> De : Julia Thompson [mailto:julia@;zurg.net] > > > I haven't been reading the WSJ editorial page much recently, but my > > > husband has, and he's seen a fair bit of the following as of late: > > > > > >1) Arguments that France shouldn't be a permanent member of the UN > > >Security Council. > > > > > >2) Arguments for a somewhat new set of permanent UNSC members: US, > > >Russia, China, India and Japan. Jean-Louis Couturier wrote: >> How is Japan more important than the EU, especially security wise?
De : Julia Thompson [mailto:julia@;zurg.net] > I think the argument went along the lines of, no *single* European > country has an economy as big as Japan's. (As I say, I haven't read the > columns, just heard about them from my husband.) Population has > something to do with the criteria, as well. That would be good argument for the WSJ where is it isn't the economy, it doesn't matter, but I think the Security Council is more about military might and conflict mediation. Japan has neither the troops to qualifiy for the first, nor the inclination to use its political influence to qualify for the last. Jean-Louis I get mixed up with latter and former. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
