Global Peace Public Network
Founding Statement of Objectives
1.We aim to build a world of enduring peace whose citizens can feel serenity and joy in life.
2.We aim to restore public values and bring peace to the world , making the most of wisdom gained from close at hand, through living our daily lives.
3.We aim to build an informal public network of friendship for global peace, respecting both our differences and similarities .
4.We aim to demonstrate to the how valuable and significant in the history of civilisation is the idea of global peace embodied in the permanent renunciation of war in Article 9 of the Japanese constitution.
5.We aim for the formulation of principles of peace, the conducting of non-violent public activities, and the creation of the Art of Peace which will allow us together to experience the joy of living.
Aiming to link reason with sense, intellect with spirit, art and body, and the world of everyday life with the public world, the “Society for Considering Article 9 through the Soles of Our Feet” and the “Public Philosophy Network” hereby set their common aims, making the most of their respective forms of expression.
and ‘our view’ is here
Hope for Peace, a Spiral of Friendship
1.Peace from close to our feet
Let each and every one feel peace from the spot where we stand
Feel the breath of life
Feel ourselves and the world
And grow seeds of peace from the soil under our feet.
Humam beings began to evolve when they first started walking upright on their feet and now we look down at our feet and we make a resolution to feel, think, and act on the meaning of peace from close to our feet.
2.The Question of Peace
At the start of the 21st Century, on September 11, 2001, the people of the whole world were faced with the profound question: what is peace?
The terrorist acts by Islamic extremists, in which many innocent American citizens lost their lives cannot be condoned on any account. On the other hand, those actions in which the perpetrators sacrificed their own lives, highlighted the scale of their problems as well. What are the terrorists protesting against and what do they hope to achieve with this act of self-sacrifice? Unless we listen and try to understand them before we judge them, we will not be able to discover the wisdom of how to live together which can help us change both ourselves and realty and the future we are hoping for will never come.
3.Dignity of Life and Dialogue
In these circumstances, we distance ourselves from the logic of national interests and we aim to build a peaceful society in which the dignity of life can be guaranteed for each and every person living on the Earth
It is each and every one of us who make up societies and states, and it is each and every one of us who create problems.
We have learned these important truths from looking at our own feet: that whatever we hope to achieve we must achieve by ourselves, not leaving things to others but standing on our own two feet; and that our own happiness depends on the happiness of others– that if we start to exploit others, one day we will pay the price.
In order for each of us to live in peace, we need first of all mutually to recognise the significance and dignity of our existence on this Earth. Only then, through dialogue, can we develop and create various individual, social and cultural forms.
Only when we recognise the fact that we cannot live in isolation, when we recognise the fact that at the same time as being individuals we live in contact with others, and we are given life by the strength of others, only then does a sense of gratitude and happiness arise.
4.Living Rooted in the E arth
When we tread the earth with our bare feet, we feel the warmth of the earth rising up. Just by taking off our shoes and socks, we can recall the memory of nature. And when we do so, we realise what a very simple thing “peace” is: that happiness is eating, enjoying conversation with our friends and families, and sleeping without worry.
We would like to bring back this feeling of peace, this feeling of happiness, starting right here where we are.
5.Pursuing a New Form of Non-war Peace Movement
To this end, we resolve to sustain and develop a non-war peace movement appropriate to the new century, rooted close to our feet, standing firmly on the earth, refining our own senses and freely exercising our powers of imagination and thought, and witnessing the awakening of our hearts and bodies.
Bringing together a flexible sensitivity and intellect, we aim to seek out a new, joyful form of peace movement and to create a world in harmony with nature, where basic human rights are protected, and the dignity of each and every one’s life is guaranteed. Within this movement, we wish to develop and produce an artistic sense such as will stimulate physical development, delight and feeling of happiness. In a spirit of friendship and acceptance, celebrating diversity and creativity, we wish to take up the challenge of reviving the peaceful spirit of Article 9 in the new century.
6.Establishment of a Non-war Partnership
Further, learning from Costa Rica’s declaration in its 1949 constitution of the abolition of a standing army and of unarmed neutrality, and receiving the recognition of Asian countries as a “non-warring state”, we will join in a network with citizens seeking peace throughout the world, and, through the practice of grass-roots diplomacy and the activities of individual citizens, establish a “global peace public network”.
We will put into practice a human communication partnership which will bring about a real feeling of peace through our self-awareness as global citizens by forming links with life and with people on this watery planet
7.Towards the Dawn of Human Wisdom
T he first step along the path that will lead us to a new age is the building of a peaceful society and a culture of peace so that the year 2001, with its negative inheritance, may be remembered as the dawning of human wisdom.
