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 ?·
Movement for UN Reform 2007
Centenary of the Second Hague Peace Conference
»To serve the Peace of the World «
Hidaka, 24 October 2006
(United Nations Day)
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Taro Aso
Shiba Koen 2-11-1
Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-8519
Re: The surest path to peace
The MOVEMENT FOR UN REFORM 2007 (UNFOR 2007) is dedicated to researching and propagating, on the basis of current international and constitutional law, practicable ways and means to reform the United Nations at an early date. Permit me to make a few observations, which are relevant in connection with the problem of North Korea and nuclear and general disarmament.
We* believe that the much-debated Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution (JC) is a public international-law (official) motion to abolish war.
The shortest path to peace would be if a powerful nation, for example my own country, Germany, would second the Japanese motion. Germany has pledged in its Constitution to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and actively support the system of collective security of the United Nations by taking legislative action, at an appropriate time, to start a process of putting Collective Security into effect. If a country like Germany (though Germany is still very much attached to the Prussian Eagle**) would second the Japanese Article 9 in the UN General Assembly, this would start a general debate on the issue of the abolition of the institution of war – perhaps/preferably along the lines of the 1961 McCloy-Zorin Accords. (The Japanese text of the 1961 McCloy-Zorin Accords is included in a book by Yukawa Hideki, Tomonaga Shinichiro, und Sakata Shouichi, Heiwa-jidai wo Sōzō suru tameni -- Kagakusha wa uttaeru, Tōkyō: Iwanami-shoten, 1963, pp. 206-209.)
We also think that a shortcut to nuclear and general and complete disarmament could be reached in cooperation with India. (Please see my 3 publications on the issue, enclosed!)
The integrity and far-sightedness of your ministry, which was well demonstrated when your predecessor in the interwar period, Shidehara Kijuro, held the post, lets me believe that the Japanese Government will consider the options with cool determination.
Most sincerely yours,
Cc: To whom it may concern
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)