In the name of the African Union, I would
like to greet the members of the General
Assembly of the United Nations, and I hope
that this meeting will be among the most
historic in the history of the world.
In the name of the General Assembly at its
sixty-fourth session, presided over by Libya,
of the African Union, of one thousand
traditional African kingdoms and in my own
name, I would like to take this opportunity,
as President of the African Union, to
congratulate our son Obama because he is
attending the General Assembly, and we
welcome him as his country is hosting this
meeting.
This session is taking place in the midst
of so many challenges facing us, and the
whole world should come together and unite
its efforts to defeat the challenges that are
our principal common enemy those of
climate change and international crises such
as the capitalist economic decline, the food
and water crises, desertification, terrorism,
immigration, piracy, man-made and natural
epidemics and nuclear proliferation. Perhaps
influenza H1N1 was a virus created in a
laboratory that got out of control,
originally being meant as a military weapon.
Such challenges also include hypocrisy,
poverty, fear, materialism and immorality.
As is known, the United Nations was
founded by three or four countries against
Germany at the time. The United Nations was
formed by the nations that joined together
against Germany in the Second World War.
Those countries formed a body called the
Security Council, made its own countries
permanent members and granted them the power
of veto. We were not present at that time.
The United Nations was shaped in line with
those three countries and wanted us to step
into shoes originally designed against
Germany. That is the real substance of the
United Nations when it was founded over 60
years ago.
That happened in the absence of some 165
countries, at a ratio of one to eight; that
is, one was present and eight were absent.
They created the Charter, of which I have a
copy. If one reads the Charter of the United
Nations, one finds that the Preamble of the
Charter differs from its Articles. How did it
come into existence? All those who attended
the San Francisco Conference in 1945
participated in creating the Preamble, but
they left the Articles and internal rules of
procedures of the so-called Security Council
to experts, specialists and interested
countries, which were those countries that
had established the Security Council and had
united against Germany.
The Preamble is very appealing, and no one
objects to it, but all the provisions that
follow it completely contradict the Preamble.
We reject such provisions, and we will never
uphold them; they ended with the Second World
War. The Preamble says that all nations,
small or large, are equal. Are we equal when
it comes to the permanent seats? No, we are
not equal. The Preamble states in writing
that all nations are equal whether they are
small or large. Do we have the right of veto?
Are we equal? The Preamble says that we have
equal rights, whether we are large or small.
That is what is stated and what we agreed in
the Preamble. So the veto contradicts the
Charter. The permanent seats contradict the
Charter. We neither accept nor recognize the
veto.
The Preamble of the Charter states that
armed force shall not be used, save in the
common interest. That is the Preamble that we
agreed to and signed, and we joined the
United Nations because we wanted the Charter
to reflect that. It says that armed force
shall only be used in the common interest of
all nations, but what has happened since then?
Sixty-five wars have broken out since the
establishment of the United Nations and the
Security Council 65 since their
creation, with millions more victims than in
the Second World War. Are those wars, and the
aggression and force that were used in those
65 wars, in the common interest of us all? No,
they were in the interest of one or three or
four countries, but not of all nations.
We will talk about whether those wars were
in the interest of one country or of all
nations. That flagrantly contradicts the
Charter of the United Nations that we signed,
and unless we act in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations to which we
agreed, we will reject it and not be afraid
not to speak diplomatically to anyone. Now we
are talking about the future of the United
Nations. There should be no hypocrisy or
diplomacy because it concerns the important
and vital issue of the future of the world.
It was hypocrisy that brought about the 65
wars since the establishment of the United
Nations.
The Preamble also states that if armed
force is used, it must be a United Nations
force thus, military intervention by
the United Nations, with the joint agreement
of the United Nations, not one or two or
three countries using armed force. The entire
United Nations will decide to go to war to
maintain international peace and security.
Since the establishment of the United Nations
in 1945, if there is an act of aggression by
one country against another, the entire
United Nations should deter and stop that act.
If a country, Libya for instance, were to
exhibit aggression against France, then the
entire Organization would respond because
France is a sovereign State Member of the
United Nations and we all share the
collective responsibility to protect the
sovereignty of all nations. However, 65
aggressive wars have taken place without any
United Nations action to prevent them. Eight
other massive, fierce wars, whose victims
number some 2 million, have been waged by
Member States that enjoy veto powers. Those
countries that would have us believe they
seek to maintain the sovereignty and
independence of peoples actually use
aggressive force against peoples. While we
would like to believe that these countries
want to work for peace and security in the
world and protect peoples, they have instead
resorted to aggressive wars and hostile
behavior. Enjoying the veto they granted
themselves as permanent members of the
Security Council, they have initiated wars
that have claimed millions of victims.
