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 ?·
We are obsessed by the notion that war has to be averted instead of being possessed by the idea of implementing our vision of peace.
The Delegation of Powers to the Security Council - Background and History
The German World Federalists (Weltföderalisten Deutschlands e.V. - WFD) took the initiative for the first time in 1983 when they approached political parties, the Foreign Ministry and the German Government. Initially the aim was, to empower the UN Security Council to implement measures for disarmament, by transferring to it the question of the deployment of new medium range Pershing 2 missiles and Cruise Missiles on German territory. The proposal drew some attention in Bonn at the time and we were invited to the capital, to discuss the matter with a representative of the Foreign Ministry, which at the time was in the hands of the Liberal Democratic Party (F.D.P.). Is the chance that perhaps existed then now lost forever?
The F.D.P.’s vice chairman in a long letter commented on the Draft Bill proposal for the "Delegation to the Security Council of sovereign powers involving the deployment of new American missiles" on German territory. He admitted that ‘in the age of excessive nuclear armaments and economic interdependence … the insistence on traditional national sovereignty in international law and politics is essentially an anachronism’. ‘International cooperation as well as international and supranational levels of control and decision-making ’ were ‘necessary’. The German Constitution's Article 24 GG we drew on did indeed form ‘the basis for the delegation of sovereign powers by law,’ and insofar our proposed way was ‘legally possible, [and] in accordance with the basic law’. Also, the Constitution ‘determined the general rules of international law to be a part of federal law.’ They ‘precede domestic laws’ and "create rights and duties directly binding upon the inhabitants of the Federal Republic" (Article 25). Furthermore, Article 26 prohibits all "actions, which are designed and undertaken with the intention to disturb the peaceful coexistence of peoples..." Therefore, the delegation of sovereign powers could ‘take place insofar as the aims, purposes and concrete actions were in accordance with these provisions.’ Nevertheless, the high-ranking F.D.P. politician said, ‘although the idea was attractive,' he was not able ‘to support such an initiative,’ because in his opinion our proposal could ‘not lead up to the political goal of "a balance in armaments at a lower level." (Uwe Ronneburger, 26. September 1983)
Seeking to put the quest also to political scientists, peace researchers and international lawyers, we asked the opinion of Professor Volker Rittberger, who was then teaching at the Institute of Political Sciences at the University of Tübingen. Professor Rittberger replied that he thought ‘the proposal [was] very interesting’ and, ‘although at present I see no chances of its realization, it should be examined for its political implications. Only if you will take these into consideration, and opposition against such regulation of delegating sovereign powers [to the UNSC] can be identified, would your undertaking have any chances of success.’ (Volker Rittberger, 4.Oktober 1983)
Hans-Henning Rosen, secretary in the Personal Bureau of Willy Brandt, of the Social Democratic Party that was in the opposition at the time, wrote: ‘Mr Brandt has asked me to thank you for sending us the draft bill for delegating sovereign powers to the Security Council of the United Nations.’ Willy Brandt has asked ‘the working groups in charge of the SPD-faktion in the Parliament (Bundestag), to seriously consider such a suggestion’ and confirmed, that ’Article 24 of the Basic Law provides a handle for relinquishing sovereign powers in favour of a system of collective security. In view of the declaration in the Constitution to serve the peace of the world, it would be logical to reject any [military] block formations in favor of a collective security system in Europe and the world.’ However, he thought it was necessary to take into account the ’decisive problem’, i.e. to ‘bring about a collective renunciation, in order to avoid a security vacuum for individual countries who are willing to give up [their individual right of belligerency]. It was thanks to the German World Federalists, to have ‘come closer to this goal.’ (Personal Bureau Büro Willy Brandt, 25. Oktober 1983) What the bureau apparently did not know at the time, was that the UN Charter already provided safety measures for this event by stipulating that in the period of 'transition’, during which the United Nations obtains a monopoly of power, as originally envisaged by its founders, the permanent members (and, “as occasion requires … other Members of the United Nations”) are to back up the process guaranteeing the peaceful transition (Article 106).
