How Germany Could Preserve World Order
EUROPE, 26 Aug 2024
Klaus Schlichtmann – TRANSCEND Media Service
Introduction
23 Aug 2024 – Today it is impossible for any one nation to effect positive change. No single nation can bring peace to the world. But a single nation can start a war. But why not the other way around? Historically, the first attempt to abolish war as an institution dates back to the Hague Peace Conferences, 1899 and 1907.1 The participating nations had agreed in principle to disarm. To be in a position to actually rid themselves of their costly armaments, and not have to be afraid of the resulting security vacuum, they understood that they would have to resolve their quarrels by accepting the rule of an international court with binding powers. They had understood—and so had people in general—that they could not disarm into a vacuum: nations like people had to agree to the rule of law and abide by it. And if fighting broke out anyway, they agreed to follow certain rules. Why did the plan fail, and how could this precedent be used to achieve a breakthrough and get rid of war? In fact, historically humanity had steadily moved towards peace and unity.
The Enlightenment and India
The Enlightenment had laid the foundations for a future international peace based on justice and cooperation. The East-West exchange around 1800, with the French Revolution, the Bengal Renaissance, and similar movements in China and Japan set the stage. The Enlightenment in Europe is the result of centuries-long developments, in which a lively exchange between East and West, the Orient and the Occident, had taken place. It came to a head with the Indian Renaissance, the Japanese late Edo period2 and European Renaissance. Closely related in many ways, a new concert of nations was emerging that spanned the entire world. The French orientalist Raymond Schwab described it: “For so long merely Mediterranean, humanism began to go global when the scientific reading of Avestan and Sanskrit scripts unlocked innumerable unsuspected scriptures.”3 Schwab could show that “after 1771 … the world [became] truly round.”4 Orient and Occident took a common position: the “vision of an integral humanism.”5 For the Europeans previously “merely Mediterranean,” humanism now, with the discovery of numerous ancient written cultures, began to go global.6
The employees of the British East India Company in Calcutta were not only businessmen, they researched oriental art, culture, classical literature and religion. In 1837, the orientalist James Prinsep (1799-1840) discovered the inscriptions of the pacifist Indian emperor Ashoka Maurya (ca. 302-233), rock-carved, which he subsequently translated. As a Buddhist Ashoka had sought the “victory of the [good] law” and denounced war. As Buddhism spread to China, so did Ashoka’s message of peace.7 Nineteen Ashoka monasteries existed at various sites and times in China. The discovery of the inscriptions was a sensation that resonated around the world. The Ashoka legend played a significant role in China and all East Asia.8 Knowledge of Ashoka, also known as the founder of the welfare state, arrived in Japan no later than the 7th century, together with early Buddhist writings. India’s national emblem is an adaptation of the Lion Capital of Ashoka, an ancient sculpture dating back to 280 BCE during the Maurya Empire.
Also worth mentioning is the British victory at Plassey (1757) which marked the end of British ‘informal’ rule in India, resulting in the subsequent “Plunder of Bengal.” Bengal was one of the richest provinces in India. The American historian Brooks Adams noted as early as 1898 that the capital Britain gained from the robbery of Bengal’s treasures triggered the Industrial Revolution. Author Brooks Adams: “Very soon after Plassey the Bengal plunder began to arrive in London, and the effect appears to have been instantaneous, for all authorities agree that the Industrial Revolution, the event that has divided the 19th century from all antecedent time, began with the year 1760 … probably nothing has ever equalled the rapidity of the change which followed … In themselves inventions are passive, many of the most important having laid dormant for centuries, waiting for a sufficient store of force to have accumulated to have set them working. That store must always take the shape of money, and money not hoarded, but in motion … Before the influx of the Indian treasure, and the expansion of credit, which followed, no force sufficient for this purpose existed … The factory system was the child of the ‘industrial revolution’, and until capital had accumulated in masses, capable of giving solidity to large bodies of labor, manufactures were carried on by scattered individuals … Possibly since the world began, no investment has ever yielded the profit reaped from the Indian plunder, because for nearly fifty years Great Britain stood without a competitor.”9 How did the Germans react to this? In fact, as a result of the Oriental Renaissance, the Germans now began to create the myth of an Aryan master race, which had its origin in Germany.
The Enlightenment and Japan
The British “plunder of Bengal” certainly did not go unnoticed in Japan. Scholars such as Nishikawa Joken (1648-1724) and Arai Hakuseki (1657-1725) pursued ‘Western studies’ (Yōgaku), and important news about other parts of the world reached Japan in many ways. The eighth shogun, Tokugawa Yoshimune (1684-1751; reigned 1716-45) promoted Western science. Tanuma Okitsugu (1719-1788), a daimyō who rose to prominence under the shoguns Ieshige (reigned 1745-1760) and (especially) Ieharu (reigned 1760-1786), promoted agriculture and trade, not only in Nagasaki but also with Russia in the north. Kudō Heisuke (1734-1800) was a scholar who “learned the Dutch language and had a special interest in foreign countries.”10 Japanese scholars published numerous books on Western science. In 1811, the bakufu commissioned a corporation specially founded for the purpose of translating Western books in order to “keep abreast of developments in the West.”11 By 1869, several thousand Japanese had studied Western sciences, mainly in Dutch, and 670 works in Dutch had been translated, along with numerous English, French, German and Chinese books, a good basis for peaceful cooperation in a world that was constantly coming together. A revolution was in process that was bound to have serious consequences.
