Kampagne für die Reform der Vereinten Nationen

Movement for UN Reform (UNFOR)

SI  VIS  PACEM  PARA  PACEM!

 If you want peace, prepare for peace!

平和を望むなら平和に備えよ

 

Unsere Themen und Projekte:

Menschenrechtsklage/Human Rights Complaint

The Right of Peoples to Peace

Tangiers as City of Peace and World Capital 

The Garland Canal Project

Korrespondenz mit dem Auswärtigen Amt online

Korrespondenz mit den Parteien und Fraktionen im Deutschen Bundestag

Donations / Spenden

counter gratis

Is Germany actually blocking the development of the UNITED NATIONS to become an effective System of Collective Security?

►►(Click here (German)!)◄◄

ÿ

THE LAW OF THE REVERSAL OF TENDENCIES

by Klaus Schlichtmann

 

ART. IX / 九条

Unterstützer

支援してくださっている人々

INTERESSANTER TEXT:

Walther SCHÜCKING, The International Union of the Hague Peace Conferences

 

INDIA and the Quest for an effective UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION

 

Deutsch lernen in Tokio?

KONTAKT: klaus.san@gmail.com

 

Täglich sterben über einhunderttausend Menschen an Hunger.

UNO-CHARTA UN CHARTER

CHARTE DES NATIONS UNIS

ÿ

 

Der Drei-Billionen-Dollar-Krieg

 

·Wie werde ich friedensaktiv ?·

Mitmachen   HIER   eintragen

The first completely customisable news site on the web
129 years in print

 

(THE STATESMAN is a major English-language daily newspaper in India)

Kolkata, Nov 28,2004

Editorial

 日本語

MODEL FOR PEACE

                                                                                                           by Klaus Schlichtmann

THE Japanese should be proud of their Constitution and Article 9 which is increasingly considered by peace movements and researchers the world over as a model for other countries, including the concept of “non-offensive defence” and non-military peacekeeping, for which Japan’s Self-Defence Forces (SDF) is an example. Suggested by Prime Minister Shidehara Kijuro (1872-1951) to General Douglas MacArthur on 24 January 1946 during a three-hour conference, Article 9 points to a system of collective security within the framework of the United Nations, considered necessary — and still possible to achieve — after the Second World War. In all likelihood, it was Shidehara who at the time of the drafting of the US-Japan Security Treaty had his hand in the making of Article 10 of that treaty, which states that the alliance becomes obsolete once the UN system starts operating effectively.
The entire text of the Japanese Constitution is founded, to a large extent, on the early Japanese draft by Ueki Emori (1857-1892), which was the basic source for the proposal put forward by the Constitution Research Association (Kempo Kenku-kai) under the chairmanship of Suzuki Yasuzo (1904-1983), a prominent Ueki scholar. Little known in Japan today, Ueki was a Meiji intellectual of the Jiyu-minken (Freedom and Popular Rights) Movement, a “Tom Paine of the democratic movement” (Andrew Roth) and the “theoretician and tactician” behind the movement.
Ueki can be compared to some of the political activists in 19th century Bengal, like Bipinchandra Pal, when the Bengal Renaissance accounted for much of the mutual exchange between Asia and Europe. The Ueki-inspired constitutional draft was the only Japanese proposal translated in its entirety and made extensive use of by the Allied GHQ, when the Americans wrote their draft for the Japanese.
The significance of this breakthrough of an original Japanese liberal constitution in 1946, after a long spell of Prussian-inspired authoritarianism cannot be overstated. Article 9 is a clear expression of the Japanese desire for an “international peace based on justice and order” as well as the Japanese people’s trust in “the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world” (Preamble, JC). The “peace lovers” of the world will eventually succeed — in the words of the UN Charter Preamble — in “establishing conditions under which justice and respect ... can be maintained”, bring about general and complete disarmament, and “ensure ... that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest”.
In this way the Japanese people have invested in their future. And toward this end, continuing and perpetual patience is required in spite of the fact that after the end of the Cold War, UN member states have still not taken the necessary steps to put the UN System of Security into effect.
Interestingly, the Germans after the war also realised the significance of legislative action for achieving an effective system of collective security. Professor Carlo Schmid, a Baudelarien politician (he translated Charles Baudelaire into German), was chairman of the drafting committee responsible for the “peace provisions” in the German Constitution, Articles 24, 25 and 26. Under Article 24, for which Article 9 is a precedent, and which provides for defining and delegating collective security powers to the UN Security Council. Carlo Schmid urgently supported the creation of a legal order, warning that “otherwise we will perish”. Similarly, General MacArthur stated, concerning the eventual achievement of an effective UN System of Collective Security, in connection with Article 9: “It points the way, the only way”.
Why are these facts forgotten today? When the Cold War started around 1947, Collective Security became a non-issue. Instead, with Nato and the Warsaw Pact, the main issue turned out to be collective self-defence. Only in recent years has thinking along the lines of the UN Charter become relevant once more, as evidenced by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s statement on 23 September 2003 before the General Assembly: “We have come to a fork in the road ... a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded”.
While we are in the “UN International Decade for the Culture of Peace”, there is a lot to be said in favour of Article 9 as a cornerstone of a future United Nations order of peace and justice. Having come out of World War II and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it belongs to all humanity, not just to the Japanese. In this respect, it is very similar to Article 51 of the Indian Constitution, which wants to “promote international peace and security”, “maintain just and honourable relations between nations,” and “foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised people with one another”.

