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 ?·
WHY delegate Powers to the U.N.?
The answer is simple: to put the United Nations System of Collective Security of the U.N. Charter into effect, and to abolish war.
WHAT IS THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY AND WHY HAS IT NOT BEEN PUT INTO EFFECT?
Indispensable pillars of the system envisaged in the U.N. Charter are disarmament, limitations of national sovereignty and compulsory international jurisdiction. Without these there is no System of Collective Security. A fourth pillar should be the democratic representation of the Sovereign Peoples of the United Nations. Unfortunately, with the beginning of the Cold War, the original meaning of collective security started to erode, and its principles and purposes were lost.
how CAN MEMBER STATES delegate Powers to the U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL?
BUT DOES THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL Not ALREADY Have TOO MUCH POWER?
Presently the U.N. Security Council - as Mohammed Bedjaoui, former President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has explained (The New World Order and the Security Council, Dordrecht, 1994) - is immune ‘from any legal censure.’ In fact, ‘No principles of law are laid down to guide it; it can decide in accordance with what it thinks is expedient.’ (John Foster Dulles, 1950) So far, realistically speaking, the authority of the Security Council derives mainly from CHAPTER 17 of the U.N. Charter. Transferring sovereign powers to forego the right to go to war to the Council would be the beginning of a process to give it a legal basis.
BUT WOULD NOT ALL COUNTRIES FIRST HAVE TO AGREE AND THEN DO IT ALL AT THE SAME TIME?
No! (It might splash over.) What the U.N. Charter envisages is more of a process, of one nation after another coming to pool their sovereign powers for the common good of humanity; more important still, the process must involve the PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS. Otherwise the powers at the United Nations Conference in San Francisco in 1946 could have imposed collective security, and binding international jurisdiction right from the start. Limitation and delegation of national sovereignty must be voluntary.
What Is the Position of the political Parties in Germany on that?
A comprehensive documentation giving opinions from the various parties, is being prepared. The German world federalists have in the nineteen-eighties and -nineties prepared the ground for the passage of a respective BILL in the German Parliament, as stipulated by the Constitution, and in accordance with the UN-Charter. See as an example the letter from the Bureau of Willy Brandt, then in the opposition, from October 1983.
Would the United States permit such independent policy by a European ally?
Probably yes! Americans are federalists. In the summer of 1949, in both Houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, in the U.S., identical Bills were passed, calling for the UN’s “development into a world federation … with defined and limited powers adequate to preserve peace and prevent aggression through the enactment, interpretation, and enforcement of world law.” Alas, the world was not ready, as the Soviet Union a year or so earlier, had already refuted Albert Einstein’s urgent query to the Soviet Academy of Sciences that the USSR support his world government stance. The (negative) answer to Einstein’s semi-official advance was published in the Moscow weekly New Times on 26 November 1947. 41 years later, on 16 April 1988, the same Soviet journal republished and approved (!!!) Albert Einstein's 1947 letter. Anyway, the US could do nothing against a sovereignty act such as is intended here. It is also worthwhile re-reading the McCloy-Zorin Accords of 20 September 1961 and wonder, why back then the French and the Germans didn’t take action to make the agreement a success.
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)