Multinational Framework at a Crossroads and Japan’s Policy
YOSHIKAWA Motohide / Distinguished Professor, International Christian University, Former Ambassador of Japan to the United Nations
July 22, 2022
Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine that began on February 24, 2022, the United Nations Security Council (Security Council) has been criticised as being dysfunctional. This article aims to outline how multinational frameworks, including the United Nations, responded to the crisis in Ukraine and discuss the measures Japan should take.
The existing multinational frameworks can be classified into two categories. One is a universal international organisation which is open to all the countries of the world regardless of their political ideologies and systems, of which the UN is a typical example. The other one is an international organisation or a forum composed of like-minded countries. For example, the members of the G7 and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), which include Japan, share the values of democracy and respect for human rights. The NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation), of which Japan is not a member, is another example.
How did these multinational frameworks respond to the Ukrainian crisis? Let us first review the actions taken by the first group, the universal international organisations.
After a Security Council draft resolution calling on Russia to withdraw immediately from Ukraine was buried by a Russian veto on February 25, the UN General Assembly held an emergency special session right away. On March 2, a resolution recognising Russia’s actions as a violation of the UN Charter and calling for its immediate withdrawal was adopted by an overwhelming majority of 141 votes out of 193 UN member states. Although General Assembly resolutions do not have a binding force, they can demonstrate the public opinion in the international community.
The General Assembly resolution at the time of the Russian invasion in Crimea in 2014, which did not even point fingers at Russia, was adopted by only 100 votes in favour with many countries abstaining. As Japan’s Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, the author lobbied other ambassadors, especially from Asia-Pacific, to vote in favour, but only 22 out of 54 Asia-Pacific countries supported the resolution. This time, the yes votes from the region increased to 37.
On April 7, at an emergency special session, the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution to suspend Russia’s membership of the Human Rights Council, with 93 votes in favour. This figure was much lower than 141, the number of votes in favour for the resolution adopted on March 2. Especially in Asia and Africa, the number of yes votes decreased by 60 %.
According to the Office of the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), since the Russian invasion, more than 9 million of Ukrainian’s population of about 40 million people have fled to the neighbouring countries and the number of the internally displaced is estimated to exceed 6 million (as of July 13). The UN plays a central role in the relief efforts for these people.
On March 16, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judicial branch of the UN, issued an order to Russia to halt its military operation immediately. The ICJ’s order is binding, but Russia is ignoring it. Unlike domestic courts of a country, the ICJ does not have the means to enforce its orders. It is noted that the two judges who opposed to the issuance of the order were from Russia and China.
In the meantime, the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has 123 member states and territories, acted swiftly. An investigation started in March and the chief prosecutor entered the massacre site of Bucha in April. While the ICC may be able to investigate and prosecute the war crimes in the future, Russia is not a member of the ICC and it will not be easy to make arrests and bring cases to trials. However, there is no statute of limitation for crimes handled by the ICC. As Japan is the biggest contributor to the ICC, it is hoped that Japan also makes a human resource contribution, such as dispatching investigators.
The military and economic responses to Russia were led by the G7 and the NATO which are the second group of multinational frameworks. Although the United States warned Russia that it would impose stringent economic sanctions if Russia took military actions, the deterrence did not work. Some said that the fact that the US statement that it had no intention of fighting Russia was a reason why the deterrence did not work. However, the US and G7 moved quickly after the invasion. On the day of the invasion, the G7 issued a joint statement condemning Russia and imposed strong economic sanctions. Japan also coordinated with the G7 to join the sanctions. The G7 is leading economic assistance to Ukraine as well.
Ukraine has been fighting, beyond earlier expectations, against the major offensive by Russia, one of the largest military powers of the world. This is due to the dedication and bravery of the Ukrainian people in defence of their homeland, as well as the massive military support provided by the NATO members, led by the US.
In light of the above, the following points can be made concerning Japan’s policy.
Japan is required to strengthen and expand its framework with countries that share the values. The G7 started with the goal of coordinating economic policies among developed countries, but now it coordinates responses to international political issues. It is an important forum for Japan, since it cannot occupy a seat at the Security Council on a permanent basis. Japan is expected to play a leading role in the G7 as it holds the Presidency in 2023. Japan’s active participation in the Quad (Japan, US, Australia and India) is a welcome development.
