Kampagne für die Reform der Vereinten Nationen

Movement for UN Reform (UNFOR)


 If you want peace, prepare for peace!



Unsere Themen und Projekte:

Menschenrechtsklage/Human Rights Complaint

The Right of Peoples to Peace

Tangiers as City of Peace and World Capital 

The Garland Canal Project

Korrespondenz mit dem Auswärtigen Amt online

Korrespondenz mit den Parteien und Fraktionen im Deutschen Bundestag

Donations / Spenden

counter gratis

Is Germany actually blocking the development of the UNITED NATIONS to become an effective System of Collective Security?

►►(Click here (German)!)◄◄



by Klaus Schlichtmann


ART. IX / 九条




Walther SCHÜCKING, The International Union of the Hague Peace Conferences


INDIA and the Quest for an effective UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION


Deutsch lernen in Tokio?

KONTAKT: klaus.san@gmail.com


Täglich sterben über einhunderttausend Menschen an Hunger.





Der Drei-Billionen-Dollar-Krieg


·Wie werde ich friedensaktiv ?·

Mitmachen   HIER   eintragen




This deals with the Axial Period, ideas of Peace in Greece and in Israel, in India and in East Asia. The main purpose here is to have a starting point to compare the various civilizations (cradles of culture), already from the perspective of a One World. This opens the mind to understand problems of today and how they are related to the larger issues.


The name "little Axial Age" was coined by me, and covers the period from about 700 AD to about 1200 AD. I chose this term although it is perhaps no less significant than the original Axial Age Karl Jaspers talked about. It is interesting to discover the impact of the Muslim intellectual activities in Spain, and compare those with the situation of the Buddhist Pala kings in India, the Tang Dynasty in China and the Nara and Heian Periods in Japan. Again these seem to show parallel developments that are similar in nature. The difference to the actual Axial Age is that by that time, between 700 and 1200, trade links between those cultures (or civilizations) existed.


The world is becoming One! The Age of Enlightenment for the first time seems to open up the possibility of a global society cooperating peacefully. The East-West intellectual exchanges around 1800, the French and American Revolutions, "Bengal (Indian) Renaissance" and corresponding movements and developments in China and Japan give evidence of this. East and West are coming together. Although the message of the Age of Enlightenment is not understood equally by all, the inherent possibilities remain. 

FOURTH LECTURE (CLICK HERE for the PowerPoint presentation)

Therefore, in the 19th century, an international peace movement manifests itself, while the new universal world order is fast approaching. Even before the 19th century, as we have seen, great minds have been writing about and preparing the world for what was to come: William Penn (The U.S. State of Pennsylvania is named after him), and the big names I already mentioned in my last lecture. In the beginning of the 19th century, the first peace societies were established in the USA and in England, and the Russian Czar Alexander I proposed a universal alliance, of which the USA should also be a part. Then Henri Dunant from Switzerland started the Red Cross, to make war more human and less cruel, if possible, and help the wounded. Other prominent pacifists were Victor Hugo, and the Austrian activists Bertha von Suttner and others. In Japan Kitamura Tokoku published a journal "Heiwa", and in India Ram Mohan Roy prepared India to become an independent nation. The creation of the International Olympic Committee in 1894 was meant as an alternative to war. In China the reformer Kang Yuwei was active and in Persia Baha'u'llah founded a new religion, the Baha'i, that rejected the Muslim idea of "Holy War". The Polish-Russian Ivan de Bloch wrote the first scientifically researched book about the future wars that was translated into many languages, including Japanese. The time was ripe for a great get-together to regulate the affairs of the world. It was the Russian Czar Nicholas II, and eventually also the Dutch Queen Wilhelmina who invited to the First Hague Peace Conference that took place in 1899, and in which almost all the free nations of the world, including from Asia and America, participated.