The author is a researcher and a peace activist in Japan

 

 

PERSÖNLICHES

Personal 僕のこと

KONSENSMODELL

Consensus model

RUNDBRIEFE

Round letters

KORRESPONDENZ

Correspondence

VERÖFFENTLICHUNGEN

Publications 出版されている私の記事

FRIEDENSVERFASSUNG

Peace Constitutions 平和憲法

VÖLKERRECHT

TEXTE            Texts

ÖKOLOGIE     Ecology

LITERATUR       Literature 

ZITATE & SPRÜCHE Sayings

IGH ICJ

GUT:

http://www.democracynow.org

 

FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE:

フリードリッヒ  ニーチェ: 

Deutsch      日本語      français

Human, All too Human

284 The means to real peace. -

No government nowadays admits that it maintains an army so as to satisfy occasional thirsts for conquest; the army is supposed to be for defence. That morality which sanctions self-protection is called upon to be its advocate. But that means to reserve morality to oneself and to accuse one‘s neighbour of immorality, since he has to be thought of as ready for aggression and conquest if our own state is obliged to take thought of means of self-defence; moreover, when our neighbour denies any thirst for aggression just as heatedly as our State does, and protests that he too maintains an army only for reasons of legitimate self-defence, our declaration of why we require an army declares our neighbour a hypocrite and cunning criminal who would be only too happy to pounce upon a harmless and unprepared victim and subdue him without a struggle. This is how all states now confront one another: they presuppose an evil disposition in their neighbour and a benevolent disposition in themselves. This presupposition, however, is a piece of inhumanity as bad as, if not worse than, a war would be; indeed, fundamentally it already constitutes an invitation to and cause of wars, because, as aforesaid, it imputes immorality to one‘s neighbour and thereby seems to provoke hostility and hostile acts on his part. The doctrine of the army as a means of self-defence must be renounced just as completely as the thirst for conquest. And perhaps there will come a great day on which a nation distinguished for wars and victories and for the highest development of military discipline and thinking, and accustomed to making the heaviest sacrifices on behalf of these things, will cry of its own free will: ,we shall shatter the sword‘ - and demolish its entire military machine down to its last foundations. To disarm while being the best armed, out of anelevation of sensibility - that is the means to real peace, which must always rest on a disposition for peace: whereas the so-called armed peace such as now parades about in every country is a disposition to fractiousness which trusts neither itself nor its neighbour and fails to lay down its arms half out of hatred, half out of fear. Better to perish than to hate and fear, and twofold better to perish than to make oneself hated and feared - this must one day become the supreme maxim of every individual state! - As is well known, our liberal representatives of the people lack the time to reflect on the nature of man: otherwise they would know that they labour in vain when they work for a ,gradual reduction of the military burden‘. On the contrary, it is only when this kind of distress is at its greatest that the only kind of god that can help here will be closest at hand.  The tree of the glory of war can be destroyed only at a single stroke, by a lightning-bolt: lightning, however, as you well know, comes out of a cloud and from on high. (R.J. Hollingdale, transl., Human, All Too Human. A Book for Free Spirits, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy (1996), pp. 380-81)

ÿ