Kampagne für die Reform der Vereinten Nationen
Movement for UN Reform (UNFOR)
SI VIS PACEM PARA PACEM!
If you want peace, prepare for peace!
Unsere Themen und Projekte:
Menschenrechtsklage/Human Rights Complaint
Is Germany actually blocking the development of the UNITED NATIONS to become an effective System of Collective Security?
►►(Click here (German)!)◄◄
by Klaus Schlichtmann
Deutsch lernen in Tokio?
Täglich sterben über einhunderttausend Menschen an Hunger.
·Wie werde ich friedensaktiv ?·
IMPLEMENTING THE IMPERATIVES OF PEACE IN EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONS
GIVING THE UNITED NATIONS THE POWER !
Dear Colleagues, Supporters and Friends,
Our Round letter this time is in English.
Ramesh Thakur is senior vice-rector and director of the Peace and Governance Programme of United Nations University in Tokyo. In The Japan Times recently (Oct. 3, 2005) he expressed his personal views: “The serious disagreements between the countries of the world” on the answers to some of the vital questions and key issues confronting humanity today may be “evidence of the growing loss … of the sense of international community on which the U.N. is predicated.” These vital questions, according to Thakur, concern our “core values,” the basic agreements on “legitimate behaviour” and include the necessity for “collective action” to implement “solutions to global problems: less or more environmental regulation, non-proliferation and/or disarmament, counterterrorism vs. human rights, a strong state that provides social protection and regulation or an unobtrusive state that lets capital and markets rule?”
These problems will not be solved if the trend continues and the already fragile “sense of international community” which the UN represents is lost. What is required is a breakthrough, which has been lacking since the failure of the Hague Peace Conferences in 1899 and 1907. “It is a struggle between international Keynesianism and neoliberalism.”
These problems will not be solved until nations agree to pool sovereign powers to create a supra-national authority based on the rule of law and justice. The UN Charter contains the blueprint for bringing about a global authority to solve our common problems, but nation-states have so far failed to take action.
The United Nations is mainly the result of Western or European ideas about the rule of law and the organization of peace and justice. However, the West has been divided when it comes to implementing these concepts: The Europeans for example have taken practically no action to implement the UN’s provisions while the Americans have overacted or, in the absence of an effective UN, acted unilaterally.
All this in spite of the fact that France, for example, in its Constitution, on “condition of reciprocity ... accepts the limitations of sovereignty necessary for the organization and defense of peace. (Constitution of 27 October 1946, as reconfirmed in the Constitution of 4 October 1958). Italy, Denmark and several other European constitutions contain similar stipulations, limiting national sovereignty or providing for delegating powers to the United Nations. It is interesting to read the German Hans Wehberg’s English edition of the book, The Outlawry of War, published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 1931. After World War II, Wehberg edited the renowned peace research journal Die Friedens-Warte, which celebrated its 100th anniversary in 1999.
Outlawing war in constitutions and allowing for legislative action in national parliaments to give shape to an effective international organization by providing it with a binding legal framework has been part of this great effort for collective security that would allow nations to disarm. Since legislative action in democratic countries is backed by the electorate and public opinion, politicians too should do more to educate the populace about such matters. Yet such education about the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations and related provisions in constitutional law have been conspicuously lacking. Academics have made themselves the lackeys of vested interests by obfuscating the issue to the point of criminal negligence, or even conspiracy, endangering the lives of millions on this planet.
How true is this assertion?
In 1961 the USA under President John F. Kennedy and the Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev concluded an agreement, known as the McCloy-Zorin Accords, that stipulated far-reaching measures towards general and complete disarmament under effective international controls, the abolition of all military institutions and production and empowerment of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. The McCloy-Zorin Accords were introduced by John F. Kennedy in the UN General Assembly on September 25, and unanimously adopted in the General Assembly on December 20. Kennedy spoke the following words:
"Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us..."
