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 ?·
Neue (und alte) Artikel und Aufsätze über den Artikel 9 der japanischen Verfassung/New (and not so new) articles on the Japanese Constitution's "war-abolishing" clause:
(2) Klaus Schlichtmann, 'Artikel 9 im Normenkontext der Staatsverfassungen. Souveränitätsbeschränkung und Kriegsverhütung im 20. Jahrhundert', Gewollt oder geworden, Referate des 4. Japanologentages der OAG in Tokyo, herausgegeben von Werner Schaumann, Munich: iudicium, 1996, pp. 129-50 (pdf) "Die grundsätzliche Zustimmung zu Hoheitsbeschränkungen zugunsten eines gemeinsamen Sicherheitssystems stellte für das französische Selbstverständnis einen wichtigen Beitrag dar, wie das Beispiel des Streites um den französischen Beitritt zur Europäischen Verteidigungsgemeinschaft (EVG) Anfang der fünfziger Jahre deutlich machte. Das Problem dabei ist, dass ein militärisches Bündnissystem gegen einen gemeinsamen (äußeren) Feind kein System kollektiver Sicherheit darstellte, zumal es als regionale Einrichtung nur einen Teil des geteilten Europas einschloss. Militärische Bündnissysteme gegen einen gemeinsamen ‘Feind’ sind auch keine regionalen Einrichtungen im Sinne des Kapitels VIII der UNO-Charta." English: 'Article Nine in Context – Limitations of National Sovereignty and the Prevention of War in 20th Century Constitutional Law' (.htm) (日本語)
(3) Richard J. Samuels, 'Constitutional Revision in Japan: The Future of Article 9', The Brookings Institution (online pdf) "Prior to the current effort-- which began after the 1991 Gulf War-- there was one sustained constitutional revision movements--in the 1950s. It was led by anti-mainstream conservatives-- literally the parents and grandparents of the current ruling group. They failed not because a politically constrained right was forced to acquiesce to demands from the pacifist left, but because conservatives within the LDP were divided on the issue."
(4) Rust Deming, 'Japan's Constitution and Defense Policy: Entering a New Era?', Strategic Forum, No. 213 (November 2004) (online pdf) "The Japanese government has maintained since 1956 that in the event of an imminent missile attack upon Japan and with no other recourse, it would be an act of self-defense and thus permissible to attack the missile base before launch. Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba recently reiterated this right in the context of the North Korean threat. The question that has been debated is how Japan could be certain that the threat was directed at it and not a third party."
(5) Masaru Tamamoto, 'Tokyo's Peace and the American Agenda', New York Times, 1 July 2001 (online reprint) "The world would be a better place if Japan were to make a firm commitment to spreading its constitutional pacifism."
(6) Richard Tanter, 'Japan, Heisei Militarization and the Bush Doctrine', in (in etwas veränderter Form): Peter van Ness and Mel Gurtov, Confronting the Bush Doctrine: Critical Views from the Asia-Pacific, London: Routledge, 2005 (online adaptation) "...given the degree of incoherence and even irrationality of US policy under the Bush administration, the acceleration of the process of Heisei militarization by the Bush Doctrine has diminished rather than increased Japanese security."
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)