Join in our efforts to find ways, of achieving this aim. With hope for peace in our hearts, and as part of a great spiral of fellowship linking past, present and future, let us each bring forward our creativity and energy, overcoming difficulties, and build peace on this, our irreplaceable home in this universe, our watery planet, our Earth.
1 January 2003
Society for Considering Article 9 through the Soles of Our Feet
Statement of Objectives
1.Arrival of Global Crisis
After the simultaneous terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the world entered a grave global crisis. The actions of Islamic extremists which cost human lives need to be condemned, and their crimes exposed, punished and policed internationally.
However, defining such terrorist acts as war and retaliating through war will not solve the problem, but will only result in further loss of innocent lives. There is also a danger of worsening the situation leading into a vicious circle of responding to violence with violence. The logic of the Bush administration’s “war on terrorism”, which declared not only the terrorist organisations but also the Taliban government as its enemy, is wanting both ethically and legally.
The unilateralist Bush administration is exhibiting a high-handed stance which can be seen as American neo-imperialism, and is pursuing the path of arbitrarily commencing and escalating needless wars. We seriously fear that a major and violent clash of civilisations will occur as a result, and we wish to plead the case for a dialogue between civilisations and for renunciation of war, not only to the Japanese and U.S. governments, but to the public throughout the world.
All wars are evil, but they are often justified as necessary evil. The present “war on terrorism”, however, is no such necessary evil, it is simply a global evil which will only bring about massive loss of human life. Nuclear war, furthermore, could be called “absolute evil”, and it is our sincerest hope that the danger of nuclear war will be averted..
And yet, the government of the United States is joined by the governments of many other countries in supporting war, and the Japanese government, too, has on the occasion of the war in Afghanistan enacted the unconstitutional Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law and for the first time since World War II has involved the country in war by sending troops overseas. In relation to the war in Iraq, too, the government is now considering the enactment of an “Anti-Iraq Special Measures Law” and cooperation with the war.
2.Formation of a New Peace Movement
In opposition to the global evil of the “war on terrorism”, and with the aim of achieving the global public good which is the restoration and realisation of peace, we propose to form a new peace movement.
The post-war peace movement, arising from the experience of defeat in World War II, played an important role in maintaining the idea of the Peace Constitution. However, it was also plagued by problems such as rigid communist/socialist ideology, the idea of peace in one country, subordination to economic considerations and protection of livelihood, the turning of Okinawa into a fortress, and self-righteous campaigns of enlightenment and rationalism, and we have to acknowledge that nowadays it holds little appeal for the young generations who have no experience of war.
We aim, therefore, from the philosophical standpoint of peace as a global public good, creatively to develop a new non-war peace movement appropriate to the new century, with importance given to religious, philosophical, ethical and artistic elements.
This involves the development as a movement of the idea of”non-war” whose tradition goes back to Uchimura Kanzo. As Maruyama Masao once said, what is called for is the “political activity of non-political citizens” grounded in an inner and cultural inheritance. We wish to develop the practice of “little politics” by citizens, rooted in our daily lives, a new public peace movement with solid spiritual foundations.
In order to achieve peace in this age of global crisis, practical activities are called for, arising from the public conscience and breaking through the walls of political indifference and apathy in the world today. Following the example set by Gandhi, and as advocated by Arendt, we resolve to carry out peaceful activities based on discussion and debate in a non-violent manner.
In order for us to carry out such activities ourselves, the wisdom, courage and energy of each and every one of us is called for.@And the motive for our movement is a loving motive, of putting an end to killing.@For our movement to be a constructive one, one that hopes also to redeem those whom we criticise, without becoming combative or destructive, kindness and love are required.@Carrying out practical activities, combining love, wisdom and courage, is the public virtue of today.@In this sense, the peace movement can itself act as a space for the development and cultivation of human virtue.
In contrast to the peace movements of the past, which tended to generate a heavy and combative atmosphere, we hope, by joining reason to sensitivity, to develop a peace movement filled with inner joy and happiness.@Such a movement could be called a festival of peace, an “Art of Peace”.
This is an endeavour to revive in this new century the pacifism of the post-war constitution and restore the spirit of wa or harmony which goes back to the 17-article constitution of Shotoku Taishi. It is our wish to contribute to the creation of a new, peaceful global civilisation together with non-warring voices from other countries of Asia and elsewhere, to counter the neo-imperialism of the United States. A global civilisation and culture based on mutual recognition of and respect for all civilisations and cultures is needed to counter neo-liberalist, West-centred globalisation.
