Although Japan supported Western efforts to end the atrocities in Kosovo, the government wants the U.N. Security Council to authorize future actions, according to Yukio Satoh, Japan's ambassador to the United Nations.

"Whether a country can be allowed to bomb another for the cause of humanity is a big question — and I don't think this is accepted," Satoh said. "But within the narrow context of Kosovo, as far as Japan is concerned, we have expressed our understanding."

In a wide-ranging interview earlier this week, Satoh expressed concern that even well-intentioned unilateralism could go too far. He noted that Kosovo is an extraordinary situation and should not be used as a precedent for the future.

"In light of the plight and suffering and atrocities suffered by refugees and citizens, we expressed our understanding in regard to the NATO policy to bomb," Satoh said.

But he continued, "in the interest of the United Nations, it is important that the issue should come back and go through the U.N."

Japan is actively engaged in efforts to rebuild Kosovo, Satoh said. In addition to having pledged $200 million to help resettle refugees and rebuild the war-torn economies of the region, Japan is making every effort to participate in the policymaking process, a difficult task since the government does not now have a seat on the Security Council.

The government is also keeping a close eye on events in Indonesia. While the U.N. has a role to play in the upcoming referendum in East Timor, Satoh stressed that the Indonesian presidential election has more geopolitical significance for the entire region.

Concerning Japan's bid to gain a permanent seat on the Security Council, Satoh said, "A large number of countries now regard it as quite natural that Japan would be given a permanent membership" should the council be reformed.

But he said that three issues — the veto wielded by existing permanent members of the council, its size and its eventual makeup — make progress difficult. "The question at issue is not whether there is support for Japan, but rather whether reform will be achieved," he said.

Nonetheless, Satoh is optimistic that reform will proceed and that Japan, host of the summit of the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations during the millennium year, can provide a spur to action.

"How can we let this important landmark pass with the systems determined almost 50 years ago, that reflect the reality of World War II. ... This is a highly political way to look at that, but we are working to provide momentum to provide reform in the course of the millennium year," he said.

Following is an excerpt from the interview with the ambassador:

How does the United Nations fit into Japan's foreign policy?

Kosovo and East Timor are the two major policy issues with which I am occupied right now.

In Kosovo, Japan made a pledge to provide international support for refugee programs since before the end of the bombing and before the (Serb) withdrawal. Our $200 million is greater than any other pledge made so far. We have done this because we have great concern about refugees.

My present preoccupation is how to get Japan involved in the policymaking process from now on. Now the resolution has been adopted, so we have to think about another process of policy coordination among the G8 and key players.

What sort of consultation process should be made and what sort of consultative group should be made with Japan involved?

Since Indonesia is a focus of Japanese aid, Japan should be providing information and personnel during this transition period.

Indonesia is key not only for Japan, but for the entire Asia-Pacific region. The election in Indonesia is far more important geopolitically than that in East Timor. We are very encouraged that the election went very democratically.

You are quoted as saying the Japanese position vis-a-vis Kosovo is different from the position vis-a-vis the Persian Gulf War.

No, vis-a-vis the bombing of Iraq.

Is that an accurate assessment?

Yes, because in the case of the American-British bombing of Iraq ... it was quite clear that Iraq had violated or not complied with the Security Council resolutions. In light of that, we explicitly supported the bombing.

But in the case of Kosovo, we are not quite sure that there is such explicit Security Council authorization. Nevertheless, in light of the plight and atrocities suffered by refugees and citizens, we expressed our understanding in regard to the NATO policy to bomb.

How does the talk of a new priority of human rights fit into Japanese foreign policy?

On the question of war and peace, we always think of the U.N. Charter and, most particularly, of the Security Council role. Therefore we are always looking at military actions in light of a clear-cut authorization by the Security Council.

The Kosovo incident did cause many countries to think about the role of the U.N. and the role of the Security Council again. This is a critical issue for the future.

How would Japan's presence as a permanent member of the Security Council change the body's focus?

Japan would be the nonnuclear country. And we are the largest official development assistance donor. A large number of U.N. members are developing countries, so we might be expected to expand the focus of the Security Council.

How is the bid coming?

A large number of countries now regard it as quite natural that Japan would be given permanent membership should the Security Council be reformed. The question is how or whether the Security Council should be reformed. There are three issues that make this difficult.

One is the veto. Even before the expansion of the membership, many of the countries in the U.N. (think) the use of the veto by permanent members (should) at least be limited to matters under Article 7 or eventually eliminated, because the veto is regarded as one of the undemocratic elements of the U.N. system. But as far as the P-5 (permanent five) members are concerned, any move to touch upon their privileges would make reform itself a nonstarter.

Second, there is expansion itself. We think 24 is the right size. Some African countries take the position that the minimum should be 26. The U.S., Russia and others say that 21 is the maximum because the larger it gets, the less effective it becomes.

Third is the related question of representation: Who? It is quite clear that some counties, such as Italy, are openly opposed to Germany. Britain and France are concerned about the issue of the European seat. With regard to India, Pakistan always opposes.

Each one of these is very difficult. The question at issue is not whether there is support for Japan, but rather whether reform will be achieved.

Are you willing to venture a guess?

We are trying to do that. From our point of view, next year is the millennium and next year we are going to have the millennium summit. How can we let this important landmark pass with the systems determined almost 50 years ago that reflect the reality of World War II? As we enter a new millennium, how can we do that?