The principle of non-interference in the
internal affairs of States is enshrined in
the Charter of the United Nations. No country,
therefore, has the right to interfere in the
affairs of any Government, be it democratic
or dictatorial, socialist or capitalist,
reactionary or progressive. This is the
responsibility of each society; it is an
internal matter for the people of the country
concerned. The senators of Rome once
appointed their leader, Julius Caesar, as
dictator because it was good for Rome at that
time. No one can say of Rome at that time
that it gave Caesar the veto. The veto is not
mentioned in the Charter.
We joined the United Nations because we
thought we were equals, only to find that one
country can object to all the decisions we
make. Who gave the permanent members their
status in the Security Council? Four of them
granted this status to themselves. The only
country that we in this Assembly elected to
permanent member status in the Security
Council is China. This was done
democratically, but the other seats were
imposed upon us undemocratically through a
dictatorial procedure carried out against our
will, and we should not accept it.
The Security Council reform we need is not
an increase in the number of members, which
would only make things worse. To use a common
expression, if you add more water, you get
more mud. It would add insult to injury. It
would make things worse simply by adding more
large countries to those that already enjoy
membership of the Council. It would merely
perpetuate the proliferation of super-Powers.
We therefore reject the addition of any more
permanent seats. The solution is not to have
more permanent seats, which would be very
dangerous. Adding more super-Powers would
crush the peoples of small, vulnerable and
third world countries, which are coming
together in what has been called the Group of
100 100 small countries banding
together in a forum that one member has
called the Forum of Small States.
These countries would be crushed by super-Powers
were additional large countries to be granted
membership in the Security Council. This door
must be closed; we reject it strongly and
categorically. Adding more seats to the
Security Council would increase poverty,
injustice and tension at the world level, as
well as great competition between certain
countries such as Italy, Germany, Indonesia,
India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Japan,
Brazil, Nigeria, Argentina, Algeria, Libya,
Egypt, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
South Africa, Tanzania, Turkey, Iran, Greece
and Ukraine. All these countries would seek a
seat on the Security Council, making its
membership almost as large as that of the
General Assembly and resulting in an
impractical competition.
What solution can there be? The solution
is for the General Assembly to adopt a
binding resolution under the leadership of Mr.
Treki based on the majority will of Assembly
members and taking into account the
considerations of no other body. The solution
is to close Security Council membership to
the admission of further States. This item is
on the agenda of the General Assembly during
the present session presided over by Mr.
Treki. Membership through unions and the
transference of mandates should supersede
other proposals.
We should focus on the achievement of
democracy based on the equality of Member
States. There should be equality among Member
States and the powers and mandates of the
Security Council should be transferred to the
General Assembly. Membership should be for
unions, not for States. Increasing the number
of States Members would give the right to all
countries to a seat, in accordance with the
spirit of the Preamble of the Charter.
No country could deny a seat in the
Council to Italy, for instance, if a seat
were given to Germany. For the sake of
argument, Italy might say that Germany was an
aggressive country and was defeated in the
Second World War. If we gave India a seat,
Pakistan would say that it, too, is a nuclear
country and deserves a seat, and those two
countries are at war. This would be a
dangerous situation. If we gave a seat to
Japan, then we should have to give one to
Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the
world. Then Turkey, Iran and Ukraine would
make the same claim. What could we say to
Argentina or Brazil? Libya deserves a seat
for its efforts in the service of world
security by discarding its weapons of mass
destruction programme. Then South Africa,
Tanzania and Ukraine would demand the same.
All of these countries are important. The
door to Security Council membership should be
closed.
This approach is a falsehood, a trick that
has been exposed. If we want to reform the
United Nations, bringing in more super-Powers
is not the way. The solution is to foster
democracy at the level of the general
congress of the world, the General Assembly,
to which the powers of the Security Council
should be transferred. The Security Council
would become merely an instrument for
implementing the decisions taken by the
General Assembly, which would be the
parliament, the legislative assembly, of the
world.
This Assembly is our democratic forum and
the Security Council should be responsible
before it; we should not accept the current
situation. These are the legislators of the
Members of the United Nations, and their
resolutions should be binding. It is said
that the General Assembly should do whatever
the Security Council recommends. On the
contrary, the Security Council should do
whatever the General Assembly decides. This
is the United Nations, the Assembly that
includes 192 countries. It is not the
Security Council, which includes only 15 of
the Member States.
How can we be happy about global peace and
security if the whole world is controlled by
only five countries? We are 192 nations and
countries, and we are like Speakers
Corner in Londons Hyde Park. We just
speak and nobody implements our decisions. We
are mere decoration, without any real
substance. We are Speakers Corner, no
more, no less. We just make speeches and then
disappear. This is who you are right now.
Once the Security Council becomes only an
executive body for resolutions adopted by the
General Assembly, there will be no
competition for membership of the Council.
