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 ?·
LETTER FROM THE PERSONAL BUREAU OF WILLY BRANDT, DATED 25 OCTOBER 1983:
Dear Mr. Schlichtmann,
Mr. Brandt has asked me to thank you for making available [your] draft of a bill for transferring sovereign powers to the Security Council of the United Nations. I have requested the proper working committee of the SPD faction in the German parliament, to earnestly examine such proposal.
It is correct that Article 24 of the Basic Law/Constitution provides a means to relinquish [certain] sovereign powers in favor of a system of collective security. In view of the declaration in the Constitution to serve the peace of the world, it would be quite logical to reject [any kind of] block formation in favor of a collective security system in Europe and the world.
The particular problem, however, seems to lie in bringing about a collective renunciation, in order to avoid that for individual countries who are willing to give up [their individual right of belligerency], it will result in a security gap/vacuum. I consider it to be the meritorious work of your organization, to come closer to this [goal], and I wish you success in your work.
Hans-Henning Rosen (view the original)
 The German Constitution (Basic Law), Preamble, refers to the commitment of the German people to “serve the peace of the world”.
 The German Constitution, Article 24, para 2, speaks of a “system of collective security” to which Germany will accede, in order to “bring about and secure a peaceful and lasting order in Europe and among the peoples of the world.”
 Part of a system of collective security, of course, is to accept the binding jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in order to avoid a security vacuum.
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)