The French and American revolutions prepared Europe and the New World for the New Age. Worldwide trade, cultural interaction and increasing interdependence made a global peace organization and international administration necessary. Scholars such as Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) and others had long recognized this. In England and the USA, the first peace societies were founded at the beginning of the 19th century, and from that time on there was a direct path to the Hague Peace Conferences. A little later, Ueki Emori in Japan also called for an effective system of international law – Ueki called it bankoku-kōhō or bankoku kyōgi seifu, including a kind of world parliament, with an international administration under a kind of world government.12
These new political and cultural developments before and around 1800 led to an international movement that culminated in the Hague Peace Conferences one hundred years later. Extending beyond Europe, in the twentieth century a true international community was established for the first time, eventually creating the League of Nations and the UNO.13
The Failure of the Hague Peace Conferences
The timing was perfect, but the plan was subverted by a small minority of European nations. Greed, hate and delusion had set the Imperial Powers against each other. And so, this first attempt to abolish war as an institution, attempted at the Hague Peace Conferences in 1899 and 1907, failed because a consensus regarding the creation of an international court with binding powers was thwarted. However, looking forward it becomes clear that the causes of failure in the past can become the means of success today.
The neo-Kantian Walther Schücking (1875-1935) was of the opinion that with regard to “the history of the science of international law in Germany … the historian will not fail to note that in the development of this branch of science the year 1907 stands out as a landmark.”14 Indeed, in 1907, among the forty-four nations which had officially participated, including the South-American states, Asian nations Japan, China, Persia and Thailand, twenty European nations and one African nation, Abessinia, there were only five European nations, three of them Empires, that subverted the project.
Still hoping for the success of the undertaking, the American Delegation at the Second Peace Conference, led by Joseph Hodges Choate (1832-1717), demanded that a majority vote should be taken on the issue of obligatory arbitration (binding international jurisdiction), and based on that majority an international court with binding powers should be established right away. When they did not get their wish they abstained from voting, which was followed by Japan abstaining as well. Amazing, only about 11.36 percent had a different opinion from the majority. Had there been a consensus, Sarajevo would have been tried in Court. And a third conference would have taken place in 1915 in the Peace Palace in The Hague, which had been opened in 1913, donated by Andrew Carnegie. World War I very likely would never have happened. The abolition of war would have become a fait accompli. Regarding the abstention, the Report of the American Delegation stated:
“The Conference was unable to agree upon a general treaty of arbitration, although a large majority expressed itself in favor. . . . The majority felt that it was desirable to conclude at The Hague a general arbitration treaty binding those who were willing to be bound, without seeking, directly or indirectly, to coerce the minority, which was unwilling to bind itself. The minority, however, refused to permit the majority to conclude such a treaty, invoking the principle of unanimity or substantial unanimity for all conventions concluded at The Hague … The friends of arbitration were bitterly disappointed and the American delegation abstained from voting on the declaration; first, because it seemed to be an inadmissible retreat from the advanced position secured by an vote of four to one in favor of the arbitration convention [obtained previously], and, second, lest an affirmative vote be construed to indicate both an approval of the arguments or methods of the minority as well as of the withdrawal of the proposed treaty.”15 (emphasis added)
The Japanese who also favored an international court with compulsory jurisdiction abstained as well.
The Campaign to Second the Japanese Constitution’s war-abolishing Article 9 (SA9)
A. HISTORY
This particular Peace Campaign (SA9) started in 2017. An important precondition to ascertain the success of this Campaign is the acceptance of the fact that the Japanese Constitution’s Article 9 is an indigenous proposition, whose purpose and potential must be studied and recognized. It has been shown beyond doubt that the Article was suggested to General Douglas MacArthur by the Japanese Prime Minister Shidehara Kijūrō on January 24, 1946.16 Shidehara had studied law at Tokyo Imperial University, and as a diplomat held many important positions. He had been on an assignment to Korea from 1896 to the spring of 1899 just when the Korean reformer So Chaep’il, alias Philip Jaisohn, was having his greatest successes following his return from American exile.17 In China Kang Youwei had been preparing his “hundred days reform.” There can be no doubt that these efforts related well to the world-wide peace efforts that culminated in the Hague Peace Conferences. During his sea journey from Kobe on a steamer of the Messageries Maritimes shipping line and then traveling from Marseille via Paris to London, which he reached in August, he received detailed information about the events surrounding the Hague Peace Conferences.
Following an assignment as chief of the Japanese Foreign Ministry’s information service in the Telegraphic Division, Shidehara in 1911 he went to Washington as counselor of the Embassy. Following another appointment to London, he became Japan’s chief envoy at The Hague, for the Netherlands and Denmark, to represent Japan in the preparations for the Third Hague Peace Conference. Peace was what the Japanese diplomat regarded as part of his professional calling. Shidehara was now in the center of the “official” international peace establishment, The Hague, cockpit of this international movement.
From 1919 to 1922, as Japanese Ambassador in Washington, Shidehara became acquainted with the American “war outlawry” movement, which advocated for the renunciation of war as a means of resolving international disputes. This exposure played a major role in shaping his pacifist policies and diplomatic strategies. As Japanese ambassador, he was also the chief negotiator at the Washington Naval Disarmament Conference. Last but not least, in the inter-war period Shidehara became Japan’s Foreign Minister and was well known for his peace diplomacy (heiwa gaikō). Later, in the 1940s, with Akizuki Satsuo (1858-1945), a veteran diplomat, and Yoshida Shigeru (1878-1967), he was one of the Japanese “peace feelers,” to bring about an early end to the war in China. Had the ‘peace feelers’ been successful and ended the war early on, and had the war with Germany ended later, the atom bomb would have been deployed on Germany, as originally intended. Finally, based on his convictions, as Prime Minister, on January 24th, 1946 Shidehara visited MacArthur and suggested to him that the new Japanese Constitution should abolish war. MacArthur was enthusiastic, saying: “It points the way the only way!” The question is: How can the International Community embrace and safely embark on this ‘only way’ to peace, that has eventually to be realized.
B. APPLICATION
Now that I have established that Article 9 was homemade and not imposed, let us think about how it may be used in the international arena! There is evidence that more than half of the Japanese population are part of a national movement that wants to preserve Article 9 and see it become a model for other nations to follow. I remember occasions at peace conferences which I had attended in Europe and elsewhere where it was possible for me to introduce a motion, which, if it was seconded, would start a debate; in the end there would be a vote on the issue. In other words, I believe Article 9 should be seen as a constitutional motion to abolish war as an institution which other nations can (and should) second. So, in 2017 the new initiative, SA9=Second Article 9 was born. SA9 wants to use the provision as a linchpin to be introduced in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to start a debate on the issue of abolishing war. The basic idea is simple! During the debate the text of the motion may be adjusted and then will finally be voted on. Since 2017 we have been campaigning, looking for some country to take the matter up in the UNGA. The Initiative, aiming to abolish war, could easily happen, especially if it can get the support of the International Peace Movement.
