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

The first completely customisable news site on the web
130 years in print

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

Be Better Informed




(see the original page)                                Monday, June 12 2006 

One world order~I

When in 1946 the United States put forward its proposal for the international control of atomic energy, the so-called Baruch Plan, this was conceived by many as a plan for world government.
The United Nations would be given real enforcement powers, and the central control of atomic energy was to ensure that nations could peacefully ~ and safely, under a global nuclear umbrella ~ disarm, with collective security eventually guaranteeing each nation’s safety from foreign attack and exploitation.
At the time the
US was the only country possessing nuclear weapons. The first atomic bomb, as Albert Einstein and others, among them US Senator J William Fulbright and Justice Owen J Roberts proclaimed in an open letter published in the New York Times in October 1945, had “destroyed more than the city of Hiroshima. it also exploded our inherited, outdated political ideas”.

UN Charter

Moreover, the UN Charter in their opinion was “a tragic illusion unless we are ready to take further steps necessary to organise peace”. The UN Charter ~ and democratic constitutions like the Japanese Peace Constitution ~ can only point the way and advocate certain steps that would have to be taken eventually.
The opinion of nuclear scientists helped shape government policies. The Association of Los Alamos Scientists (ALAS) working in the atomic bomb laboratory of Los Alamos in New Mexico, declared in November 1945 that a world “in which nuclear weapons are owned by many nations and their use held back only by the fear of retaliation will be a world of fear, suspicion, and inevitable final explosion”. They were confident that “we are left but only one course of action... (to) cooperate with the rest of the world in the future development of atomic power”. Utilisation of “atomic energy as a weapon” had to be “controlled by a world authority”. This would require the “loss of some degree of national sovereignty”.
The transfer or limitation of national sovereignty in support of the United Nations was to be one of the most important steps necessary for the organisation of peace.
Japan after the war nuclear scientist and Nobel laureate Hideki Yukawa and with him numerous lawmakers supported the idea of a world federation.
Indian diplomats at the UN also emphasised that disarmament must be accompanied by “the establishment of reliable procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes; that is to say, that something is to be substituted for arms, if arms are taken away, in order to maintain what arms are supposed to be doing: to keep the peace” (Menon 1961).
Those wishing for an effective international organisation or world federation considered the existing United Nations too weak to safeguard a fragile peace. Others denied the UN Charter actually was a workable blueprint for a future world authority with enforcement powers. Soviet mistrust and reluctance to cooperate soon thwarted the American plans for the international management of the atom. As Albert Einstein had foretold, the atomic bomb “changed everything except our way of thinking”. Yet it was also clear that in the atomic age, as British historian Arnold Toynbee declared, “world unity on any plane” could not, as in the past, be accomplished “by the military method”.
Enforcement action by a powerful nation or coalition of the willing, in the absence of an effective UN system of collective security, is highly problematic, especially if national interest determines and dominates the action, as is the case with the
The steps necessary to an organised peace were essentially defined in 1961. While the Cold War in
Europe was heating up, the United States and Soviet Russia tried, after years of painstaking negotiations, to mend ties and agree on nuclear and general and complete disarmament, strengthening the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, and abolishing all institutions of war including military budgets and all. Europe being the focal point and breeding ground of contention, support from the old continent (and the still colonial powers) was conspicuously absent.
India and Japan as non-nuclear nations vigorously supported nuclear and conventional disarmament. When in 1961 Japanese Prime Minister Ikeda and Russian President Khrushchev were engaged in negotiations to further friendly and peaceful cultural, commercial and scientific exchanges, Indian diplomats at the UN focussed on disarmament as “a step to something more important: namely, the outlawing of war”, which was now “incorporated in this agreement”, i.e., the historic McCloy-Zorin Accords between the United States and the Soviet Union referred to above.


Today, in 2006, the nuclear state of the world is the most likely environment fit to bring about disarmament and a one world order, if its rationale can somehow be turned around in a positive move. Toward this end
India can be a powerful player and ally.
Japan and India persistently tried to obtain assurances against the use of nuclear weapons. In 1970, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into force. In Article VI, which commits the (nuclear) powers “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”, it essentially codified the McCloy-Zorin accords which President John F Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev had sponsored in 1961.
(To be concluded)

© Klaus Schlichtmann




One world order~II










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)