FIFTH LECTURE (CLICK HERE for the PowerPoint presentation)

There are several reasons why the Hague Peace Conferences, 1899 and 1907, were convened: (1) the prospect of future wars. In fact Jean de Bloch had been a member of the Russian Council advising the Tsar, and of course, (2) the "arms race", in particular the invention of a new machinegun. (3) The rising costs for individual countries of maintaining an army, and navy. (4) Pressure from the peace movement, especially from the Inter-Parliamentary Union, founded by Frederic Passy and Randal Cremer. (5) The pacifism of the Russian emperor, whose wife had read to Nicholas from Leo Tolstoy's book on war and peace. (6) Christian pacifism., and last but not least, (7) American enlightened interests in a stable peace in Europe. The two main purposes of the conferences, over which agreement was sought, were the following: (1) disarmament, and (2) the creation of an international court for the peaceful settlement of disputes among states. It was easy to understand for everybody the world over, including ordinary citizens, that in order to be able to disarm, the international legal order would need to be strengthened. Instead of going to war, whenever diplomacy would fail, civilized nations, just like people and groups within countries, would be obliged to go to court to settle their differences. Who could fail to grasp  such a simple idea?

To reach a decision for establishing an international court with binding powers, a consensus was required. The question was voted on twice, in 1899 and in 1907, and a consensus could not be reached. At the Second Hague Peace Conference the Americans tried very hard to bring about a majority vote--the great majority of nations was indeed in favor--but in vain. A Third Hague Peace Conference was planned for 1914, when it was expected that a majority vote would be accepted.

SIXTH LECTURE (The period following the Hague Peace Conferences, till the end of the First World War 〇 CLICK HERE for the PowerPoint presentation)

In the period following the Hague Peace Conferences, preparations were on the way for the Third Hague Peace Conference, initially planned for 1914. After the failure of the project of an international court with binding powers, there was a worldwide boom among many countries concluding bilateral obligatory arbitration treaties.  Several international conferences took place and resolutions were adopted to strengthen the international rule of law and further international cooperation. Prominent were the creation of the Pan-American Union in 1910 and the foundation of the Chinese Republic in 1911, as well as the First Racial Congress in London in 1911. Also, the building of the Hague Peace Palace, donated by Andrew Carnegie, between 1907 and 1913, must be seen as a preparation for the Third Hague Peace Conferences, initially planned for 1914.

During the war a powerful international movement of neutral states and pacifist organizations worked toward bringing about a negotiated peace to end the war. In Japan、 Shidehara Kijuro, who had been ambassador in The Hague from 1814 to 1915, from 1916 onwards, as chairman of the Preparatory Commission for the post-war period (日独戦役講和準備委員会), geared up for the new international organization after the war.

SEVENTH LECTURE (The Versailles-Washington System, the League of Nations, Collective Security and Shidehara Diplomacy CLICK HERE for the PowerPoint presentation)

Following the devastating First World War, the first "total" war in history that has been called a "seminal catastrophe" and a war that should never have happened, the victorious Allies, the "Entente cordiale" (French, usually translated as "cordial agreement"), set about creating a new international organization. Meeting at Versailles, they laid down the conditions for ending the war, and wrote the basic text, the "Covenant" of the League of Nations. Although the League of Nations was inspired by American ideas, the USA never joined, partly because it was thought the Covenant did not go far enough toward a world federation, which they thought was needed to effectively outlaw war. An attempt was made at Washington in 1921/1922, to create a system that could bring about security and disarmament, including in the Pacific region and in East Asia. The Washington treaties did indeed bring about actual disarmament and the scrapping of of naval vessels.

The League of Nations definitely was an improvement compared to the Hague Union, because it incorporated an executive, Collective Security, which meant that all nations would combine to contain an aggressor. Eventually through the efforts of the American movement to outlaw war, European pacifist policies and Shidehara Diplomacy, war was renounced and outlawed in the famous Pact of Paris, the Kellogg-Briand Pact.

EIGHTH LECTURE (Some Peace plans, before and during the Second World War 〇 CLICK HERE for the PowerPoint presentation)

There were many peace plans and plans to improve the League of Nations and make it more effective, before and during the Second World War. To mention just a few, the near-forgotten Geneva Protocol of 1924, the French plans for an international executive and the British politician Lord David Davies's (1880-1944, founder, New Commonwealth Society) master plan for the creation of an international air force to be the arm of the League of Nations, were widely discussed and later became part of the United Nations Charter.

NINETH LECTURE (The Constitutional Law of Peace - droit constitutionnel de la paix - and Collective Security 〇 CLICK HERE for the PowerPoint presentation! CLICK HERE for Text only)

Some people may wonder if there is a relationship between the Constitutional Law of Peace – droit constitutionnel de la paix, as it is called in French – and Collective Security. What is the purpose of Article 9? Is it just designed to keep Japan unarmed (then the article would have failed completely in its objectives) or is it a first step toward an "international peace based on justice and order" (as it says in the article)? Was it imposed on Japan (to keep it unarmed) or was it home-made, having grown out of the Japanese experience with the League of Nations, the failure of peace, and the subsequent war? - Fact is that both Shidehara Kijuro, the foreign minister in the 1920s and post war prime minister, and General MacArthur have asserted Shidehara's authorship. The educated opinion in Japan is, it seems, that Shidehara suggested the article (including most of the wording), and MacArthur put it into the Constitution. 

And then there are all the other, mostly European constitutions that also aim at an international legal order. As I have tried to show in my previous lecture, the League of Nations failed not so much because the USA was not a member, but because there was no mechanism for member states to delegate powers to the world organization for its effective functioning. The League Council was a "closed shop". Article 9 and the other similar constitutional stipulations provide for countries to delegate powers to or limit their powers in favor of the UN system of collective security. This, however, is something that has not yet been put into practice, so the UN system of collective security remains o paper only. I fact the only country to have limited its national sovereignty in favor of and international order based on justice and peace is Japan. Article 9 is like a motion, waiting to be seconded.

TENTH LECTURE (The United Nations and UN Reform 〇 CLICK HERE for the PowerPoint presentation)

When we talk about the United Nations, Collective Security and the UN Charter, we have to realize that (1) important provisions in the UN Charter have not been put into practice, and (2) there have been misunderstandings and misreadings of the UN Charter text. One of such misunderstandings concerns the so-called veto right of the five permanent members of the Security Council. First of all we have to understand that the UN Charter was not meant to be the final and ultimate constitution of the world community. In fact a "General Conference" was supposed to be held soon after the UN Charter went into effect, "for the purpose of reviewing" and possibly rewriting or revising the Charter, after some of the provisions which are important for the effective functioning of the world organization had been implemented.

Also, we have to understand that the UN Charter is a very well thought out plan, that was adopted in view of the previous failures, with the intention to avoid past mistakes and have an international organization "with teeth". For the idealistic American and others the UN Charter was to be a springboard for establishing a world federation, or to put it differently, it was (and is) a blueprint for getting from "A" to "B", i.e. from a negative (armed) to a positive (unarmed) peace.

ELEVENTH LECTURE (The Motion: Article of the Japanese Constitution and the Movement to Abolish the Institution of War 〇 CLICK HERE for the PowerPoint presentation)

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is a home-made, not a foreign product. It is a motion to abolish war. War is an institution. The institution of war has a budget, buildings, training facilities etc., all of which have their legal basis in national constitutions. All nations are equal, and equally under obligation to guarantee the territorial integrity and the peace and security of their respective peoples. The UN Charter stipulates in Article 2, 1: "The Organisation is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its Members." In this sense Japan, having already rejected the institution of war in its Constitution, is not equal. So, if another country would follow up on Japan's initiative (or motion) to abolish war, the principle of sovereign equality would take on a new direction. There would be a pull for other nations to adapt to the new trend, until all countries are equally disarmed.

It also needs to be said that the Japanese Government, scholars etc. are well aware of the problem. Article 9 has been discussed in Japan for many decades, and there seems to be a general understanding that its war-abolishing property (involving a limitation of its national sovereignty) is a necessary ingredient toward collective security and disarmament. It is hoped that eventually the United Nations will effectively function to reduce reliance on the Self-Defence Forces (SDF) and the US-Japan Security Alliance for safeguarding the nation's peace and security.


German PROTEST SONGS 抗議の歌 (プロテストソング) and ANTIWAR LYRICS 反戦歌詞.

( CLICK HERE for the the WORD document with the songs by Reinhard Mey, Wolf Biermann, Konstantin Wecker and Nena in German with my English transliteration)


THIRTEENTH LECTURE (there may be no thirteenth lecture)


This is a work-in-progress, please check from time to time!



Personal 僕のこと


Consensus model


Round letters




Publications 出版されている私の記事


Peace Constitutions 平和憲法


TEXTE            Texts

ÖKOLOGIE     Ecology

LITERATUR       Literature 







フリードリッヒ  ニーチェ: 

Deutsch      日本語      français

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)