It is 70 days since the incursion to Ukraine by the Russian military, but no sign of armistice is seen. Observing the principle stipulated in the international laws that conflicts should be solved by negotiation not by military means, requested are actions and efforts to reach agreements, not seeking for submission.
WHAT IS NEEDED - NOT SUBMISSION BUT AGREEMENT
The United Nations adopted in the recent emergency meeting of the General Assembly a condemnation resolution demanding ‘immediate and unconditional withdrawal’ of Russian military forces with 141 votes in favor, on the basis of violation of Item 4 of Article 2 of its Charter, concerning the intrusion of Russia to Ukraine.
It is the Kellog-Briand Pact (1928) that confirmed a rule of illegitimacy of wars; it stipulates that military means should be renounced to solve international conflicts as the mankind had learned lessons from the World War I. But the pact could not prevent the second disaster from taking place.
These experiences have led to the rule in the international relations to prohibit use of military force and threats thereof. It was incorporated into the Constitution of Japan, as pacifism, being a keen lesson that ‘no one is a winner in the war’.
Double-Standard of Big Powers
Russia is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council which is responsible for keeping the international order after the World War II. It openly intruded recently to a neighboring country on account of national security of its own, hinting nuclear menace and attacking the nuclear power plant. The events have undermined the UN-led security framework, turning it ineffective.
The UN Charter has been referred to with maximum respect in several occasions, while, on the other, it has been neglected to pursue for objectives contrary to international peace and stability.
NATO expansion
The Putin administration has no doubt violated the Charter, but we must consider causes which have led to the military involvement.
Needless to say, that is the eastward extension of NATO. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and East European bloc a new world order emerged. Under these circumstances the leaderships of Germany and the United States have mentioned repeatedly that ‘NATO would not go further east’, which is a well-known fact.
Even though the ‘mentioning’ does not have legally binding force as a written international treaty, these governments owe moral accountability. Germany was reunified and the Warsaw Pact was disintegrated on the basis of this arrangement.
The Constitution of Japan specifies that ‘we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world’: without trusting in justice and faith in the international relations, peace cannot be maintained. This is a spirit kept universally in the international laws, including the UN Charter.
Obviously enough, it is not a supply of weapons to Ukraine, one of the warring parties, and it is not, either, economic sanctions against Russia that will bring peace in the nation. What is indispensable is the US government stop the above-said policies and make a definite pledge ‘to abandon to enlarge NATO further east’.
国連は先の総会緊急特別会合で、ロシアのウクライナ侵攻は国連憲章２条４項違反として、ロシア軍の「即時かつ無条件撤退を求める」非難決議を１４１カ国の賛成で採択した。
第一次大戦の惨禍から人類が武力による国際紛争の解決を放棄し、戦争の違法化原則を確認したのは不戦条約(１９２８年)だ。しかし、人類は２回目の大戦を防げなかった。
この反省が国際関係で武力行使、武力による威嚇を禁じた国際法上の原則である。日本国憲法の平和主義にも通底し、「戦争に勝利者はいない」という人類の教訓だったのだ。
大国の二重基準
第二次大戦後の秩序維持を担うべき国連の常任理事国であるロシアが公然と自国の安全保障を理由に隣国を侵略し、かつ核の威嚇や原発施設への攻撃など、国連の集団安全保障制度を不全に陥れた。
国連憲章は、ある時には最大限の敬意をもって言及され、ある時は、国際平和と安全に反する目的を追求するために背を向けられてきた。
ＮＡＴＯの拡大
プーチンのロシアが国連憲章を踏みにじったことは間違いないが、軍事侵攻を誘発した原因にも目を向けなくてはならない。
いうまでもなく、「ＮＡＴＯの東方拡大」である。ソ連・東欧ブロックの崩壊で新たな国際秩序が確定する過程で、西ドイツ首脳や米国首脳が「ＮＡＴＯを東方に拡大しない」と発言していたことは国際的にもよく知られた事実である。
国際間の条約ではない「発言」が法的拘束力を持たないとしても、道義的な責任がある。その「約束」の下でドイツが統一され、ワルシャワ条約機構が解体されたのである。
日本国憲法に「平和を愛する諸国民の公正と信義に信頼して、われらの安全と生存を保持しようと決意した」とあるが、国連憲章など国際条約を貫く精神となっている「国際間の信義」なくして平和は維持できない。
ウクライナに平和をもたらすのは、一方の戦争当事者であるウクライナへの武器供与でないことは当然であり、ロシアへの経済制裁でないことも言うまでもない。米国が、この２つを直ちにやめ、「ＮＡＴＯは東方拡大をしない、断念する」と明確に約束することである。
英訳版↓
No. 1257 What is Needed for Ceasefire
It is 70 days since the incursion to Ukraine by the Russian military, but no sign of armistice is seen. Observing the principle stipulated in the international laws that conflicts should be solved by negotiation not by military means, requested are actions and efforts to reach agreements, not seeking for submission.
WHAT IS NEEDED - NOT SUBMISSION BUT AGREEMENT
The United Nations adopted in the recent emergency meeting of the General Assembly a condemnation resolution demanding ‘immediate and unconditional withdrawal’ of Russian military forces with 141 votes in favor, on the basis of violation of Item 4 of Article 2 of its Charter, concerning the intrusion of Russia to Ukraine.
It is the Kellog-Briand Pact (1928) that confirmed a rule of illegitimacy of wars; it stipulates that military means should be renounced to solve international conflicts as the mankind had learned lessons from the World War I. But the pact could not prevent the second disaster from taking place.
These experiences have led to the rule in the international relations to prohibit use of military force and threats thereof. It was incorporated into the Constitution of Japan, as pacifism, being a keen lesson that ‘no one is a winner in the war’.
Double-Standard of Big Powers
Russia is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council which is responsible for keeping the international order after the World War II. It openly intruded recently to a neighboring country on account of national security of its own, hinting nuclear menace and attacking the nuclear power plant. The events have undermined the UN-led security framework, turning it ineffective.
The UN Charter has been referred to with maximum respect in several occasions, while, on the other, it has been neglected to pursue for objectives contrary to international peace and stability.
NATO expansion
The Putin administration has no doubt violated the Charter, but we must consider causes which have led to the military involvement.
Needless to say, that is the eastward extension of NATO. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and East European bloc a new world order emerged. Under these circumstances the leaderships of Germany and the United States have mentioned repeatedly that ‘NATO would not go further east’, which is a well-known fact.
Even though the ‘mentioning’ does not have legally binding force as a written international treaty, these governments owe moral accountability. Germany was reunified and the Warsaw Pact was disintegrated on the basis of this arrangement.
The Constitution of Japan specifies that ‘we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world’: without trusting in justice and faith in the international relations, peace cannot be maintained. This is a spirit kept universally in the international laws, including the UN Charter.
Obviously enough, it is not a supply of weapons to Ukraine, one of the warring parties, and it is not, either, economic sanctions against Russia that will bring peace in the nation. What is indispensable is the US government stop the above-said policies and make a definite pledge ‘to abandon to enlarge NATO further east’.
May 11, 2022