To give further substance to the debate and clarify its purpose, related peace provisions in the constitutions of France (Preamble, paragraph 15), Italy (Article 11), Germany (Article 24), Denmark (Article 20), and Norway (Article 115) etc. should also be considered. There are actually close to 20 European constitutions with similar peace provisions. This is the first option!
The second option involves European and possibly some other members of the UN following up on Article 9 by taking legislative action to confer primary responsibility for the maintenance of International Peace and Security on the United Nations Security Council, following Article 24 of the UN Charter. Most suited to follow up on Article 9—and successfully start the process of transitioning to genuine collective security and disarmament—is the German Constitution’s Article 24, which stipulates:
(1) The Federation may by legislation transfer sovereign powers to international organizations. … (2) With a view to maintaining peace the Federation may become a party to a system of collective security; in doing so it shall consent to such limitations upon its sovereign powers as will bring about and secure a peaceful and lasting order in Europe and among the nations of the world. (3) For the settlement of disputes between states, the Federation shall accede to agreements providing for general, comprehensive and compulsory international arbitration. (Constitution of 23 May 1949).
In the literature it is usually stated that the article was modeled after the French peace provision, which stated:
On condition of reciprocity, France accepts the limitations of sovereignty necessary for the organization and defense of peace. (Preamble of the Constitution of 27 October 1946, stands reconfirmed in Constitution of 4 October 1958)
What might a legislative Bill, transferring sovereign powers to the United Nations look like?
In August 1987 the German World Federalists presented their concept at the Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development in New York. Being officially represented at the United Nations as an NGO, the following “Written Statement” was submitted and subsequently distributed to the United Nations Missions. It had the title “Pooling ‘Security Sovereignty’ with the United Nations” (Excerpts):
A Security Pool – [towards replacing the Institution of War] People are becoming increasingly aware that since the creation of the United Nations, governments have been living in open violation of the most basic Charter regulation, under which they have pledged to pool certain sovereign powers by vesting primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in the Security Council (Art 24) etc.18
Our Statement continued: “we believe strongly that it is the Europeans in the first place who—having to bear the responsibility [for two world wars etc.]—should take the initiative, supported by countries such as India, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, and some African and Latin American countries, among others, to trigger off a process to bring about a peaceful and just world order … As German World Federalists we expect that the Federal Republic of Germany will eventually meet up to Its historic task to—in the words of our Federal Constitution—help ‘bring about and secure a peaceful and lasting order in Europe and among the peoples of the world’. We believe that, in fulfilling this our obligation, other nations will follow suit…” As an Appendix attached to the Statement was the Sample Bill:
THE PARLIAMENT
conscious of its responsibility,
– animated by the resolve to initiate a process, in the course of which the United Nations Organization may evolve into an efficacious instrument of securing peace, endowed with a limited supranational sovereignty of her own,
– recognizing the fact that concrete, confidence-building measures and legal steps are required in order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations,
– for the organization and defense of peace,19
aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order,
– for an organization which will ensure peace and justice among nations,
– to promote international peace and security, maintain just and honorable relations between nations, foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized people with one another, and encourage settlement of International disputes by arbitration,
– to promote International legal order and cooperation,
– for the establishment and development of all forms of inter- national cooperation conducive to the consolidation of peace, for the development of relations contributing to the over- coming of the bloc divisiveness of the world, and to the attainment of general and complete disarmament,
– dedicated to peace and cooperation (in Europe), a stable peaceful order throughout the world, and to universal disarmament,
– pursuing the strengthening of peace, and of justice and the development of friendly relations between peoples and states, and in order to serve an important national interest and promote cooperation with other states, and
– to promote the development of the international rule of law,
transfers sovereign powers concerning the right of belligerency of the state and national and international security and world peace to the Security Council of the United Nations (Article 24 I UN Charter).
This is evidence that in 1987 the German World Federalists were working on a legislative Bill, which had the aim to confer primary responsibility for international peace and security on the United Nations, rejecting NATO as a substitute system of collective security, which Konrad Adenauer had endorsed. Our organization received many letters from politicians, political parties, academics and others confirming that this was indeed a viable option. To give an example, in a letter dt. 25 October 1983 from the Bureau of Willy Brandt we received the following answer:
“It is correct that Article 24 of the Basic Law provides a means to relinquish sovereign powers in favor of a system of collective security. In view of the declaration in the Constitution to serve the peace of the world, it would be quite logical to reject [any kind of] block formation in favor of a collective security system in Europe and the world.”
No doubt, the UN will continue to be a disappointment and prove useless as long as none of the European states takes action “by law” to initiate the transition to genuine collective security and disarmament. In fact, it is not easy to understand why so far the Europeans have not taken action to empower the United Nations.
Perhaps we have to look further back 150 years into history to better understand the underlying reasons and prime causes. The Franco-Prussian War 1870/71 had set off a chain of events with profound global consequences. The newly unified and militarily powerful Germany now became a model for other nations worldwide, influencing military strategies, political systems, and even social structures. This trend of militarization, influenced by Germany’s example, contributed to an increasingly militaristic and authoritarian global environment in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In Europe, it fueled the arms race and alliance systems that eventually culminated in World War I. In other parts of the world, it led to the strengthening of military institutions and the adoption of aggressive foreign policies, often at the expense of civil liberties and democratic principles. German militarism contributed to the failure of the Hague Peace Conferences; the newly founded ‘Reich’ wanted to expand and not have any shackles imposed on it.
Could Germany set an example? How could it?