Wishing for the realisation of a world of peace on Earth, developing as a network of fellowship with companions and friends who wish for global peace, and in liaison with peace-oriented networks across the world, we hereby inaugurate the Global Peace Public Network. We hope that many people will join us, and that this new movement will contribute to the realisation of global peace.
New Year’s Day 2003
Public Philosophy Network
After the simultaneous terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the world entered a grave global crisis. The actions of Islamic extremists which cost human lives need to be condemned, and their crimes exposed, punished and policed internationally.
However, defining such terrorist acts as war and retaliating through war will not solve the problem, but will only result in further loss of innocent lives. Such a course brings the danger of worsening the situation in a vicious circle of meeting violence with violence. The logic of the Bush administration’s “war on terrorism”, which declared not only the terrorist organizations but also the Taliban government as its enemy, is wanting both ethically and legally.
We are opposed to the American-led war in Afghanistan. Solutions must first be found to the structural injustice which causes terrorism, for example the stationing of United States forces in Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian problem, and the global problems of poverty, hunger, as well as the disparity between developed and developing countries. As these problems are solved, popular support for Islamic extremism will wane, and the extremists’ position will weaken. We need to aim for radical solution to injustice, combining such global structural reform with strengthened policing.
Sadly, in the war in Afghanistan, the number of innocent lives lost through mistaken bombing already exceeds that of the victims of September 11. Moreover, the logic of “war against terrorism” has been extended to Israel, leading to intensification of the Palestinian conflict and the effective collapse of the Oslo Accords, while aggravating the India-Pakistan conflict to the point of the threat of nuclear war, as well as providing an excuse for suppression of the Chechen people by the Russian authorities. These developments have already provoked further acts of terror by Islamic extremists.
Describing Iraq, Iran and North Korea as constituting an”axis of evil”, President Bush has raised concerns that war will be extended to these countries. The war front has already been extended on a small scale, with the sending of military advisors to such countries as the Philippines and Yemen. The Bush administration has also set out a new strategic doctrine enabling pre-emptive strikes against countries developing or possessing weapons of mass destruction, and has quietly adopted a policy of allowing nuclear attacks in response to the use of biological or chemical weapons. This will lead to the breakdown of international law and order, whose aim is the prevention of war, and will bring about the danger of nuclear war. The unilateralism of the Bush administration can only be called a form of military imperialism. It clearly contravenes international law and order, and seriously impedes the cause of global public welfare.
Thus, the “war against terrorism” is being expanded to a war with no connection to terrorism, under the pretext of protecting the world from countries which “develop and possess weapons of mass destruction”. No clear connection linking Iraq with terrorism has been established, and the possession of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction has not been proven. Moreover, the Security Council has not acknowledged any threat to peace coming from Iraq or decided to take military action to deal with such a threat. The use of armed force under the pretext of protecting the world from countries which develop and possess weapons of mass destruction is, therefore, in contravention of international law.
If, in spite of this, a millitary strike were to be carried out on Iraq, the lives of many innocent people would be lost once again. Moreover, such a war carries the danger of being extended to Iran and North Korea with yet further loss of life, and the possibility indeed of nuclear war cannot be ruled out. The nuclear problem in North Korea is of particular concern to Japanese people..
The development and possession of weapons of mass destruction has no logical relation to the events of September 11, and a millitary actions based on such wrong assumptions should not be carried out as part of any “war against terrorism”. If a war is fought against Iraq on the pretext of searching for weapons, the danger of a similar war against North Korea will increase. In such a case, there is a danger of heavy human and material loss in the surrounding countries, including Japan. To prevent this danger, war on Iraq should be opposed. The country with the most weapons of mass destruction in the world is the United States, and so the question of double standards in any war led by the United States on the grounds of possession of weapons of mass destruction cannot be avoided. Fortunately, the opening of hostilities threatened in late January has been postponed, under the pressure of worldwide anti-war opinion. The United States attempted to justify war on Iraq with Secretary of State Powell’s intelligence presentation, but the “proof” was extremely inconclusive. Particularly unconvincing was, the assertion of the existence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida. In their report to the United Nations Security Council on February 14, chief weapons inspector Dr. Hans Blix and Director of the International Atomic Energy Authority Mohamed El Baradei, while admitting that cooperation had not been fully satisfactory, were positive on aspects of Iraqi cooperation with the inspections, and indicated their wish for the inspections to continue (in closed session). Supported by voices against war across the world, a majority of members of the UN Security Council including France and Germany opposed the new draft resolution proposed by the United States and Great Britain and the commencement of war against Iraq (by 12 to 2, as of 14 February).