The Working Group I of the SPD, too, confirmed on 16 November 1984, that the Party would stand by its judgment that the ‘proposal in the Basic Law showed a meaningful way,’ but was ’nevertheless presently not yet in a position, to introduce a respective bill,’ because ’at this time (it would have) no chance of getting a meaningful parliamentary hearing.’ (AK I SPD, 16.11.84)
The GREEN PARTY which had only recently joined Parliament were much more sceptical. They said that the ‘delegation of sovereign powers to the UN Security Council [we] propagate as a peace-making element’ was with the GREENS ‘not at all consensus…’ Although relinquishing sovereign powers ‘could be supported, if in place of national egotisms a system of collective securing of peace (Friedenssicherung)’ was put in its place, the writer criticised our ‘attempt of trying to achieve in a short cut as it were by legalistic ways and means (auf juristischem Wege), what [in his] opinion could only be he result of a long-term, slowly evolving change in (political) consciousness’ and he quoted from the Women’s Independent Peace Movement in the GDR: “Disarmament begins in the head.” Our initiative was, ‘in the language of “Realpolitik“! – ahead of its time’ and also ahead of ‘the discussions within the GREEN Party’ (Bureau Petra Kelly, 31 May 1985) This was almost twenty years ago!
A ray of hope was the letter by Nobel prize laureate Jan Tinbergen, who wrote us on 4 June 1985 distinctly: ‘I think it is an excellent idea to have transferred security sovereignty from national governments to the Security Council of the United Nations. Your example should be followed by all other governments.’ The Social Democrat Tinbergen welcomed the positive attitude of the SPD in this question. Indeed, again on 10 September the Foreign Committee of the Party dealt ‘with the issue [we] addressed, of delegating sovereign powers to the United Nations,’ commenting: ‘Not least because a number of leading members of our party are also members in the German UNA and are speaking in favor of strengthening the United Nations, we are positively disposed towards the basic idea (presented in) your deliberations.’ However, ‘in view of the existing power constellation in parliament … presently [the SPD saw] no chance of a positive parliamentary treatment [of our] concrete proposal.’ (Foreign Committee, SPD, 10 September 1985)
It went on like that. In May the following year, Professor Kurt Biedenkopf, who later became leader of the Federal German state of Saxonia, acknowledged in response to our “Statement on Pooling ‘Security Sovereignty’ with the United Nations” that we had ‘taken up an interesting initiative with this proposal.’ (Kurt Biedenkopf, 5 May 1986) In the beginning of December the same year Norwegian peace researcher Professor Johann Galtung informed us (writing in German): ‘I am thinking in the same direction.’ (Galtung, 8.12.86)
Professor Hieronim Kubiak, President of the Polish Peace Committee, who had also the same year participated with us in the Copenhagen Peace Congress, wrote us on 9 December 1987: ‘I have found your paper (“Pooling Security Sovereignty with the United Nations”) interesting and full of historical exemplifications backing your reasoning.’ They were moving times, in which many in the international movement of the world federalists under the leadership of the Dane Dr. Hermod Lannung maintained contacts to many East European and Communist ‘colleagues’, with whom they kept up a dialogue for peace and understanding.
‘An initiative in the sense you have proposed has so far not been seriously [!] considered by us. With the present political constellation in the world the Security Council of the United Nations would in our view surely be overtaxed, if it would be charged with an extra burden of new responsibilities, as you suggest. This could easily result in discrediting the United Nations as a whole,’ the Working Group I of the Social Democratic Party in the German ‘Bundestag’ wrote us in January 1988. Had the constitutional provision stipulating that lawmakers take concrete action for peace in the meantime been forgotten? Sure!: ‘If it is right to strengthen the institution of the United Nations in the long term, political good sense nevertheless would suggest waiting for the respective, correct moment. Only in a broad, worldwide consensus could such restructuring of international responsibilities be realized.’ (SPD, 6 January 1988) Now we know: everything depends on seizing the right moment!