It is evident that with the German Constitution coming into effect in 1949 the country should have implemented the most relevant and basic peace provisions it had adopted. For example, Article 24, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law is binding, while Paragraphs 1 and 2 are usually considered optional. The 3rd Paragraph, however, stipulates that the Federal Republic submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—admittedly one of the most important components of the original United Nations security system. So, why did the government reject it for decades? A fanatic anti-communism, which the German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer shared with his closest aide, Hans Globke, a former Nazi who became undersecretary in the German Chancellery from 1953 to 1963, and others hindered and blocked all positive peace efforts. Germany only became a member of the United Nations in 1973. To monitor the United Nations in New York in the 1950s, Adenauer appointed Hans-Heinrich Herwarth von Bittenfeld, also a former member of the National Socialist Party,20 as Consul General from 1950-1955. It is likely that Hans-Heinrich Herwarth von Bittenfeld knew about the repeated submissions of the Soviet Union’s Resolution 85 between June 27 and October 11, 1950, at the time of the Korean crisis.21 It called for implementing Article 106 of the UN Charter, in order to allow Russia to participate in the United Nations action against North Korea’s aggression. It was a chance for Germany to take legislative action to confer primary responsibility for the maintenance of International peace and security on the UN. Was the West-German government aware of what was happening? Did they know? Apparently the government wrongly believed the Russians were behind the North’s attack, and feared that now the Russians might attack in Europe as well.
Why did Germany unequivocally opt for NATO instead of taking action to start the process of making the United Nations Organization an effective peacekeeper and sole guarantor for keeping the nation(s) safe? Options for positive, peace-oriented alternatives existed. Why did the West-German government reject George Kennan’s neutralization plan, which aimed at the peaceful reunification of East and West Germany, ensuring the country would not be divided into opposing spheres of influence. George Kennan, an American diplomat and historian, proposed the “neutralization plan” for Germany in the late 1940s and early 1950, to prevent Germany from becoming a flashpoint for conflict between the East and West during the early Cold War period. Germany, Kennan believed, should be demilitarized, fully sovereign and independent, without foreign military presence or alliances that could draw it into international conflicts. He suggested international supervision to ensure that Germany remained neutral and demilitarized, involving regular inspections and controls to prevent any military build-up.22 Germany should be economically integrated into a European framework to promote stability and prevent future conflicts. As a step towards German reunification, his “program A” of 1949 called for the complete withdrawal of the British, French, American and Soviet forces from Germany. But Chancellor Konrad Adenauer believed that Germany needed to join NATO to protect against an anticipated Soviet aggression. So, Kennan’s proposal was not adopted, and East Germany aligned with the Soviet Union and West Germany with the Western allies.
A plan quite similar to what George Kennan had had in mind was the so-called ‘Stalin Notes’. In fact, Joseph Stalin, the Soviet leader, was aware of George Kennan’s “neutralization plan,” and this had influenced his own proposals for a neutral, united Germany. Stalin had attached no conditions on economic policies, guaranteeing “the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly.”23 Among journalists, Paul Sethe (one of the publishers of the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung) “most sharply criticized Adenauer’s non-acceptance of Stalin’s offer … and always spoke out in his commentaries for at least checking into the seriousness of Stalin’s Notes.” (Wikipedia) Historian Rolf Steininger believed: “Stalin’s offer was meant seriously.” (Steininger 1986) A united, disarmed and neutral Germany with a constitution capable of starting the process of empowering the United Nations was in the cards. It was what the Americans and the Russians wanted! Why did the Konrad Adenauer administration reject it? The reasons are not easy to understand.
It seems excessive, if the pacifist Friedrich Wilhelm Foerster (1869-1966) claimed in 1947, that the German people are “not repenting” what Germany had done. The “real obstacle” to a lasting German change of heart, Foerster maintained, lay “in the well-founded certainty that the [Nazi] criminals … have given up nothing” and “think day and night of nothing other than the possibility of resuming their enterprise with other means and allies.” He quoted the Nazi geopolitician Karl Haushofer, who said in 1942: “We think in centuries. You can be sure that in the event of defeat, from the first hour after the armistice, we will think day and night of nothing but the preparation of the next war.”24 Similarly, Jost Delbrück (1935-2020), long-time director of the respected Walther Schücking Institute for International Law at the Christian Albrechts University in Kiel, had his doubts. “The political reality in Germany,” says Delbrück, was historically “shaped primarily by the nation-state power politics (‘Realpolitik’) influenced by Hegel, which viewed the idea of an ‘internationalist’ peace organization with skepticism… Even after the end of the Second World War, the prospects for a lasting change in attitude … towards a peacekeeping world organization were not positive.”25 Accordingly, no positive action was taken.
It is not true, as many people believe, that Europe has always done America’s bidding.26 Does Europe implement what the US wants because it has no policy of its own worth implementing? Quite the opposite! The peace provisions in the constitution of Italy, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Spain, Greece etc. etc. are evidence that the Europeans could do much to empower the United Nations and bring peace to the world. Instead, post-World War II neo-Nazis, as anti-Communists, wanted, as Friedrich Wilhelm Foerster had anticipated, to “resume their enterprise with new allies,” and that new ally was the United States of America. Perhaps it was a coincidence that the German government, too, took a similar stance. Its anti-communism would block any development such as what the European peace constitutions suggested. It is perhaps not surprising that with the end of the Cold War the neo-Nazis eventually changed sides to support Russia. Was Mackinder finally getting through…?
