Kampagne für die Reform der Vereinten Nationen

Movement for UN Reform (UNFOR)

SI  VIS  PACEM  PARA  PACEM!

 If you want peace, prepare for peace!

平和を望むなら平和に備えよ

 

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)!)◄◄

ÿ

THE LAW OF THE REVERSAL OF TENDENCIES

by Klaus Schlichtmann

 

ART. IX / 九条

Unterstützer

支援してくださっている人々

INTERESSANTER TEXT:

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.

UNO-CHARTA UN CHARTER

CHARTE DES NATIONS UNIS

ÿ

 

Der Drei-Billionen-Dollar-Krieg

 

·Wie werde ich friedensaktiv ?·

Mitmachen   HIER   eintragen

The Statesman
Be Better Informed

http://www.thestatesman.net/page.arcview.php?date=2006-06-13&usrsess=1547219421380&clid=3&id=147285  

Editorial               

 

(see the original page)                               Tuesday, June 13 2006 

One world order~II

 

India’s Commitment To Disarmament Should Be Exploited

Klaus Schlichtmann

If foreign policy makers in Europe and elsewhere would concentrate on the “One world” idea as the basis for disarmament, and some European nations were to start delegating powers in favour of a UN sovereign authority for the organisation and defence of peace, as many of their constitutions stipulate, this would set off a significant paradigm change. If it comes to pass, the permanent (nuclear) members in the security council would temporarily (have to) assume transitional authority. The question is whether the peace movement and the general public will develop enough momentum, good-will and arguments to force governments to make a rational choice and move in the right direction.
Quite true, during the period of transition to the ultimate status of common, collective security, the UN system might be “exposed to a few shocks”, as an early 1951 Unesco publication corroborates, but these would be of “measurable proportions”. In the process, fundamentalist and terrorist movements would lose their raison d’etre.

Not an option

Unfortunately, some pacifists still seem to believe that unilateral or international disarmament is possible without a supervising authority or organisation. This is an illusion. Goodwill among some nations will be exploited if the security vacuum that will inevitably manifest itself in the transitional period is not filled. In the UN Charter the five permanent representatives, backed by the UN membership, are designated to fill the gap. To doubt their commitment and belittle or underestimate their obligation under the Charter is not an option.
Of course at present many scholars and politicians object to and rightly criticise the provision of the veto, because it gives some powers a privileged position and status. But does the veto have other than transitional import? I believe it was meant not to preserve the status quo but to create a power hub to ensure that change will happen, and to make possible the necessary transition to the next stage. The text of the UN Charter suggests that as long as the Security Council has not been truly enabled to begin the full exercise of its responsibilities, in accordance with Article 106 of the UN Charter (and the other provisions relevant in this connection), the veto has only preliminary significance. After the transitional period, when the system of collective security is fully operational, it loses its meaning and function. It becomes powerless and obsolete, because all the power is now with the UN, and all national military institutions are abolished.
Is it too far-fetched to assume that as a permanent representative of the Global South in the UN,
India would endorse and strengthen the international rule of law and “contribute towards building a multi-polar world”? And that India’s nuclear tests therefore “should be greeted with tolerance and understanding, rather than with fear and trepidation?” Granted of course that the “transitional security arrangements” in the UN Charter are going to be put into effect. This is something Japan and Europe together, in their strategic plannings, should think about.
As Indian diplomats in
Geneva have pointed out, the “failure of the international community to effectively address the threat posed by nuclear weapons over the past fifty years” makes it an ever more urgent task to “redouble ... efforts for their elimination”. They have repeatedly stressed that the “goal of global nuclear non-proliferation can be achieved if the international community looks beyond the old framework and embraces a new security paradigm that can ensure international peace and security on the basis of equal and legitimate security for all through global disarmament”. (October 1999)
If atomic weapons can be the means to achieve disarmament and realise a peaceful world order, India’s explicit and continued “commitment to pursuing global nuclear disarmament in order to achieve a nuclear-weapon free world” should be exploited, as also its active participation in “multilateral discussions to bring about such a regime in a non-discriminatory manner within a definite time frame”. The official draft report of the National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine, of August 1999, states that it is “India’s endeavour to proceed towards this overall objective (an environment of durable peace and insurance against potential risks to peace and stability) in cooperation with the global democratic trends and to play a constructive role in advancing the international system toward a just, peaceful and equitable order”.
The prospect of “vesting in the United Nations ... the monopoly of atomic weapons”, in order to be able to disarm and create common security was aloft in the early years after the war. It is this idea which needs to be discussed today. Nuclear power should, in the words of the above quoted UNESCO publication (Andrew Martin, 1951), become “a perennial fountain of world prosperity”, including the peaceful uses of atomic energy. As in the early years after World War II, the world is today once more waiting “with bated breath” for a constructive movement to make sure that “these awful agencies” will contribute to world peace, instead of “wreaking measureless havoc upon the entire globe”.
In order to achieve the purposes of the United Nations, member states must, in the words of the Unesco publication, be “willing to delegate to the Security Council, for the performance of its police functions, a sizeable portion of their sovereignty” ~ as many European constitutions stipulate. Significantly, the post-war Japanese Peace Constitution’s Article 9 was conceived as a motion to abolish war and a first powerful step towards delegating sovereign powers to the UN.

Special task

The Europeans may have a historic task initiating a process that leads to a better and more just, governed world. In this scheme,
India and Japan, among others, would assume a special task “to deprive local states of their traditional prerogative of making war”, as British historian Arnold Toynbee insisted (1960). In Toynbee’s design, India occupied “a key position in the world”, being the “central link in a chain of regional civilisations that extends from Japan in the north-east to Ireland in the far north-west”.
Seen from geo-political perspective.
India could “hold the balance” in the worldwide struggle between many competing interests. Something similar may be said for Japan, acting as a link between the Americas and East Asia.
The nuclear predicament compels us to rethink our prerogatives and priorities, and adopt a one-world view and policy. At the same time I would like to maintain that it also provides the opportunity for safe passage through the expected transition toward a disarmed world. Now is the time to give new meaning to and realise the original purpose the founders of the United Nations ~ and briefly after the Second World War also the United States ~ had in mind.
(Concluded)

 

 

 

 

One world order~I  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PERSÖNLICHES

Personal 僕のこと

KONSENSMODELL

Consensus model

RUNDBRIEFE

Round letters

KORRESPONDENZ

Correspondence

VERÖFFENTLICHUNGEN

Publications 出版されている私の記事

FRIEDENSVERFASSUNG

Peace Constitutions 平和憲法

VÖLKERRECHT

TEXTE            Texts

ÖKOLOGIE     Ecology

LITERATUR       Literature 

ZITATE & SPRÜCHE Sayings

IGH ICJ

GUT:

http://www.democracynow.org

 

FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE:

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)

ÿ