We don’t want to abolish war and we don’t want an effective UN
Dr. Klaus Schlichtmann, Japan

Are the European nations and the EU doing anything to put the UN System of Collective Security into effect, to make it work and bring about general and complete disarmament under effective international control? Good question!

In the absence of an effective global system with lawmaking, law-interpreting and enforcement powers, the US (and its coalition of the willing) is taking what it considers its responsibility, to police and democratize the world. The problem with that is that most people don’t like to be policed, as long as there is no international justice and legitimate force in place, which would have to be based on popular sovereignty. Without binding world law and justice, it looks very much like the US and its alliance are acting in their own national interest only. For all we know, the rich everywhere are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Something is not right! With a child dying every five seconds from malnutrition and related causes, and 11 Million more people going hungry in 2005, making up a total 852 million in all, most of them in Africa (south of Europe), something must be wrong!

Putting all the blame on the sole remaining superpower, however, is not right and it won’t work! What about us Europeans? European governments seem to be getting their act together, making the dream of a United States of Europe come true. Good! But what’s special about that? India with as many languages, peoples, and problems as Europe, is united in a democratic federation since 1947! Of course, Europe is special since it has been fighting so many wars, colonial wars, endless wars among themselves, and started two world wars in the last century. Neo-colonialism is an offshoot of Europe’s past. Many if not most of the problems people face today have come about as a result of European colonial imperialism.

Is there a solution? The Movement for United Nations Reform 2007 (UNFOR 2007) has worked out a concept, based on existing international and constitutional law, including the UN Charter, the Japanese Peace Constitution and facts of history. Many years of research and many researchers have contributed to our concept. A little known fact of history – to take one example – concerns the Hague Peace Conferences. Please check this information on the web: http://www.ne.jp/asahi/peace/unitednationsreform2007/ hague_peace_and_japan.htm

These are our aims:
● The principle of popular sovereignty is stipulated in the UN Charter’s Preamble. So, one of the aims is to make the UN more democratic. UNFOR 2007 is not alone in calling for the establishment of an NGO advisory body, a Second Assembly or United Nations People’s Assembly besides the UN General Assembly – an idea that has been promoted by some NGOs for decades.

● Our second point concerns UN Security Council Reform, which we believe is best accomplished in two distinct stages. In the first stage we suggest there should be little change in the Charter text. Only the composition / representation of the five permanent members of the Security Council would change, while the number should ideally remain the same. Since the Europeans are overrepresented and the Global South is not represented at all, India would be an ideal candidate to be given a permanent seat plus the task to implement Article 6 of the NPT and initiate nuclear and conventional disarmament. (For a number of reasons UNFOR 2007 believes the official statements declaring India's continued commitment to disarmament and a peaceful one-world order.) If the British and French permanent representations cannot be replaced by a single European representation at this time, India should still be given a seat without delay. In the second stage, there could (ideally) be a world constitutional assembly.

● Many misconceptions abound concerning the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Wrongly and contrary to the facts, official doctrines and interpretations of the UN Charter – mostly by European scholars and politicians – have maintained that the UN does not aim at and cannot be taken as a blueprint for abolishing war. The popular myth is that the permanent members are really permanent. They are not. They are permanent only until the UN System of Collective Security has become operative. This becomes clear if we take a close look at Article 106 of the UN Charter (in the Chapter called ‘Transitional Security Arrangements’). Article 106 envisages a process, if and when member states who are not permanent members have started conferring primary responsibility on the UNSC (Art. 24) and made “available to the Security Council … [a vital part of their] armed forces, assistance, and facilities… for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.” (Art. 43) What is intended is that once a system for the regulation of armaments (Art. 26) has been established and the actual disarmament process has started, the forces made available to the Security Council would evolve into an international police force, while at the same time the ICJ would be empowered to make binding decisions to settle disputes that might arise during their transition.

It is often overlooked that if one or two or more nations are beginning to disarm and to dismantle their military institutions, there would be a security vacuum as a result of that. The UN Charter stipulates that while this process is going on, the permanent members under Article 106 are under obligation to guarantee safe passage for the transition. To doubt their commitment and belittle or underestimate their obligation under the Charter is not an option. The consensus principle (veto) in that case guarantees that they will not use the enforcement powers vested in them arbitrarily during the transitional security phase.

● Last but not least, UNFOR 2007 urges implementation of the constitutional provisions existing in many, mostly European, countries which provide for delegation of powers to the UNSC. The Japanese Constitution’s Article 9* is, for all intents and purposes, a case of precedence. (This is not so surprising since Japan was already an ally of the ‘Entente’ in World War I!) All of these provisions, including Article 9, complement the UN Charter and are meant to start the process of putting collective security into effect, and bring about the elimination of military institutions. Article 9 is in fact a motion to abolish war. We want to see this motion seconded in the UN General Assembly, to open the debate on the issue of the abolition of war. We are calling upon the European nations to take action.

All this and more on UNFOR 2007 online: http://www.ne.jp/asahi/peace/unitednationsreform2007/ 
The year 2007 is the centenary of the Second Hague Peace Conference that already wanted to abolish war (Dr. Klaus Schlichtmann, Coordinator)

* Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution reads:
“Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means for settling international disputes. - In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.” (Constitution of 3 May 1947)