Indeed, as is well known, not only did denazification fail; in fact after 1945 several small right-wing parties appeared in West Germany, such as the ‘Deutsche Rechtspartei’ in 1946, which was succeeded in 1950 by the ‘Deutsche Reichspartei’. Other new far-right parties were the ‘Socialist Reich Party’, founded in 1949 (banned in 1952), and the ‘German Social Union’ (1956-1962). However, it is true that until the foundation of the ‘National Democratic Party of Germany’ (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, NPD) in 1964, they did not exert much influence. The German people had other problems. However, repeated attempts by the Government to ban the NPD, the most prominent and powerful neo-fascist party, failed. Nevertheless, today more than 50% of Germans are not potential Nazis and do not believe what Willy Wimmer wants to make them believe. According to Wimmer, Germans are innocent of Nazism and Hitlerism—and consequently not responsible for the Second World War. The Versailles Treaty, imposed on Germany by the victors, is to blame.27 Friedrich Wilhelm Foerster: “The idea that the Treaty of Versailles was responsible for Hitler is based on empty chatter that has deeply blinded and misled Europe. No, Hitler only popularized what had been growing in the German people for a century.”28
Did Germany’s fanatic anti-communism, which contributed to the excesses of the McCarthy era in the United States of America, do the Federal Republic any good? It created a climate of fear and suspicion even in America. In West Germany, too, anti-communist zeal resulted in political repression, curtailment of civil liberties and surveillance, targeting not only communists but also sympathizers and socialists. The Communist party was prohibited in 1956. On the other hand, World Federalists and other peace advocates tried to bridge the gap. The Copenhagen Peace Congress, which took place from October 15-19, 1986, organized by the World Peace Council, in which I participated, provided opportunities for me to explain the concept of “Pooling Security Sovereignty with the United Nations.” I had a long talk with the Russian Dmitri Motschalin, from the International Institute for Peace, Vienna. They were moving times, in which the international movement of the world federalists under the leadership of the Dane Dr. Hermod Lannung maintained contacts with many East European and Communist ‘colleagues’, keeping up a dialogue for peace and understanding, making sure: Die Gedanken sind frei!29
Germany can become the champion of peace
The Federal Republic could win over the whole world with its story of how and why at The Hague it failed to commit to reason, explaining how it could quite easily have prevented the First World War. In 1907 only five European nations, i.e. only around 11.3% of the forty-four participating nations, voted against compulsory jurisdiction. As has been shown above, if there had been a consensus,* Sarajevo would have been tried in court. And a third conference would have taken place in 1915 in the Hague Peace Palace.
The Americans had actually wanted to establish the international court with binding powers as early as 1907, and to achieve their aim demanded that the majority vote in favor should be accepted. Walther Schücking suggested that those nations unwilling to submit to it at that time, could join later. When this was not granted the Americans and the Japanese abstained from voting, as I have already related above. After the First World War, Philipp Zorn, professor of international law at the University of Königsberg, who had participated in both conferences, concluded:
“The … great task was the successful institution of the obligatorium. With impatient longing the world awaited its accomplishment. And that Germany did not recognize this world expectation, and even believed it had to repudiate it, was its prime and tragic mistake … an immense political miscalculation … which must have provoked and [in fact] had the most serious consequences, yea, which today, in the horrible light of the universal conflagration of 1914–18 appears as a cause for the world war.”30
Admitting its mistakes, including the ones that followed as a result, would arouse sympathy. Is it unreasonable to assume that a German apology would be followed by apologies from the other four European governments responsible for the failure at The Hague? In addition, an apology for the Berlin Conference 1884-1885 would get a lot of sympathy, too. The Conference, in which Germany was the driving force alongside France, Great Britain and Portugal, had profound and lasting consequences for Africa and its people. As is well known, Africa was arbitrarily divided, so the Europeans could gain access to its resources. The drawing of borders without considering the existing ethnic, linguistic, and cultural divisions in fact violated Human Rights and became a source of permanent conflict and instability. Today the ongoing disputes over boundaries and territorial claims frequently escalate into armed conflicts.31
If Germany and Europe want to achieve a sustainable World Peace, a fundamental and decisive change of heart is a required precondition. The whole world already believes that Germany has changed and has become a peaceful nation. Are they now to believe in the opposite and believe in a German conspiracy? Isn’t it the Americans or the Russians—or now the Chinese—who are the culprits today? People are confused! Has Europe not peacefully united and set an example for the whole world? What could Germany possibly do to prevent a Third World War? Maybe it did not prevent the First World War, but how is that relevant, why is it important now? How can the Hague Peace Conferences’ example help Germany stop World War III? It is a big handicap and a major fault of mine that I have a lot of suspicions and fears. However, my research with AI has confirmed many of them, suggesting that a real change of heart still has not happened. Europe has not awakened from its nationalistic clinging to sovereign power, economic exploitation, neo-colonialism and militarism.
Have we forgotten that the atom bomb was originally meant for Germany—for good reasons—although the reasons for delivering it to Japan were perhaps not so good?! By wanting to defeat Russia on the battlefield are we not risking to lose everything,32 inviting by some weird twist of history the bomb we helped develop to finally reach us?
Germany rejected George Bush’s invitation to start anew. At the beginning of the 1990s a number of proposals were made to strengthen the United Nations and put the UN system of collective security into effect. For the first time since the end of the Cold War the US and Russia were reconciled. US President George Herbert Walker Bush in an address to the UN General Assembly on 1 October 1990 envisaged a United Nations “fulfilling its promise as the world’s parliament of peace.”33 Russia, traditionally in favor of collective security, also took the initiative to support this point-of-view.34 However, international law professor Rüdiger Wolfrum in his comment on Article 1 of the UN Charter, published (in German) in 1990, now maintained that the “distinction between the concepts of collective security and collective self-defense has become somewhat blurred in practice and has lost relevance for the UN.”35 Germany decided to stick with NATO and so the Constitutional Court decided in 1994 to do away with the actual concept of collective security which the drafters of the UN Charter had originally had in mind.
The German Constitutional Court’s decision of July 12, 1994, regarding German military engagements ‘out of area’, stated inter alia:
“It is irrelevant whether the system intends exclusively or primarily to guarantee peace among the Member States or to oblige them to render collective support in the case of foreign attacks. Alliances of collective self-defense can also be systems of mutual collective security in the sense of Article 24, Paragraph 2, of the Basic Law,”36
and accordingly, in the sense Article 24 of the UN Charter as well. By this decision the Federal Constitutional Court has given actual collective security, as conceived in the German Constitution and the UN Charter, a terminal rejection slip. Naturally this received much criticism from international lawyers and the peace movement. The most prominent critic was Dieter Deiseroth (1950-2019).37 He quoted important international lawyers, such as Quincy Wright, L. Oppenheim and H. Lauterpacht, Hans Kelsen and others who have repeatedly pointed out that the concept of common, collective security and alliances are fundamentally different.