In contrast, the government of Japan has not only failed to articulate its opposition to war, but, while not clarifying its position at home, argued in an open session of the UN Security Council on February 18 for the adoption of a new draft resolution, in support of the United States and Britain. Expressing support in this way on the international stage while domestically avoiding any explanation is a reckless defiance of the principles of democracy. Appealing for support for the new resolution constitutes active participation in the commencement of a US-led war. It can be supposed that further support for a war on Iraq is planned. If the new resolution is not adopted, the United States has shown its readiness to ignore the Security Council and go ahead with the war on Iraq regardless.
Any war, which costs human lives, must be avoided if at all possible, and if unavoidable can at best be said to be a “necessary evil” Accordingly, for as long as it is possible to prevent certain countries from developing and maintening weapons of mass destruction through continued and reinforced inspections, these measures should be exhausted, and on no account should resort be made to pre-emptive strikes. This war, therefore, is not even a necessary evil, but is a global evil against global public welfare.
As members of the United Nations, the United States and Great Britain too should pursue peaceful solutions as far as possible in accordance with the spirit of the UN Charter, and should not resort to military action against Iraq. At the present time no armed attack by Iraq against the United States or Britain is taking place, and therefore, even more so than in the case of Afghanistan, the use of military force in exercise of the right to self-defence (Article 51) cannot be carried out. On the basis of the spirit of the United Nations Charter, we are opposed to the precipitate use of force. As is argued by the majority at present within the Security Council, the Security Council should not pass a new resolution approving military action. A pre-emptive strike without even a Security Council resolution is nothing less than unlawful aggression. Giving tacit approval to such an action will bring about the collapse of international law and order and invite lawlessness on a world scale. Decisions on the political future of Iraq should be entrusted to the Iraqi people, and while the people of the world should support their right to democratic self-determination, a military attack from outside with the aim of overthrowing the Hussein regime should not be allowed.
We criticize the Japanese government’s actions in supporting the adoption of a new Security Council resolution on the international stage and exerting diplomatic influence in favour of adoption while avoiding any clarification of its intentions at home. Here we see clearly the state of consistently US-led foreign policy and the lack of an independent Japanese “public philosophy” in diplomacy since World War II.
As for the Japanese government’s military participation in war, this is in clear violation of the pacifist Constitution, and cannot be allowed . The spirit of “trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world” (Preface) and “international peace based on justice and order” (Article 9) would demand support for settlement of disputes by peaceful means, following the basic principle of the United Nations Charter expressed in Article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4. Support of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq is in clear violation of the Constitution, which declares that “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.”
Internationally, war on Iraq is an unjust act leading to the breakdown of international law, while Japanese support for such a war is an unlawful act leading to the collapse of the peace constitution and of constitutionalism. Not only is the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law an unconstitutional law, but its application to Iraq is contrary to the spirit and purpose of that law. Military support on this basis contravenes this unconstitutional law itself, and is contrary to the rule of law. Thus, war on Iraq and support for such a war are wrong morally, politically and legally.
From the standpoint of respect for dignity of life and global public interest, we oppose war on Iraq and we appeal for peace. Japan must, in accordance with ist pacifist constitution, make clear its opposition to war on Iraq and appeal to the world for the importance of a peaceful solution. Believing in the significance and value of Article 9 of the Constitution in the history and theory of civilization, it is our prayer that a future civilization of life and peace may be built on the foundation of its spirit. Desiring “peace for all time and deeply conscious of the high ideals controlling human relationship” and “trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world” (Preface to the Constitution), we hereby present the above statement, in solidarity with all people living in the world.
 On this point, see Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector, War on Iraq: What Team Bush doesn’t want you to know.
 Secretary of State Powell claimed that a leading member of al-Qaida, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was being sheltered by President Hussein, but it has since been reported that Mr.al-Zarqawi was in hiding with Islamic radicals in the Kurdish autonomous region beyond the control of the Hussein government.
 Article 3 of the United Nations Charter states: “3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered./ 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
 Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution states: “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 means of settling international disputes. 2) 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.”
 If Article 9 is interpreted as totally renouncing war, the use of force, the maintenance of forces and the right of belligerency, then the self-defence forces are themselves unconstitutional, and military support prohibited. Even if, on the other hand, this renunciation is interpreted strictly “as means of settling international disputes” and “[i]n order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph”, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are “use of force as means of settling international disputes” and in no way wars of self-defence, and, accordingly, military support through the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law is unconstitutional.
admin @ 11月 6, 2007