The Berlin Wall tumbles, but nothing happens. The nuclear physician and peace researcher Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker professes: ‘I just want to tell you, that I principally find the aims you stand for to be exactly the right aims. Of course, how this is carried out in detail is continually anew a question of concrete politics.’ (Weizsäcker, 31 January 1991) Did he mean that the aims were o.k., but the way, the approach through our Constitution and the UN Charter, was wrong?
Meanwhile, the Foreign Office was ‘very thoroughly also dealing with institutional questions of the UN’ and ‘therefore quite grateful for suggestions and “unsolicited advice”,’ being in spring 1991 of the opinion that ‘the instruments of the United Nations (should) be strengthened’ (Bureau Genscher, AA, 18 March 1991). And the renowned authority on international law, Professor Otto Kimminich certified us once more in December: ‘You are quite right that Article 24 GG presents a handle for transferring responsibilities to the UN, which so far were subject under the sovereignty of the nation state. According to German constitutional law I suppose such a delegation/transfer would have to take place in the form of a law/bill. Again you are quite right, when you say that fort his purpose parliament (the Bundestag) could pass a law with simple majority.’ (Kimminich, 16 December 1991) On the same issue Karsten Voigt, the SPD’s foreign policy spokesman wrote: ‘I have noted with satisfaction that central considerations of your association [Weltföderalisten Deutschlands e.V.] coincide with the ideas and aims of the Social Democratic Party.’ (SPD, Voigt, 22 June 1992)
Also, following the Foreign Ministry’s assertion that it might heed our “unsolicited advice” (we had used the English term in our correspondence), German World Federalists had suggested, prior to the unilateral diplomatic recognition of some of the newly formed East European states, Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia etc., that this be made conditional on their recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as compulsory, and making a declaration to the effect, under Article 36, para 2 of the ICJ’s Statute. This, flanked by an appropriate policy of strengthening the United Nations, could have averted perhaps much of the violent conflicts that later ensued. Unfortunately there was no response to our “unsolicited advice”. In 1992 official activities of the chair of the German World Federalist Association came to an end, and there are only some occasional, sporadic communications and utterances:
‘Your suggestions and reflections on the reform of the United Nations are very interesting.’ (Chief Committee II, Foreign Policy Department of the Christian Democratic Union, CDU, Federal Office, Bonn, 9 July 1996)
Finally, the expert legal opinion of the renowned international jurist and advisor to the Foreign Ministry, Professor Knut Ipsen was sought, concerning the question whether the members of the United Nations had in fact already transferred sovereign powers to the Security Council. ‘I am not of the opinion that [member] states have already transferred primary responsibility fort he maintenance of international peace and security to the Security Council in the sense of a delegation of sovereign powers. Something like this would assume that the states insofar have regularly discharged a competence existing until that time from their own competence realm and tossed it toward the UN.’ (Professor Knut Ipsen, Law Faculty, Chair of Public Law [International Law], Ruhr-University Bochum, 13 April 1999)
‘With great sympathy I acknowledge your thought provoking initiative. Let me first, however, set something right: I have not spoken against a European [permanent] representation in the UN Security Council. I am of the opinion, that this would be of great benefit to further integration in Europe, and would both correspond more adequately to today’s constellation of states and the progress in integration achieved so far. ... With you I am convinced that progressive legal regulation (Verrechtlichung) and civilization of international relations are required. At the same time we have to recognize the conflict existing in the relation between ‘might and right’ as a given condition, the overcoming of which is a positive utopia in the sense that we have to work persistently toward it. ... The threefold reform task – institutionally, in international law and in the sense of a global social conception of political responsibility – must be resolutely pursued, especially by those states which, due to their recent history, are in a favorable position to try an innovative approach in the field of international relations. Among them is also the Federal Republic of Germany.’ (Günter Verheugen in a letter to the former chairman of the German World Federalists, 22 April 1999)
We are obsessed by the notion that war has to be averted instead of being possessed by the idea of implementing our vision of peace.
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)