Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Thorner Str. 7
human rights defender
(according to UN resolution 53/144)
to the press
with the request for publication
subject: -constitutional complaint shall prevent the escalation of the Syria conflict to thermonuclear war – timely public discussion secures rule of the law and peace
-Bundestag, Federal Government, and Constitutional Court have been informed on constitutional complaint to come against the resolution by the Bundestag (file number 18/9960) of the 09.11.2016 on the prolongation and expansion of the Syria deployment of the Bundeswehr
Dear ladies and gentlemen,
with letter of the 07.04.2017, we have informed the Federal Government, the Constitutional Court, as well as the President and the fractions of the Bundestag, that we will, with a new group of plaintiffs, file a constitutional complaint against the resolution by the Bundestag of the 09.11.2016 (file number 18/9960) on the prolongation and the expansion of the Syria deployment of the Bundeswehr. Our complaint will also contain applications for interim injunction and challenges of constitutional judge Prof. Dr. Peter-Michael Huber and of the President of the Constitutional Court, Prof. Dr. Andreas Voßkuhle, for presumed bias (art. 18, 19 BVerfGG) regarding „breaking up and pushing aside of the eternity guarantuee (art. 79 par. 3 Basic Law)“ and „bias regarding Bilderberg“.
The timing of the public debate particularly before the filing of the complaint will be crucial for its success. The prevention of the escalation to a thermonuclear war is absolutely preeminent. With the bombardement, in the morning of the 07.04.2017, of a Syrian military basis in Homs by the US air force, the world stands similarly close to a thermonuclear catastrophe as at the 31.08.2013.
The achievement of timely visibility and of a public debate have shown to be indispensable for life and for the rule of the law.
The supposed safety zones respectively no-fly zones in Syria would aggravate even more the risk of a thermonuclear war, and the current situation threatens to accelerate their introduction.
Art. 303 of the US law HR 5732 of the 15.11.2016 obliges the US government to assess the implementation of such zones within 90 days of the enactment of that law. The enforcement of such a zone would lead into direct confrontation with the Syrian army and so also with Russia. See the CNAS paper „Defeating the Islamic State – A Bottom-Up Approach“ and the Brookings Institution paper „Deconstructing Syria – Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country“.
In the end of January 2017, His Excellency, US President Donald Trump, has ordered the Pentagon and the Foreign Ministry to assess within 90 days, i. e. until at latest about the end of April, the introduction of safety zones in Syria.
We will discuss this escalation risk for the German Syria deployment in the constitutional complaint. It is crucial to achieve an interim injunction, before the no-fly zones respectively safety zones in Syria are implemented. That will bring about the necessary international signalling effect.
In addition to that, many countries, among the also nuclearly armed countries like USA, Russia, Great Britain, France, Israel, Saudi-Arabia, and China, are militarily involved in Syria, with different interests and to different extents, and the insufficient coordination between them and the Syrian government contains the significant risk of even an unwanted escalation to thermonuclear war.
The constitutional complaint will apply to prohibit the Syria deployment of the Bundeswehr, because it violates the human dignity in connection with the peace principle (art. 1 par. 1+2 Basic Law) and the basic right to vote (art. 38 Basic Law) (because of the missing legal foundations for large parts of the deployment). The peace principle (art. 1 par. 2 Basic Law), which is formulated as a confession of the German people, is entrenched in the human dignity (art. 1 par. 1 Basic Law) and has been included into the Basic Law inspired by the famous „speech of hope“ by His Excellency, the US Foreign Minister James F. Byrnes. As a contribution for a permanent safeguarding of world peace and in order to restore their dignity, the Parlamentarian Council (the body which has concluded the Basic Law) has, by means of the confession in art. 1 par. 2 Basic Law, inviolably obliged and entitled all Germans to peace. The existence of the peace principle has been confirmed in the Lisbon Judgement of the 30.06.2009 by the German Constitutional Court. Now it is time, that this principle contributes to the preservation of world peace. According to our legal point of view, the peace principle contains the respect for all those prescriptions in the Basic Law, which protect peace, and in addition to that, the prohibition of any German contribution to the increase of escalation risks to world war, because the „speech of hope“ includes the will to prevent any further world war. We may never again be deprived of our dignity, because the respect for the dignity is the key for peace (art. 1 par. 1+2 Basic Law).
