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 world peace … in a unified Europe«
(Preamble, German Constitution)
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mrs. Yoriko Kawaguchi
Shiba Koen 2-11-1
Nakakayama, 26 November 2003
I am referring to my letter to you of 11 June 2003! I have taken the liberty to put the letter on the internet, at my website, both in the original English, and in Japanese translation.
In that letter I discussed with you, among other things, the advantages of a TWO-STAGE APPROACH to UN reform, and its obvious practical advantages. In my letter I had argued that the number “five” of the “P-5” for the permanent members should be maintained in STAGE I, and the seat gained by having a single European representation should then be given to a prominent member of the South, i.e. India, as a means to enhance the representation and credibility of the United Nations. In fact, recent polls conducted under the auspices of the European Commission have found 70% in favor of a single European permanent representation in the UNSC. However, a European representation is not an indispensable condition for giving a permanent seat to India, and I have come to the conclusion that it would be desirable if India were given a seat at the earliest possible time, irrespective of whether the Europeans take action to strengthen the United Nations or not. India is the best guarantee to successfully achieve nuclear disarmament and the fulfillment of the obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, if it is backed by Japan. Japan would then be a natural candidate for a permanent representation in STAGE II. (For India’s nuclear record see Gopal Singh and S.K. Sharma, Documents on India’s Nuclear Disarmament Policy, 3 vols., New Delhi: Anamika, 2000.) Giving a permanent seat to India, in this scheme of things, should have to be accompanied by the establishment of a ‘Civil Society Council’ under Article 22 of the UN Charter.
Let me say a few words again, concerning Article IX of the Japanese ‘Peace Constitution’. I for one don’t believe that, because some responsible politicians are considering revising the war-abolishing article, Japan is on the brink of becoming militaristic. In fact, by adopting various remedies (救済策) in the past, the Legislation Bureau has meant to preserve the essence of Article IX; furthermore, most advocates in favor of revising the article also wish to preserve its pacifist spirit. Remedies are legitimate legal means adopted to preserve an important principle. They do not in themselves suggest that those adopting them propose in any way to violate that principle. A country may even resort to self-help, if the international situation so requires, and take certain measures to preserve the nation’s peace and integrity. This is what India did when it decided to ‘go nuclear’. Japan’s Self-Defense Forces may also fall under this category, as they lack a constitutional basis, but can claim legitimacy under Article 51 of the UN Charter. However, there are certain dangers lurking here, and there are limits, of which I am sure your Government is aware.
(1) In the process, the essence, the principle may actually be lost, after all;
(2) Japan, having ideally entrusted its “security and existence” in the effective foundation of “an international peace based on justice and order” and the rule of law – which has not been achieved in international relations, so far – may be in danger of losing its determination and faith in the universal principles of “political morality”, by no longer believing “in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world,” and is giving up hope that real disarmament may be achieved in the near future, if at all;
(3) by not telling the public that revision of Article IX would most likely imply raising the status of the Self-Defense Agency to that of a Ministry – involving further, far-reaching constitutional revision – Japanese democracy may be seriously damaged; and
(4) there is a danger of confusing the United Nations System of Collective Security with collective self defense (under Article 51 of the UN Charter).
Anyway, this is of course mere speculation, because I don’t think the Japanese people will permit any change. Personally I believe that Article IX is not only a national treasure (such as what the house of Ueki Emori in Kochi should become, see my recent lecture, enclosed), but that it belongs to the whole world. It is truly a world treasure. As a German in particular I feel, it is part of my heritage because Article IX is the outcome of the nuclear bombs that were originally meant to be used against Nazi Germany.
I am confident and I sincerely wish that the German Government, as a European ‘Central Power’, aware of the significance of maintaining Article IX as a point of reference and a cornerstone for establishing an effective system of Collective Security in the near future, will support Japan and invigorate its faith in the possibilities and advantages of non-military conflict resolution and a ‘Cooperative World Order’ (Gerhard Schröder) based on the rule of law. France evidently continues to be in favor of putting the United Nations System of Collective Security into effect, and it does not categorically reject the possibility of a European representation in the UN Security Council. It also endorses India’s quest for a permanent UNSC representation.
Allow me also to congratulate you on your reelection! With best wishes I am
(Klaus Schlichtmann, Ph.D.)
cc: Sri Jashwant Sinha, Indian Minister of External Affairs; Sri George Fernandes, Indian Minister of Defence; Mr. Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister; the Indian and Japanese Ambassadors to the United Nations in New York; Missions of the Permanent Members to the United Nations in Tokyo and New York; Mr. Yukio Sato, former Ambassador to the United Nations; Mr. Yukio Okamoto, Advisor to the Prime Minister; Ambassador Sakutaro Tanino; Indian National Security Advisor Sri Brajesh Mishra, Prof. M.S. Swaminathan, Pugwash et alii.
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)