The UN is still important. UN decisions have legitimacy. The Security Council’s authority to make legally binding decisions is particularly significant. Japan, which will serve as a non-permanent member of the Security Council for the 12th time from January 2023, can demonstrate what Japan can contribute to the peace and security of the world. The North Korean nuclear development is a case in point. Japan should also continue to take the initiative on the reform of the Security Council.
Even though the Security Council is dysfunctional, the General Assembly can bring together the voices of the international community. From the author’s personal experience, however, many countries are reluctant to express their views at the UN. Even though the case is a clear violation of the UN Charter, they believe that it is in their national interest to keep their positions ambiguous.
As the Ukraine crisis indicates, in times of crisis, the countries with which Japan shares values, such as the US, Canada, Australia and Europe, expect Japan to exert influence over the Asia-Pacific nations. To meet such expectation, it is crucial that Japan establishes strong bilateral relations and engage in candid dialogue especially with the countries in the Asia- Pacific region. Solid bilateral diplomacy is a basic component of an active multinational diplomacy.
Motohide Yoshikawa is former Ambassador of Japan to the United Nations.
The existing multinational frameworks can be classified into two categories. One is a universal international organisation which is open to all the countries of the world regardless of their political ideologies and systems, of which the UN is a typical example. The other one is an international organisation or a forum composed of like-minded countries. For example, the members of the G7 and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), which include Japan, share the values of democracy and respect for human rights. The NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation), of which Japan is not a member, is another example.
How did these multinational frameworks respond to the Ukrainian crisis? Let us first review the actions taken by the first group, the universal international organisations.
After a Security Council draft resolution calling on Russia to withdraw immediately from Ukraine was buried by a Russian veto on February 25, the UN General Assembly held an emergency special session right away. On March 2, a resolution recognising Russia’s actions as a violation of the UN Charter and calling for its immediate withdrawal was adopted by an overwhelming majority of 141 votes out of 193 UN member states. Although General Assembly resolutions do not have a binding force, they can demonstrate the public opinion in the international community.
The General Assembly resolution at the time of the Russian invasion in Crimea in 2014, which did not even point fingers at Russia, was adopted by only 100 votes in favour with many countries abstaining. As Japan’s Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, the author lobbied other ambassadors, especially from Asia-Pacific, to vote in favour, but only 22 out of 54 Asia-Pacific countries supported the resolution. This time, the yes votes from the region increased to 37.
On April 7, at an emergency special session, the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution to suspend Russia’s membership of the Human Rights Council, with 93 votes in favour. This figure was much lower than 141, the number of votes in favour for the resolution adopted on March 2. Especially in Asia and Africa, the number of yes votes decreased by 60 %.
According to the Office of the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), since the Russian invasion, more than 9 million of Ukrainian’s population of about 40 million people have fled to the neighbouring countries and the number of the internally displaced is estimated to exceed 6 million (as of July 13). The UN plays a central role in the relief efforts for these people.
On March 16, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judicial branch of the UN, issued an order to Russia to halt its military operation immediately. The ICJ’s order is binding, but Russia is ignoring it. Unlike domestic courts of a country, the ICJ does not have the means to enforce its orders. It is noted that the two judges who opposed to the issuance of the order were from Russia and China.
In the meantime, the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has 123 member states and territories, acted swiftly. An investigation started in March and the chief prosecutor entered the massacre site of Bucha in April. While the ICC may be able to investigate and prosecute the war crimes in the future, Russia is not a member of the ICC and it will not be easy to make arrests and bring cases to trials. However, there is no statute of limitation for crimes handled by the ICC. As Japan is the biggest contributor to the ICC, it is hoped that Japan also makes a human resource contribution, such as dispatching investigators.
The military and economic responses to Russia were led by the G7 and the NATO which are the second group of multinational frameworks. Although the United States warned Russia that it would impose stringent economic sanctions if Russia took military actions, the deterrence did not work. Some said that the fact that the US statement that it had no intention of fighting Russia was a reason why the deterrence did not work. However, the US and G7 moved quickly after the invasion. On the day of the invasion, the G7 issued a joint statement condemning Russia and imposed strong economic sanctions. Japan also coordinated with the G7 to join the sanctions. The G7 is leading economic assistance to Ukraine as well.