The deployment violates objectively the prohibitions of aggressive war and disturbs the peaceful coexistence of the peoples (art. 26 Basic Law, art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter). Im June 2016, the protest by the Syrian government has proven, that it rejects the German deployment, which has neither been requested by it nor been coordinated with it. The parliamentary reservation (art. 115a Basic Law) is violated, because the consent by the Bundestag had also to be requested before the resolution at the EU level of the 16./17.11.2015 (Az. 14120/15) on the case of mutual defence. Furthermore, the EU clause on mutual defence (art. 42 par. 7 TEU) is not valid yet, because, as the Lisbon Judgement of the 30.06.2009 has decided, the EU would have had to conclude before, that it wants a common defence policy, which then would have needed the consent by the national parliaments of all EU member states (art. 42 par. 2 subpar. 1 TEU); at least the latter has never taken place. In addition to that, the EU is, without any valid clause on mutual defence, (in contrast to NATO) no system of mutual collective security; the Bundeswehr may be used in combat deployments only for the defence of the homeland and within systems of mutual collective security (art. 24 par. 2 Basic Law). And the International Alliance in the Fight against Isis is an ad hoc alliance without any ratified treaty and so obviously without any valid clause on mutual defence. Also the resolutions on Syria by the UN Security Council are NO legal bases for the deployment, because they do just NOT state referring to art. 42 UN Charter, that peaceful means had been unsuccessful or hopeless, and give NO authorization for military means, because they in the contrary set on negotiations and on ever harder sanctions against Isis, against Al Qaida, and against more and more groups of their supporters.
The terrorist attacks in Paris of the 13.11.2015 have been below the treshold of a militarily armed attack. The resolution on mutual defence has de facto only disattracted a significant part of the public and of the politicians form the fact, that the Syria deployment is a military intervention for values and interests (art. 42 par. 5 TEU) and for crisis intervention (art. 43 par. 1 TEU) – corresponding to the ideology of the „humanitarian intervention“. That ideology has developed from the study „Self Determination in the New World Order“ of the year 1992 by the think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and it provenly aims at making outflankable the prohibition of aggressive war (art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter) and the responsibilites of the UN Security Council. It absuses the human rights against peace and so violates art. 29 no. 3 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The ideology of the „humanitarian intervention“ has been responsible, in the last 24 years, for „regime changes“ called „colour revolutions“ and for wars (with the Kosovo war as its first bigger experiment) including the nearly escalation of the Syria conflict to thermonuclear war, which has narrowly been prevented at the 31.08.2013. Just as that time, a chemical weapon incident is being hastily attributed to the Syrian government, and just as that time, one tries to induce an insufficiently informed US President to lines of actions, which would lead into the thermonuclear war.
The constitutional complaint will apply for the prohibition of the Syria deployment also because of the escalation risks (of the Syria conflict) to world war, to which Germany must not contribute because of its peace principle (art. 1 par. 2 Basic Law). Isis and Al Qaida provenly strive to bring about the final battle, which has been decribed in the Islamic Revelation, by provoking a world war beginning in Syria. Both strive, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood, which has developed the ideology for Al Qaid, for a global caliphate, and it is unclear, in how far the jihadists are being steered by which state and / or private actors. A world war today would be thermonuclear, and noone would survive it. It is impending in view of the to a large degree uncoordinated deployment of the airforces and partly armies of many countries with different interests in Syria. Also the above-mentiond papers by CNAS and by Brookings Institution, considerations in autumn 2016 within the National Security Council of the USA regarding a possible attack on the Syrian army, and the threat by Russia (also in autumn 2016) to shoot down all planes which endanger the Russian troops, would, if being enforced, lead into the thermonuclear war. At the 31.08.2013, the global escalation has been very narrowly prevented, because the USA have, in connection with the chemical weapon incident in Ghouta of the 21.08.2013, been informed just in time regarding the Russian warning, that Russia would retaliate against Saudi-Arabia in case of US air attacks against Syria. Also the downing of a Russian plane over Syria by Turkey in December 2015, the suggestion by Saudi-Arabia in February 2016 (which has been rejected by NATO) to invade into Syria and Iraq with an international Sunni ad hoc alliance, and the bombardment of Syrian troops in Deir Azzur in September 2016 could easily have escalated to world war.
