A,00.html
In the last 10 years, Germany playedn great role.
Germany and France established the base of EU (ECSC).
Also its economic contrinution as well as Japan.
And ater the Iraq war, its power of speech increased as Germany opposed the US attack.
As for Japan, during the Iraq war, she insisted to cooperate the US, 'which is inevitable.
It still have difficulty in deeply cooperating with surrouding countries such as (North) Korea, China, South-East Asia (except economic cooperation).
Anyway, Koizumi also changed.
Now he doesn's seem to try to increase Japan's political power in the world.