American political scientist Quincy Wright, an authority on international law, stated: Collective security
“envisages a policing action in which the agencies of the whole jural community enforce the law against a dissident member, while the latter [collective self-defense] implies action by a state or group of states to defend themselves against attack by an outside state or group over which they have no jurisdiction … The frequent failure to make this distinction, as by referring to NATO as a ‘collective security’ organization, has impaired the effectiveness of the United Nations.”38
Austrian jurist Hans Kelsen is even more blunt:
“The idea of a universal international organization for collective security is directed against the policy of alliances in general and the so-called balance of power in particular. Though intended as a means of guaranteeing a kind of security to the states adhering to them, these policies have ultimately led to war.“39
Today we Germans “live in a country that, by international and world-historical standards, is one of the richest and therefore most contented societies that has ever existed on this planet. Never before has there been a country in which so many people had so much to lose.”40 Today, through our own actions and inactions, we are in danger of losing everything.
Have German politicians and their academic lackeys been perpetuating and perpetrating a lie? Hannah Arendt, the famous German philosopher, wrote:
“Just as terror, even in its pre-total, merely tyrannical form ruins all relationships between men, so the self-compulsion of ideological thinking ruins all relationships with reality. The preparation has succeeded when people have lost contact with their fellow men as well as the reality around them; for together with these contacts, men lose the capacity of both experience and thought. The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction {i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false {i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.”41
A lie repeated many times becomes truth!
Google ‘Alerts’ is an online internet service, which monitors the web for interesting content and sends emails whenever it finds matching search results. It is a quick and easy way to get free news and information delivered directly to your email. My search term ‘collective security’ always gets numerous replies, including newspaper articles, websites etc. Perhaps starting some time after 1994 the results no longer dealt with actual collective security and how to achieve it, but almost exclusively referred solely to collective self-defense, but calling it “collective security.” The original idea of UN collective security is off the table, and no longer considered or discussed or seen as a necessary precondition for achieving a universal system to guarantee peace and security, including general and comprehensive disarmament. The fault lies not with Google: disarmament and collective security are no longer considered a realistic option to be pursued and realized in the foreseeable future. The military-industrial complex has won and is preparing for battle.
So what should Germany do? And why Germany? Any UN Member State can take legislative action, with equal effectiveness, Mexico, Costa Rica, Italy, Holland or Timor Leste! In any case, the concept here presented—this was the agreement of the ‘victorious powers’ 1945—was that the four, later five, major powers would have “worked out an arrangement whereby they would serve as, in essence, global policemen” for the anticipated transition period.42 European failure to act is likely to have catastrophic and incalculable consequences.
NOTES:
1 See Klaus Schlichtmann, Japan, Germany and the Idea of the Hague Peace Conferences, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 40, No. 4, Special Issue on Peace History (Jul., 2003), pp. 377-394 (Sage Publications).
2 Also known as the “Bunka-Bunsei Period” (1804-1829). During this period Edo, today’s Tokyo, became the “center of a more sophisticated … phase of urban life … By the 18th century the main cities had developed lucrative publishing businesses…“ John Whitney Hall, From Prehistory to Modern Times, Tokyo, Charles E. Tuttle 1971, p. 228.
3 Raymond Schwab, The Oriental Renaissance. Europe’s Rediscovery of India and the East, 1680-1880, New York, Columbia University Press 1984 (Paris 1950), pp. 4-5. Humanist ideals likewise found expression at the American Congress of Panama in 1826: “Let the sad and abject countenance of the poor African, bending under the chains of rapacity and oppression, no longer be seen in these climes; let him be endowed with equal privileges with the white man, whose color he has been taught to regard as a badge of superiority.” William Ladd, An Essay on a Congress of Nations, intr. James BROWN SCOTT, New York, Oxford University Press 1916, p. 111. In the United States, a strong sentiment and commitment toward world order and the equality of man prevailed. The abolition of slavery (racial equality) and the peaceful organization of mankind were projects pursued alongside. Schwab 1984, p. 16.
4 Ibid., p. 16.
5 Edward E. Said, ‚Foreword‘, in: Schwab, op.cit., p. VIII. This is from André Rousseaux, Raymond Schwab et l’humanisme integrale, Mercure de France (December 1956), no. 1120, pp. 663-671.
6 Schwab, op.cit., pp. 4-5.
7 “[It]… was destined to play a very peculiar role in early Chinese Buddhism.” Erik Zürcher, The Buddhist Conquest of China—The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China, Leyden, E.J. Brill 195, pp. 70-71. See also ibid., pp. 277ff., as well as the ‘Notes’, ibid., pp. 423-424. Note also the significance of this fact for the Chinese and also the Japanese empire and its state ideology.
8 John S. Strong, The Legend of King Ashoka: A Study and Translation of the Asokavadana, Motilal Banarsidass Publications 2002.
9 Brooks Adams, The Law of Civilization and Decay, New York, Vintage 1955 (orig. 1896), pp. 255-259. Numerous authors confirm Brooks Adams’ report. See also Geoffrey Moorhouse, Calcutta. The City Revealed, New Delhi etc., Penguin 1994 (1971), pp. 45f, providing more data. ibid., on p. 46, quoting author Percival Spear: “The financial bleeding of Bengal had begun.“ J.P. Losty, Calcutta, City of Palaces. A Survey of the City in the Days of the East India Company 1690-1858, London, The British Library, New Delhi, Arnold Publishers 1990, p. 33: “Never before did the English nation at one time obtain such a prize in solid money; for it amounted to 800,000 pounds sterling.” Alfred Comyn Lyall, History of India, vol. VIII (9 vols., ed. V. A.V. Williams Jackson), ‘From the Close of the Seventeenth Century to the Present Time’, New Delhi, Asian Education Services 1987, pp. 177-178: “: “All authorities agree that in the eighteenth century the richest province of all India, in agriculture and manufactures, was Bengal. Colonel James Mill, in his memoir … points out that it has vast wealth and is indefensible toward the sea.”
