Why is the world's second most productive country not allowed a seat on the UN Security Council?

Question

Seems to me that Japan was denied this when the UN was formed, although it was never at war with the UN, and its government, since the surrender on the USS Missouri, has never been at war with anybody.

North Korea and Communist China have waged war against the UN. And since there was never an Armistice signed, but only a cease-fire declared, they technically are still at war with the UN. It seems odd that they get such preferential treatment by the United Nations.

On the other hand, Israel, CREATED BY FIAT of the UN itself; is treated like a dirt bag, and the UN is unwilling to do anything useful to promote lasting peace in the region.

The biggest contributors to the UN have been the US, the UK, and Japan. Why do they insist on taking their citizens' hard-earned money and forking it over to a bunch of corrupt idiots who are hell-bent on sponsoring Authoritarian dictatorships?

Still waiting for answers on the old "Who's gonna get prosecuted in the oil-for-food bribes?" question.

Answer 1

First of all Japan can and has sat on the Security Council. Japan is not a PERMANENT member of the council. When the council was formed at the end of WW2 one of it's main purposes was to prevent a repeat of the circumstances that led to WW2. Japan and Germany were suddenly fledgling democracies, prevented by the terms of the surrender from remilitarizing. As such they would hardly have been effective members of a security council.
As for China's "preferential treatment". China was already a permanent member of the Security council at the onset of the Korean hostilities, and did not declare war on the United Nations (Korea was technically not a war).
Japan are now bidding for a permanent seat on the Security Council (as are Germany, Brazil and India). How this plays out is yet to be seen.

Answer 2

Japan, along with Germany are considered to be former enemy states within the meaning of Article 107 of the UN Charter. In order for either of them to achieve permanent member status on the Security Council, under Article 108 of the UN Charter, such membership would have to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly, ratified in accordance with heir respective constitutional processes by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Given that China is one of those permanent members and Japan has done little in the way of negotiating the reparations mentioned in Chapter Five of the Peace Treaty of 1951, I don't see China voting "Aye" on the question or having an "Aye" vote ratified by the Peoples' Congress.

Answer 3

The UN is a useless and impotent organization. Resolution after resolution and never backing them up when a country, like the former Iraq for instance, refuses to cooperate. I say get rid of them.