Ukraine has been fighting, beyond earlier expectations, against the major offensive by Russia, one of the largest military powers of the world. This is due to the dedication and bravery of the Ukrainian people in defence of their homeland, as well as the massive military support provided by the NATO members, led by the US.
In light of the above, the following points can be made concerning Japan’s policy.
Japan is required to strengthen and expand its framework with countries that share the values. The G7 started with the goal of coordinating economic policies among developed countries, but now it coordinates responses to international political issues. It is an important forum for Japan, since it cannot occupy a seat at the Security Council on a permanent basis. Japan is expected to play a leading role in the G7 as it holds the Presidency in 2023. Japan’s active participation in the Quad (Japan, US, Australia and India) is a welcome development.
The UN is still important. UN decisions have legitimacy. The Security Council’s authority to make legally binding decisions is particularly significant. Japan, which will serve as a non-permanent member of the Security Council for the 12th time from January 2023, can demonstrate what Japan can contribute to the peace and security of the world. The North Korean nuclear development is a case in point. Japan should also continue to take the initiative on the reform of the Security Council.
Even though the Security Council is dysfunctional, the General Assembly can bring together the voices of the international community. From the author’s personal experience, however, many countries are reluctant to express their views at the UN. Even though the case is a clear violation of the UN Charter, they believe that it is in their national interest to keep their positions ambiguous.
As the Ukraine crisis indicates, in times of crisis, the countries with which Japan shares values, such as the US, Canada, Australia and Europe, expect Japan to exert influence over the Asia-Pacific nations. To meet such expectation, it is crucial that Japan establishes strong bilateral relations and engage in candid dialogue especially with the countries in the Asia- Pacific region. Solid bilateral diplomacy is a basic component of an active multinational diplomacy.
