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 first completely customisable news site on the web
129 years in print

(THE STATESMAN is a major English-language daily newspaper in India)

Kolkata, May 16, 2005

 

Editorial

 

ASIAN POWER Country Representing ‘Global South’ Should Get Permanent UN Seat

By KLAUS SCHLICHTMANN

The disagreements between Japan on one side and China and Korea on the other, which made headlines last month, concerning some island territories and historical issues could be an opportunity for Japan to rethink its position with respect to obtaining a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Although Japan may well deserve such a position, and the Korean and Chinese claims and accusations are overstated, it would be a good tactical move on the part of Japan to reconsider.

 

Crumbling power

As far as history is concerned, both China and Korea were backward, repressive oligarchies at the end of the 19th century, who kicked out their own reformist elite to preserve their crumbling power. Names like So Chaep’il and Kang Youwei are still remembered. Kang Youwei finished writing his famous “One-World” book in Darjeeling in 1902, stressing the need for the world to unite politically. So Chaep’il fled to the United States in 1898. Many Koreans and Chinese who were forced to flee or preferred to leave their country were welcomed in Japan, where they conspired against their repressive governments. As some historians put it: The Chinese Revolution of 1911 “was largely made in Japan” (by the expatriates).

Concerning the events that followed at the beginning of the 20th century, the Germans in 1914 unleashed a “thirty years war struggle” (as many historians now call it), which had dire consequences all over the world. As a German, I am still waiting for my country to apologise for starting the first “total war” in world history in 1914. This war had a great impact on developments in Asia.

No one can deny that Japan was a positive force in the interwar period as a Council member in the League of Nations. At the same time, foreign minister Shidehara Kijuro’s conciliatory policy toward China was not sufficiently reciprocated by the Chinese at the time — much to the regret of Shidehara who was unsuccessful in restraining the military, and whose civilian government was ousted in 1931.

 

Power politics

Now, when it comes to reforming the UN and especially the Security Council, Japan should take an attitude based on law and justice rather than power politics. The aim of Security Council reform is to transform the world executive from the present institution based almost exclusively on power, to one based on law. As John Foster Dulles wrote in his memoirs War or Peace (1950), “The Security Council is ... a law unto itself ... it can decide in accordance with what it think is expedient”. Adding a few more powerful countries would not make it more democratic or effective. In fact, theoretically, even without the UN, the five permanent members and any “coalition of the willing” could act in the name of maintaining peace and security, but this is not what the founders of the UN had in mind. To achieve the purpose, the UN Charter envisages that Parliaments must delegate powers concerning defence and security, and give the Security Council a proper legal framework and authority.

With respect to making the Security Council more representative, it would for the time being suffice to give a permanent seat to a prominent country representing the “Global South”. which is not represented at all so far. This country could be India. Given the task India might also be able and willing to initiate nuclear and general and complete disarmament under effective international control. While the NPT review conference is taking place in New York, and taking advantage of the new Bandung spirit, this may be an idea to consider seriously.

 

UN reforms

If Japan and China were to support India and if they could ensure India’s commitment to nuclear disarmament — granting that the other nuclear powers go along — comprehensive UN reforms could be scheduled for a second stage in the reform process, say five years from now, when the resolution of some of those issues vital for preserving world peace, like disarmament and the pacific settlement of disputes, have been brought well under way. Such a selfless attitude from Japan would reap high dividends. The big “if’’ to also take into account is the possibility that a consensus on the proposals put forward in December last year by the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change may not be forthcoming by September, the deadline set by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Since China seems to somewhat favour India, this may also be a way to find common ground for Japan and its great neighbour. Eventually Japan would be given a prominent and permanent position in the World Council, not least because it has upheld the war-renouncing Article 9 of its 1947 Constitution for so long.

At the same time, India might also consider “seconding” Article 9, the nearly 60-year old “motion” on the part of the Japanese to abolish the institution of war.

The author is a researcher and a peace activist in Japan

 

 

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