“The program to be presented to this assembly--for general and complete disarmament under effective international control--moves to bridge the gap between those who insist on a gradual approach and those who talk only of the final and total achievement. It would create machinery to keep the peace as it destroys the machinery of war. It would proceed through balanced and safeguarded stages designed to give no state a military advantage over another. It would place the final responsibility for verification and control where it belongs, not with the big powers alone, not with one’s adversary or one’s self, but in an international organization within the framework of the United Nations. It would assure that indispensable condition of disarmament-- true inspection--and apply it in stages proportionate to the stage of disarmament. It would cover delivery systems as well as weapons. It would ultimately halt their production as well as their testing, their transfer as well as their possession. It would achieve under the eyes of an international disarmament organization, a steady reduction in force, both nuclear and conventional, until it has abolished all armies and all weapons except those needed for internal order and a new United Nations Peace Force."
Nobody could tell the Europeans what to do! And nobody did. But it was obvious that in order to make the McCloy-Zorin Accords effective, decisive action by the Europeans would have been required, to implement their constitutional provisions and relevant UN provisions, for creating a UN Peace Force and giving the UN the power to do its job. If the Europeans had taken action in accordance with the McCloy-Zorin Accords it would have been possible to bridge the chasm existing between East and West much earlier. No action was taken, and consequently the situation changed for the worse.
As a German I regret to say that apparently nobody in my country thought of such a thing - though the German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer might have. But the diplomats and international or constitutional lawyers advising Adenauer were mostly recruited from old Nazi stock, and the same doctrines - historical and legal - that were predominant in academic circles during the Nazi era continued to prevail. These doctrines were critical of internationalism. Only recently has this problem surfaced, when in the German Foreign Ministry the practice of honoring in the House Bulletin diplomats who had died after a long life of service came under scrutiny, because it was discovered that many of them had been prominent Nazis. Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer in one particular case gave orders against the usual practice, which created a sizeable row in the Ministry. Foreign Minister Fischer won the day, and a commission of eminent scholars has been instituted to investigate the question. (Click here for further information!)
It would be good if the Commission's investigations could also cover an earlier period including the Hague Peace Conferences and the First World War, to get to the roots of the problem. Germany has never apologized for starting World War I or bringing the project of the Hague Conferences, i.e. disarmament and binding international jurisdiction to replace the institution of war, to naught.
P.S. Ecologists will also like my "One-Acre Model Farm."
Also see what Germany can do for world peace and security (Click here!)
Previous letters in German:
Brief an die deutschen Friedenswissenschaftler (June/July 2005) - Click here !
Brief an die deutschen Friedenswissenschaftler (April/May 2005) - Click here !
Brief an die deutschen Friedenswissenschaftler (January/February 2005) - Click here !
Brief an die deutschen Friedenswissenschaftler (October 2004) - Click here !
Brief an die deutschen Friedenswissenschaftler (September 2004) - Click here !
Brief an die deutschen Friedenswissenschaftler (August 2004) - Click here !
Brief an die deutschen Friedenswissenschaftler (July 2004) - Click here !
See articles in German and English on issues related to UN reform. (Click here!) Unfortunately all of the articles I wrote for the dailies taz, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and DIE ZEIT etc. were rejected or not taken notice of. Only some articles in English were published by "THE STATESMAN" (Kolkata/India). See also:
(2) full-page coverage of UNFOR 2007 in the Round Letter of the Arbeitskreis Historische Friedensforschung (AHF);
(3) a double-page publication about UNFOR 2007 in the Round Letter of Pax Christi, Cologne (PDF Deutsch, pp. 13-14);
(4) Correspondence with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and "Independent Report" concerning reform of the United Nations, to the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change (English) (see also the Report of the Panel, PDF English);
(5) Correspondence with the UNESCO Committee on the UN Decade for a Culture of Peace (English);
(6) New members for UNFOR 2007 (the list is not yet open);
(7) Lecture on the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the United Nations concerning UN reform at Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, December 22, 2004, Frankfurt. (See poster)
フリードリッヒ • ニーチェ:
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)