10 George Sansom, A History of Japan, 1615-1867, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978 (1963), p. 182. See also Klaus Schlichtmann, A Peace History of India. From Ashoka Maurya to Mahatma Gandhi, New Delhi: Vij 2016.
11 John Whitney Hall, Japan. From Prehistory to Modern Times, Charles E Tuittle, Tokyo 1995 (1971), p. 225. Gertrude C. Schwebell, Die Geburt des modernen Japan in Augenzeugenberichten (The birth of modern Japan in eyewitness accounts), Munich, dtv 1981, p. 50, writes that Titsingh corresponded with the Edo scholars of his time for twenty years. In 1822 he published his book Illustrations of Japan. On Titsingh also see C.R. Boxer, The Mandarin at Chinsura, Amsterdam, Koninklijke Vereeniging Indisch Instituut 1949 (Mededeling No. LXXXIV, Afdeling Volkenkunde No. 32); Frank Lequin, The Private Correspondence of Isaac Titsingh, vol. I (1785-1811), Introduction and ed. by Frank Lequin, Amsterdam J.C. Gieben 1990; Id., Het personeel van de Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie in Azie in de achttiende eeuw, meer in het bijzonder in de vestiging Bengalen, Diss. Leiden 1982.
12 See Morifumi Kuroki, On the Foreign Thought of Emori Ueki, Fukuoka International University, No. 7, pp. 15-27 (2002) – 植木枝盛 の 対外思 想 （1）黒 木 彬 文 “植木枝ō盛 の 対外思 想 は ふ た っ の 柱 か ら な る。イ ン ターナ シ ョ ナ リ ズ ム とナ シ ョ ナ リ ズ ム で ある.”
13 Klaus Schlichtmann, The West, Bengal Renaissance and Japanese Enlightenment. A Critical Inquiry into the History of the Organisation of the World around 1800, in Stephan Conermann and Jan Kusber (ed.), Kieler Festschrift für Hermann Kulke zum 65. Geburtstag (Kiel Festschrift for Hermann Kulke on the occasion of his 65th birthday), Asien und Afrika. Beiträge des Zentrums für Asiatische und Afrikanische Studien (ZAAS) der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (Asia and Africa. Contributions from the Center for Asian and African Studies), vol. 10, Studia Eurasiatica, Hamburg, EB-Verlag 2003.
14 Walther Schücking, The International Union of the Hague Conferences, Oxford, At the Clarendon Press 1918, p. 1.
15 James Brown Scott (ed.), Instructions to the American Delegates to the Hague Peace Conferences and their Official Reports, New York, Oxford University Press/London, Toronto, Melbourne, and Bombay: Humphrey Milford, 1916 (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law), Report of the American Delegation, pp. 129–30.
16 Klaus Schlichtmann, Shidehara Kijūrō and the Japanese Constitution’s war-abolishing Article 9, Japan Forum, vol. 35, No. 2 (2023), pp. 127–151.
17 The Gapsin Coup, also known as the Gapsin Revolution, was a failed three-day coup d’état that occurred in Korea during 1884. Korean reformers in the Enlightenment Party sought to initiate changes within the country, including eliminating social distinctions by abolishing the legal privileges of the yangban class. The coup d’état attempt, with Japanese support, began on December 4, 1884, with the seizure of the royal palace in Seoul. Soh Jaipil (So Chaep’il, 1864-1951) had supported Kim Ok-gyun (1851-1894), a man who wanted to promulgate Western science and modern ideas about government and was willing to accept help from the Japanese. However, their attempt to reform the old regime failed. Sŏ Chaep’il’s family was killed, he had to leave the country and spent twelve years in American exile. For more information regarding Shidehara Diplomacy (heiwa gaikō) and the circumstances surrounding him see Klaus Schlichtmann, Japan in the World. Shidehara Kijūrō, Pacifism and the Abolition of War, Lexington 2009, 2 vols.
18 This was the time when NGOs had just begun to have a voice within the UN. Under Rule 45 of the provisional rules of procedure for the International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development our Written Statement was referenced under code A/CONF.130/NGO/41.
19 This and the following sentences are quotes from various constitutions. The texts of the above-mentioned Italian, Danish and Norwegian Constitutions are as follows: “Italy renounces war as an instrument of offense to the liberty of other peoples or as a means of settlement in international disputes, and, on conditions of equality with other states, agrees to the limitations of her sovereignty necessary to an organization which will ensure peace and justice among nations, and promotes and encourages international organizations constituted for this purpose.” (1948) “Powers which according to this constitution rest with the authorities of the kingdom, can, through a bill, to a specifically defined extent, be transferred to international authorities, which are instituted by mutual agreement with other states to promote international legal order and cooperation.” (1953) “In order to secure international peace and security, or in order to promote international law and order and cooperation between nations, the Storting may, by a three-fourth majority, consent that an international organization, of which Norway is or becomes a member, shall have the right, within a functionally limited field, to exercise powers which in accordance with this Constitution are normally vested in the Norwegian authorities, exclusive of the power to alter this Constitution…” (1956) See Dr. Klaus Schlichtmann and Robert Kowalczyk, Peace, War, and Consciousness. The Normative Current: Abolishing War and Establishing True Collective Security, Transcend Media Service, 25 December 2023, online athttps://www.transcend.org/tms/2023/12/peace-war-and-consciousness/.
20 Hans-Heinrich Herwarth had joined the party in 1937, but was known to have also been engaged in some anti-Nazi activities.
21 “The General Assembly, taking into account the special importance of concerted action by the five permanent members of the Security Council in defending and strengthening peace and security among nations, recommends that armed forces be made available to the Security Council under appropriate arrangements in accordance with Article 43 of the Charter […] take steps to ensure the necessary implementation of Article 106 of the Charter in order to undertake such joint action on behalf of the Organization as may prove necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.” See Art. 106, Repertory, Vol. V (1945-1954); the whole document can be downloaded online: https://legal.un.org/repertory/art106/english/rep_orig_vol5_art106.pdf, p. 381.