The resolution by the Bundestag of the 09.11.2016 and the resolution on the case of mutual defence by Their Excellencies, the Defence Ministers of the EU member states, of the 16./17.11.2015 have disregarded the provisions of the Lisbon Judgement for an interpretation of the prescriptions of the Common Foreign and Safety Policy (CFSP) of the EU in conformity with the UN Charter. So the constitutional complaint will apply, in order to achieve legal safety for the peace order of the United Nations and for the existence of the European Union, to oblige the German government, to apply in the UN General Assembly for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the following question:
„How exactly has the interpretation of the norms of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) on military interventions for values and interests (art. 42 par. 5 TEU), on military interventions for interference into crises (art. 43 par. 1 TEU), and the EU clause on mutual assistance (art. 42 par. 7 TEU), which is still not ratified according to art. 42 par. 2 subpar. 1 TEU, each to be limited into conformity with the UN Charter and with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), in order to completely exclude any possibility to violate art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter, art. 103 UN Charter, or art. 29 no. 3 UDHR, by means of these norms, and in order to, at the same time, exclude the risk of voidness of the TEU according to art. 53 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties because of incompability with the UN Charter and with the UDHR, which belong to the 'ius cogens' ?“
The constitutional complaint will apply, in view of the undemocratically big influence of the think tank SWP and, besides that, of the Bilderberg conference on the German position on Syria, to exclude think tanks from international conferences on foreign and safety policy with German parti-cipation, and to allow the counselling to German institutions regarding foreign and safety policy only for such think tanks, whose recommendations violate neither the Basic Law nor the UN Charter, with special regard to the prohibitions of aggressive war and of its preparation (art. 26 Basic Law, art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter) and to the inviolable peace principle (art. 1 par. 2 Basic Law), and which do not, at the same time, counsel other countries.
The constitutional complaint will apply, that the Constitutional Court has to make, as far as foreign and safety policy are concerned, provisions regarding the examination of one's conscience of the members of parliament, which is included in the basic right to vote (art. 38 par. 1 s. 2 Basic Law). Also before the resolution of the 09.11.2016 (file number 18/9960), the legal foundations of the Syria deployment and the escalation risks of the Syria conflict to thermonuclear war have still not been carefully investigated by the members of the parliament.
In view of hundredthousands of people, who have immigrated into Germany since 2015 without registration, among them at least a four digit number of jihadists, in view of the jihadist „blitzkrieg“ in Germany and Europe, which has been prognosticated for 2016 by a former Isis member, and which has meanwhile begun, and because Germany, with its direct military involvement in Syria, has got even more into the focus of Isis, the constitutional complaint will claim, that all people, who have immigrated into Germany since 2015, have to be biometrically registered, and that their data have to be compared with the presumed Isis member list and with the over 10,000.- Isis documents seized in Manbij, which Great Britain has, with the already detected stolen and falsified passport identities along the refugee routes (among them in Macedonia), and with terrorists wanted under criminal law by the Syria, by the claimed home country, or wanted internationally.
That protects the German population, but also the refugees, the majority of whom including women and children are peaceful, it provides clarity regarding the extent of the jihadist threat in Germany, and it contributes to the humanitarian supply of all refugees during their stay in Germany, also in order to reduce, as much as possible, the number of those, who, because of material emergency, see no other way than to join Isis.
Because of the missing legal bases for the Syria deployment and of the world war risks connected to
the Syria conflict, and also because of the lacking ability, regarding soldiers and equipment, to
defend the territory of the own country against a jihadist attack, the complaint appeals, by means of
interim injunction, to immediately get back the German troops already sent to Syria, and to prohibit
the deployment of any further troops there. In addition to that, the constitutional complaint will appeal to restore the ability of Germany to defend its own territory (art. 87a par. 1 Basic Law) related to a realistic threat analysis regarding the jihadist threat in Germany.