Motohide Yoshikawa is former Ambassador of Japan to the United Nations.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
岐路に立つ多国間枠組みと日本の政策
吉川 元偉 / 国際基督教大学特別招聘教授、元国連大使
2022年 7月 22日
2月24日に始まったロシアによるウクライナ侵攻を受け、国連安全保障理事会（安保理）は、何の対応もできず機能不全に陥っているとの批判が聞かれる。本稿では、国連を含む多国間枠組みがウクライナ情勢にどう対応しているかを概観し、日本のとるべき方策について論じたい。
現存する多国間枠組みは二つに分類できる。一つは政治思想や体制に関係なく世界のすべての国に開かれている普遍的国際機関で、国連がその典型例だ。もう一つは価値観を同じくする国々（like-minded countries）により構成される国際機関やグループだ。日本が加盟するものでは、民主主義と人権尊重の価値観を共有するＧ７、経済協力開発機構（ＯＥＣＤ）などがある。日米豪印のQuad（クアッド）や、日本は加盟していないが北大西洋条約機構（ＮＡＴＯ）もその例だ。
こうした多国間枠組みでの動きはどうだったのか。まず第１グループの国連など普遍的国際機関の動きは見る。
ロシアにウクライナからの即時撤退を求める安保理決議案は、2月25日、ロシアの拒否権により葬り去られたが、国連総会は直ちに緊急特別会合を開いた。３月２日、ロシアの行動を国連憲章違反と認定し即時撤退を求める決議を、国連加盟国193カ国中141票という圧倒的多数の賛成で採択した。総会決議に拘束力はないが、国際社会の世論を示せる。
14年のロシアによるクリミア侵攻の際の総会決議案は、ロシアを名指ししない内容だったが、賛成票は100で、多くの国が棄権に回った。当時国連大使だった筆者は特にアジアの賛成票を増やすべく各国大使に働きかけたが、アジア・太平洋54カ国中賛成は22だった。今回は37票に増えた。
４月７日、国連総会緊急特別会合で、ロシアの人権理事会理事国としての資格を停止する決議が採択されたが、賛成票は93と、３月２日の決議に比べ1/3減った。特にアジアとアフリカで賛成が6割減った。
国連難民高等弁務官事務所（ＵＮＨＣＲ）によれば、ロシアの侵攻以来、ウクライナの人口約4000万人のうち900万人以上が外国に避難したほか、国内避難民の推計は600万人を超える（7月13日時点）。これらの人々への支援活動で、国連は中心的役割を果たしている。
国連の司法機関である国際司法裁判所（ＩＣＪ）は３月16日、ロシアに対し軍事作戦を即刻停止せよとの命令を出した。ＩＣＪの命令は拘束力があるが、ロシアは無視している。ＩＣＪは国内の
裁判所と違い、命令を執行する手段を持たない。なお、命令発出に反対した２人の判事はロシアと中国の出身だった。
123カ国・地域が加盟する国際刑事裁判所（ＩＣＣ）は迅速に動いた。３月に捜査を始め、主任検察官は４月には虐殺の現場ブチャに入った。今後戦争犯罪などの捜査や訴追はできるだろうが、ロシアはＩＣＣに加盟しておらず、逮捕そして裁判に至るのは容易でないだろう。だがＩＣＣが取り扱う犯罪に時効はない。日本はＩＣＣへの最大拠出国だが、捜査官の派遣など人的な貢献もしてほしい。
ロシアへの軍事・経済面での対応は、多国間枠組みの第２グループに属するＧ７とNATOが主導した。米国は軍事行動を起こすと強力な経済制裁を科すとロシアに警告したが、抑止は効かなかった。ロシアと戦うつもりがないと述べたことも、抑止が効かなかった原因とする意見がある。だが侵攻後の米国の動きは早かった。２月24日にはＧ７はロシアを非難する首脳共同声明を発出し強力な経済制裁を始め、日本もＧ７と協調して制裁に踏み切った。Ｇ７はウクライナへの経済支援も主導している。
ウクライナは、軍事大国ロシアの大攻勢に対し事前の予想を大きく上回る戦いを展開している。この背景には、祖国防衛にあたるウクライナ国民の献身的かつ勇敢な行動に加え、米国を筆頭とするＮＡＴＯ諸国の大規模な軍事支援がある。
以上を踏まえると、日本のとるべき政策について次のことが言える。
日本は価値観を共有する国々との枠組みを強化・拡大することが求められる。Ｇ７は先進国間の経済政策調整を目的に始まったが、今や国際政治問題への対応も議論するようになった。安保理に常時席を占められない日本には重要な場だ。日本には、23年の議長国としてＧ７をけん引する役割が期待される。日本がクアッド（日、米、豪、印）会合に積極的に参加していることは歓迎すべき動きである。
国連の決定には正統性があり、重要な役割を果たす。特に法的拘束力のある決定を下せる安保理の権限は大きい。日本は、23年1月から12回目の安保理非常任理事国を務め、北朝鮮の核開発といった問題について世界の平和と安全にどのような貢献ができるか示すことができる。日本は、また、安保理改革の旗も振り続けてほしい。
安保理が機能不全であっても総会は国際社会の声を結集できる。しかし筆者の経験でも、国連で多くの国は態度表明に消極的だ。案件が国連憲章違反だと分かっていても、自国の国益を考えると立場を曖昧にしておく方が得策だと考えるからだ。
ウクライナの例が示すように、危機に当たっては米欧など日本と価値観を共有する国々からは、日本がアジア・太平洋諸国に影響力を発揮してほしいとの期待が寄せられる。その期待に応えるためにも、日本が国際社会、特にアジア・太平洋の国々との間で率直な議論ができる強固な二国間関係を築いていることが極めて重要だ。堅固な二国間外交は、積極的な多国間外交を展開するうえでも肝要だ。
筆者は元国連大使
現存する多国間枠組みは二つに分類できる。一つは政治思想や体制に関係なく世界のすべての国に開かれている普遍的国際機関で、国連がその典型例だ。もう一つは価値観を同じくする国々（like-minded countries）により構成される国際機関やグループだ。日本が加盟するものでは、民主主義と人権尊重の価値観を共有するＧ７、経済協力開発機構（ＯＥＣＤ）などがある。日米豪印のQuad（クアッド）や、日本は加盟していないが北大西洋条約機構（ＮＡＴＯ）もその例だ。
こうした多国間枠組みでの動きはどうだったのか。まず第１グループの国連など普遍的国際機関の動きは見る。
ロシアにウクライナからの即時撤退を求める安保理決議案は、2月25日、ロシアの拒否権により葬り去られたが、国連総会は直ちに緊急特別会合を開いた。３月２日、ロシアの行動を国連憲章違反と認定し即時撤退を求める決議を、国連加盟国193カ国中141票という圧倒的多数の賛成で採択した。総会決議に拘束力はないが、国際社会の世論を示せる。
14年のロシアによるクリミア侵攻の際の総会決議案は、ロシアを名指ししない内容だったが、賛成票は100で、多くの国が棄権に回った。当時国連大使だった筆者は特にアジアの賛成票を増やすべく各国大使に働きかけたが、アジア・太平洋54カ国中賛成は22だった。今回は37票に増えた。
４月７日、国連総会緊急特別会合で、ロシアの人権理事会理事国としての資格を停止する決議が採択されたが、賛成票は93と、３月２日の決議に比べ1/3減った。特にアジアとアフリカで賛成が6割減った。
国連難民高等弁務官事務所（ＵＮＨＣＲ）によれば、ロシアの侵攻以来、ウクライナの人口約4000万人のうち900万人以上が外国に避難したほか、国内避難民の推計は600万人を超える（7月13日時点）。これらの人々への支援活動で、国連は中心的役割を果たしている。
国連の司法機関である国際司法裁判所（ＩＣＪ）は３月16日、ロシアに対し軍事作戦を即刻停止せよとの命令を出した。ＩＣＪの命令は拘束力があるが、ロシアは無視している。ＩＣＪは国内の
裁判所と違い、命令を執行する手段を持たない。なお、命令発出に反対した２人の判事はロシアと中国の出身だった。
123カ国・地域が加盟する国際刑事裁判所（ＩＣＣ）は迅速に動いた。３月に捜査を始め、主任検察官は４月には虐殺の現場ブチャに入った。今後戦争犯罪などの捜査や訴追はできるだろうが、ロシアはＩＣＣに加盟しておらず、逮捕そして裁判に至るのは容易でないだろう。だがＩＣＣが取り扱う犯罪に時効はない。日本はＩＣＣへの最大拠出国だが、捜査官の派遣など人的な貢献もしてほしい。
ロシアへの軍事・経済面での対応は、多国間枠組みの第２グループに属するＧ７とNATOが主導した。米国は軍事行動を起こすと強力な経済制裁を科すとロシアに警告したが、抑止は効かなかった。ロシアと戦うつもりがないと述べたことも、抑止が効かなかった原因とする意見がある。だが侵攻後の米国の動きは早かった。２月24日にはＧ７はロシアを非難する首脳共同声明を発出し強力な経済制裁を始め、日本もＧ７と協調して制裁に踏み切った。Ｇ７はウクライナへの経済支援も主導している。
ウクライナは、軍事大国ロシアの大攻勢に対し事前の予想を大きく上回る戦いを展開している。この背景には、祖国防衛にあたるウクライナ国民の献身的かつ勇敢な行動に加え、米国を筆頭とするＮＡＴＯ諸国の大規模な軍事支援がある。
以上を踏まえると、日本のとるべき政策について次のことが言える。
日本は価値観を共有する国々との枠組みを強化・拡大することが求められる。Ｇ７は先進国間の経済政策調整を目的に始まったが、今や国際政治問題への対応も議論するようになった。安保理に常時席を占められない日本には重要な場だ。日本には、23年の議長国としてＧ７をけん引する役割が期待される。日本がクアッド（日、米、豪、印）会合に積極的に参加していることは歓迎すべき動きである。
国連の決定には正統性があり、重要な役割を果たす。特に法的拘束力のある決定を下せる安保理の権限は大きい。日本は、23年1月から12回目の安保理非常任理事国を務め、北朝鮮の核開発といった問題について世界の平和と安全にどのような貢献ができるか示すことができる。日本は、また、安保理改革の旗も振り続けてほしい。
安保理が機能不全であっても総会は国際社会の声を結集できる。しかし筆者の経験でも、国連で多くの国は態度表明に消極的だ。案件が国連憲章違反だと分かっていても、自国の国益を考えると立場を曖昧にしておく方が得策だと考えるからだ。
ウクライナの例が示すように、危機に当たっては米欧など日本と価値観を共有する国々からは、日本がアジア・太平洋諸国に影響力を発揮してほしいとの期待が寄せられる。その期待に応えるためにも、日本が国際社会、特にアジア・太平洋の国々との間で率直な議論ができる強固な二国間関係を築いていることが極めて重要だ。堅固な二国間外交は、積極的な多国間外交を展開するうえでも肝要だ。
筆者は元国連大使
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