Suchergebnisse

This article deals with some interpretations of peaceful co-existence. The author considers peaceful co-existence as a co-existence, and possibly an active cooperation, of countries of different social orders. But as this is a question of antagonist orders, peaceful co-existence is at the same time a kind of fight between them, without the use of weapons. Several interpretations of well-known authors such as Jaspers, Flechtheim, Raymond Aron, Strausz-Hupé, and Brzezinski are discussed. The author classifies the different points of view discussed as theories of : a) those who deny the mere fact that two systems exist, b) those who deny that a struggle exists between the two systems, c) those who utilize the theory of peaceful co-existence in order to destroy the other system from the outside, and d) those who find even the atmosphere of and search for peaceful co-existence dangerous to their bellicose aims.

If the United Nations system is to outlaw the unilateral use of force, except in cases of self-defense, it is clear that some provision must be made for the peaceful settlement of disputes and for peaceful change. In the past, peacekeeping operations have often succeeded in restoring a fragile peace. Yet collective actionall too frequently has been limited to a restoration of the status quo ante. Indeed, states have usuallyfailed to accept any collective responsibility to deal with the grievances that initially led to the outbreak of hostilities. If peace is to be maintained over any extended period of time, peacekeeping operations must not, asAmbassador Arthur J. Goldberg recently warned, "be a sofa to provide a comfortable respite from efforts atpeaceful settlement" but instead should "be a springboard for accelerated efforts to eliminate the root causes of conflict."

The nineteenth (1964–1965) session of the General Assembly was virtually deadlocked over the financial crisis, a crisis which arose as a result of disagreement between the Members about how the United Nations peacekeeping operations were to be financed. Three years earlier, in 1961, the General Assembly, having been informed of the substantial arrears in the payment of assessments, mainly for the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) and the United Nations Operation in the Congo (ONUC), adopted on December 20, a resolution asking the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion as to whether the expenditures authorized for the UNEF and ONUC operations constituted "expenses of the Organization" within the meaning of Article 17, paragraph 2, of the United Nations Charter. On December 19, 1962, the Assembly voted to accept the advisory opinion of the Court to the effect that the expenditures of these operations constituted "expenses of the Organization" within the meaning of Article 17 (2) of the Charter. However, attempts to extract the arrears from the defaulting states, the largest of which were the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviet Union) and France, on the strength of the Court's advisory opinion, largely failed; and the matter came to a head at the nineteenth session of the General Assembly when some Members, notably the United States, proposed that sanctions under Article 19 of the Charter be taken against the defaulting states. The crisis was finally averted toward the end of the nineteenth session when the United States decided not to pursue the question of sanctions.

"To maintain international peace and security …" is the first purpose listed in Article I of the United Nations Charter, and it is generally conceded to be the Organization's most important one. Although the United Nations Charter provides procedures for both peaceful settlement and peacekeeping, the peacekeeping role has been more active and more contentious. Indeed, without an authoritative organ for interpreting the Charter each Member has been left to determine for itself the meaning of such fluid phrases as "enforcement action," "national sovereignty," and "primary responsibility," to mention only a few. The result has been a divergence of views which surprises all but that consummate logician—the reasonable man.

On March 27, 1964, Secretary-General U Thant announced that the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) had become operational. This announcement occurred only a few days after the initial Canadian units landed in Cyprus soon to be joined by the forces from other contributing countries. The operation, initiated under the executive direction of the Secretary-General and at the request of the Security Council, thus became another in a series of peacekeeping efforts by the United Nations. One year later the Secretary-General was able to report that during the first year of operation UNFICYP had achieved "very creditable results" but that major difficulties still remained with respect to achieving a stable and enduring peace.

The Algerian-Moroccan border conflict provided the Organization of African Unity (OAU) with the first test of its machinery and procedures for peacekeeping and for the peaceful settlement of disputes. The following examination of that dispute and of its treatment by the Organization of African Unity is a case study of the operation of a newly founded regional organization. The Organization of African Unity was endowed with no supranational powers which might have enabled it to enforce its will on the disputants in the Algerian-Moroccan case. The Organization had to function on the basis of cooperation among its members. Yet the Organization of African Unity was more than the mere instrument of the foreign policies of its members in the Algerian-Moroccan case. When individual African statesmen were disqualified from acting as mediators by their respective preferences for one or the other of the disputants, the existence of an organization representing all of Africa greatly assisted in the mitigation of the conflict and contributed much to the peace of Africa.

During the first twenty years of the United Nations' existence the patterns of its activities changed significantly. One of the most important changes took place in the practices of the Secretary-General. While the most noticeable development was his assumption of the position of executive agent for peacekeeping forces, a less noticeable but equally important one occurred in his activities as an agent of peaceful settlement. The importance of the latter change was that not only did a single official of the United Nations assume new functions and become instrumental in the settlement of a number of international conflicts, but the Organization as a body gained a more influential role in international politics.

The differences which have been building up within the United Nations in recent years over the financing of peacekeeping have reached a point where strenuous measures are needed to rescue the Organization from its divisions and paralysis.

When Senator J. William Fulbright recently called for an an end to certain myths in American foreign policy he provoked, not unexpectedly, a debate over basic issues. Some of these are issues that Prime Minister Nehru grappled with in his long political career, issues that are neatly summed up in the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence found in the preamble of the Sino-Indian Agreement on Tibet, signed April 29, 1954.Although the Tibetan treaty expired in 1962, the norms in the preamble continue to play a vital role in world affairs.

In his address to the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party on October 17, 1961, Premier Khrushchev assured his listeners that the principles of peaceful co-existence, whose source he attributed to Lenin, had "always been the central feature of Soviet foreign policy".

In order to assist in the preparation of a treaty on general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world, the United States submits the following outline of basic provisions of such a treaty.

The immense increase in the costs and risks of using military force to pursue political aims has once again focussed attention on the available ways of effecting changes in the international status quo by non-violent means. This is the subject of "peaceful change," which has for some years troubled the minds of those concerned to reduce the resort to violence in international affairs.The international status quo is embodied in several thousand treaties and understandings that mark out the current distribution of values and resources among nations. But this distribution is subject to constant pressure for revision as the needs and ambitions of nations change.

On October 1, 1957, the General Assembly of the United Nations decided without objection to inscribe on the agenda of its twelfth session a proposal of the Soviet Union requesting a declaration relative to the principles of peaceful co-existence.