22 This was also what the German pacifist Friedrich Wilhelm Foerster suggested early on, Die deutsche Frage von draußen und drinnen gesehen (The German question seen from outside and inside), Hannover, “Das andere Deutschland” 1947, p. 7: “No one has seriously called for the complete destruction of the German industry. But if the arms industry and all its auxiliary industries are not destroyed or removed, one can be sure that the restoration of the German power machine and all its most modern means of destruction is only a question of time.”
23 United States. Department of State. Historical Office, 1971. Documents on Germany, 1944-1970. U.S. Govt. Print. Off. p. 193.
24 Friedrich Wilhelm Foerster, Die deutsche Frage von draußen und drinnen gesehen, p. 6.
25 Jost Delbrück, Deutschland und die Vereinten Nationen – Rundschau und Perspektiven, in Ernst Koch, Die Blauhelme. Im Einsatz für den Frieden, Frankfurt, M. und Bonn 1991, p. 212 u. p. 13.
26 Andreas Zumach, Die kommenden Kriege (The coming wars), Kiepenheuer & Witsch 2005, p. 154: “The Europeans bear a considerable share of the responsibility for today’s desolate and often explosive situation … Consequently, they can no longer limit themselves to accusing [the USA] … of being untrustworthy and that its recipes for democratization and modernization … are wrong and counterproductive. Instead, the Europeans must finally correct their own wrong policies.”
27 “Versailles,” according to Willy Wimmer, “was to form the basis for further wars,” which France and the Anglo-Saxon powers had already planned. Willy Wimmer, Und immer wieder Versailles. Ein Jahrhundert im Brennglas (Versailles all over again. A century in the spotlight), Alexander Sosnowski im Gespräch mit Willy Wimmer (Alexander Sosnowski in conversation with Willy Wimmer), p. 30. See also p. 11: “The First World War was planned by English and French elites for decades: Germany and Austria-Hungary were to be destroyed as independent, economically prosperous European states.” See also Der Schlüssel zur Weltherrschaft. Die Heartland-Theorie mit einem Lagebericht von Willy Wimmer (The key to world domination. The Heartland Theory with a situation report by Willy Wimmer). Westend, Frankfurt 2019.
28 Friedrich Wilhelm Foerster, Die deutsche Frage von draußen und drinnen gesehen, p. 7.
29 Mind you, although I have nothing against communism, I also have nothing for it! I am basically an anarcho-syndicalist and a world federalist. Reading Noam Chomsky, it appears the two are quite identical!
30 Philipp Zorn, Deutschland und die beiden Haager Friedenskonferenzen (Germany and the Two Hague Peace Conferences), Stuttgart and Berlin, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt 1920, pp. 75 and 57.
31 See George Hallermayer, Krieg oder Frieden? Afrikas umstrittene Grenzen (War or peace? Africa’s disputed borders), INTERNATIONAL VI / 2023, p. 51.
32 See the leaked reports about a German military plan discussing a potential attack on Russia. German military officials talked about operational scenarios and the supply of Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine. https://www.euronews.com/2024/01/16/germany-lays-out-exercise-scenario-for-a-potential-conflict-between-nato-and-russia.
33 G.H.W. Bush, “The UN: World Parliament of Peace,” Address before the United Nations General Assembly, US Department of State Dispatch, New York, 1 October 1990. See also US President G.H.W. Bush on 11 September 1990 in a speech before Congress: “Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki.”
34 “US and Soviets as Allies. First Time since 1945,” The headline in the New York Times, vol. 7 August 1990.
35 Rüdiger Wolfrum, Kapitel I. Ziele und Grundsätze, Charta der Vereinten Nationen (Chapter I. Purposes and Principles, Charter of the United Nations), Kommentar, C.H. Beck 1990, p. 9. “Die Unterscheidung zwischen den Konzepten kollektiver Sicherheit und kollektiver Selbstverteidigung ist in der Praxis bis zu einem gewissen Grade verwischt worden und hat für die VN an Relevanz verloren.”
36 Landmark Decision on Foreign Deployments of the Bundeswehr, online https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=3720.
37 Dieter Deiseroth, Ist die NATO ein Verteidigungsbündnis oder ein “System gegenseitiger kollektiver Sicherheit”? (Is NATO a defense alliance or a “system of mutual collective security”?), in: http://www.ag-friedensforschung.de/themen/NATO/deiseroth2.html. See also Dieter Deiseroth, Das Friedensgebot des Grundgesetzes und der UN-Charta – … und die Bundeswehr? (The peace imperative of the Basic Law and the UN Charter – … and the Bundeswehr?), Verdikt 2.14, p. 4: “In his acceptance speech on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo in December 1971, Willy Brandt formulated a message that deserves to be quoted here: ‘War must not be a means of politics. The point is to abolish wars, not just to limit them … War is no longer the ultima ratio, but the ultima irratio’.” (i.e. the ‘ultimate irrationality’).”
38 Quincy Wright, Preventing World War III: Some Proposals, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1962, p. 432
39 Hans Kelsen, Collective Security Under International Law, Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1957, p. 39.
40 “…dass wir in einem Land leben, das im internationalen und im welthistorischen Vergleich eine der reichsten und damit auch zufriedendsten Gesellschaften ist, die es je überhaupt auf diesem Planeten gegeben hat. Noch nie hat es ein Land gegeben in dem so viele Menschen so viel zu verlieren hatten.” (David Precht) Wir stehen “unter Utopiezwang.” (dp)
41 Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951, p. 474.
42 Iriye Akira, Cultural Internationalism and World Order (1997), p. 140.
__________________________________________
Tags: Anti-war, Germany, Peace, Warfare
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 26 Aug 2024.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: How Germany Could Preserve World Order, is included. Thank you.
If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.
Join the discussion!
We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.