The complaint will refer to the human dignity (art. 1 par. 1 Basic Law) in connection to the peace
principle (art. 1 par. 2 Basic Law), and to the basic right to vote (art. 38 Basic Law), to the basic
rights to life, to physical integrity, and to freedom (art. 2 Basic Law), to the function reservation
(art. 33 par. 4 Basic Law), as well as to the universal human rights to security (art. 9 ICCPR), to
health (art. 12 CESCR), and to the prohibition of war propaganda (art. 20 par. 1 ICCPR).
The constitutional complaint will also direct itself against art. 93d par. 1 s. 3 BVerfGG, according to which the Constitutional Court can make non-admittances of Constitutional complaints also without any explanation. This prescription makes feasible to completely obscure, if the court has orderly applied the admittance criteria (personal affectedness regarding basic rights and decisive legal questons furthering the constitutional jurisdiction) of art. 93a BVerfGG. The intransparency made feasible just by art 93d par. 1 s. 3 BVerfGG means temptation, particularly in cases of bias, which is incompatible with the rule of the law (art. 1 par. 2+3 Basic Law, art. 20 par. 2+3 Basic Law). So art. 93d par. 1 s. 3 BVerfGG is incompatible with the human dignity (art. 1 par. 1 Basic Law), with equlity (art. 3 Basic Law), with the guarantee of the course of law (art. 19 par. 4 Basic Law), with the basic right to vote (art. 38 Basic Law), with the equality before the courts (art. 14 ICCPR), and with the equality before the law (art. 26 ICCPR).
According to art. 93 no. 4a Basic Law, everyone is entitled to file a constitutional complaint. A basical obligation to be represented by an attorney or by a jura professor, exists only in the BVerfGG and only for the hearing, and according to art. 22 par. 1 s. 4 BVerfGG, exemptions can be made from that obligation. The basical obligation to have oneself represented in the hearing shall only ensure the quality of the presentation in the hearing and must not undermine the „everybody“ of art. 93 no. 4a Basic Law. So the constitutional complaint will claim, that such an exemption (art. 22 par. 1 s. 4 BVerfGG) has to be made regarding all valid constitutional complaints, which have been made without any help of an attorney.
According to the eternity guarantuee (art. 79 par. 3 Basic Law), the whole art. 1 and the whole art. 20 of the Basic Law are inviolable. The success of our constitutional complaint will crucially depend on the respect for the eternity guarantuee (art. 79 par. 3 Basic Law) and on the orderly application of the human dignity (art. 1 par. 1 Basic Law), because the peace principle (art. 1 par. 2 Basic Law) can be subjectively invoked in a constitutional complaint only in connection with the human dignity (Art. 1 par. 2 Basic Law). In addition to that, the human dignity is the reason for the obligation on the basic rights (art. 1 par. 3 Basic Law) and on the inviolability of their core content (art. 19 par. 2 Basic Law), as well as for the obligation on the universal human rights (art. 1 par. 2 Basic Law) and for the rule of the law in its material sense (art. 1 par. 2+3 Basic Law).
In order to achieve a fair procedure, the timely and broad public discussion of our soon constitutional complaint is indispensable. In order to ease fears and anxieties among the politicians, two examples, how an interim injunction and a judgement on our soon coming constitutional complaint could look like, can be found at the following link:
After the filing of the constitutional complaint, copies of it will be sent to the Bundestag and to the German government.
We request the readers, to spread this call, to twitter and to share it as broadly as possible, and to discuss it in the social media. Also prayers and visualizations of the success our coming constitutional complaint are welcome, by the more people, the more powerful.
The future constitutional plaintiffs and their representative, who will be applied for in the constitutional complaint according to art. 22 par. 1 s. 4 BVerfGG, are available for interviews to domestic and foreign, conventional and alternative media.
With friendly greetings,
Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing