The Japanese are drilling for gas in waters also claimed by China.
Japan began processing applications to let companies explore a disputed area of the East China Sea for natural gas — a decision China called a "provocation" in a disagreement that could imperil Tokyo's bid for a permanent U.N. Security Council seat.The Chinese are annoyed. But they are just lying if they claim this will cause them to oppose Japan's bid for a permanent UNSC seat. China was not disposed to allow this to happen and any excuse would do. Japan might as well drill away. Trying to appease their way to a permanent seat is not exactly a strategy worthy of a nation that deserves a permanent seat.
I have an idea. Enter into an agreement with Japan for a veto that is renewable every five years. We would agree that if Japan wants to veto something on the Security Council, all they have to do is publicly proclaim the veto and we will execute the veto in their name. Whether we agree or not. If we are happy enough for Japan to have their own veto, why not this method if China (or anybody else) opposes a Japanese permanent seat? What's the difference? If Japan had a permanent seat they could veto without our permission. Why not give it away voluntarily?
Not only will this tend to bind Japan and the US in alliance, but it will freak out the UN. Seeing the United States building a somewhat parallel structure to the UN as Japan and the US coordinate use of the veto will scare the UN that we will go further.
We could expand this type of agreement with nations that are democratic and responsible and friendly to us. Perhaps for some nations that are not global players could sign agreements that allow them to veto resolutions that apply to their region only. Perhaps Brazil could earn a Western Hemisphere veto. As this organization of nations that we have bilateral veto agreements with expands, we would create a forum where all these veto-worthy nations discuss issues. This could in effect become the League of Democracies that some want to create.
And this doesn't impact our veto power at all. When we want to veto something, we veto it. There would be no voting over the veto. But anybody with an agreement with us could exercise the veto within the agreed parameters. And as renewable veto agreements, we wouldn't have to worry about a nation going rogue. Not that we would veto their vetoes, but there is a difference between differences of opinion and nutball behavior. I imagine nations would exercise this proxy veto carefully.
The UN would go nuts over this.