Once the Security Council becomes a tool to
implement General Assembly resolutions, there
will be no need for any competition. The
Security Council should, quite simply,
represent all nations. In accordance with the
proposal submitted to the General Assembly,
there would be permanent seats on the
Security Council for all unions and groups of
countries.
The 27 countries of the European Union
should have a permanent seat on the Security
Council. The countries of the African Union
should have a permanent seat on the Security
Council. The Latin American and ASEAN
countries should have permanent seats. The
Russian Federation and the United States of
America are already permanent members of the
Security Council. The Southern African
Development Community (SADC), once it is
fully established, should have a permanent
seat. The 22 countries of the Arab League
should have a permanent seat. The 57
countries of the Islamic Conference should
have a permanent seat. The 118 countries of
the Non-Aligned Movement should have a
permanent seat.
Then there is the G-100; perhaps the small
countries should also have a permanent seat.
Countries not included in the unions that I
have mentioned could perhaps be assigned a
permanent seat, to be occupied by them in
rotation every six or twelve months. I am
thinking of countries like Japan and
Australia that are outside such organizations
as ASEAN or like the Russian Federation that
is not a member of the European or Latin
American or African unions. This would be a
solution for them if the General Assembly
votes in favor of it.
The issue is a vitally important one. As
has already been mentioned, the General
Assembly is the Congress and Parliament of
the world, the leader of the world. We are
the nations, and anyone outside this General
Assembly will not be recognized. The
President of the Assembly, Mr. Ali Abdussalam
Treki, and Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will
produce the legal draft and set up the
necessary committees to submit this proposal
to a vote: that from now on, the Security
Council will be made up of unions of nations.
In this way, we will have justice and
democracy, and we will no longer have a
Security Council consisting of countries
which have been chosen because they have
nuclear weapons, large economies or advanced
technology. That is terrorism. We cannot
allow the Security Council to be run by super-Powers;
that is terrorism in and of itself.
If we want a world that is united, safe
and peaceful, this is what we should do. If
we want to remain in a world at war, that is
up to you. We will continue to have conflict
and to fight until doomsday or the end of the
world. All Security Council members should
have the right to exercise the veto, or else
we should eliminate the whole concept of the
veto with this new formation of the Council.
This would be a real Security Council.
According to the new proposals submitted to
the General Assembly, it will be an executive
council under the control of the General
Assembly, which will have the real power and
make all the rules.
In this way, all countries will be on an
equal footing in the Security Council just as
they are in the General Assembly. In the
General Assembly we are all treated equally
when it comes to membership and voting. It
should be the same in the Security Council.
Currently, one country has a veto; another
country does not have a veto; one country has
a permanent seat; another country does not
have a permanent seat. We should not accept
this, nor should we accept any resolution
adopted by the Security Council in its
current composition. We were under
trusteeship; we were colonized; and now we
are independent. We are here today to decide
the future of the world in a democratic way
that will maintain the peace and security of
all nations, large and small, as equals.
Otherwise, it is terrorism, for terrorism is
not just Al Qaeda but can also take other
forms.
We should be guided by the majority of the
votes in the General Assembly alone. If the
General Assembly takes a decision by voting,
then its wishes should be obeyed and its
decision should be enforced. No one is above
the General Assembly; anyone who says he is
above the Assembly should leave the United
Nations and be on his own. Democracy is not
for the rich or the most powerful or for
those who practice terrorism. All nations
should be and should be seen to be on an
equal footing.
At present, the Security Council is
security feudalism, political feudalism for
those with permanent seats, protected by them
and used against us. It should be called, not
the Security Council, but the Terror Council.
In our political life, if they need to use
the Security Council against us, they turn to
the Security Council. If they have no need to
use it against us, they ignore the Security
Council. If they have an interest to promote,
an axe to grind, they respect and glorify the
Charter of the United Nations; they turn to
Chapter VII of the Charter and use it against
poor nations. If, however, they wished to
violate the Charter, they would ignore it as
if it did not exist at all.
If the veto of the permanent members of
the Security Council is given to those who
have the power, this is injustice and
terrorism and should not be tolerated by us.
We should not live in the shadow of this
injustice and terror.
Super-Powers have complicated global
interests, and they use the veto to protect
those interests. For example, in the Security
Council, they use the power of the United
Nations to protect their interests and to
terrorize and intimidate the Third World,
causing it to live under the shadow of terror.
From the beginning, since it was
established in 1945, the Security Council has
failed to provide security. On the contrary,
it has provided terror and sanctions. It is
only used against us. For this reason, we
will no longer be committed to implementing
Security Council resolutions after this
speech, which marks the 40th anniversary.
Sixty-five wars have broken out: either
fighting among small countries or wars of
aggression waged against us by super-Powers.
The Security Council, in clear violation of
the Charter of the United Nations, failed to
take action to stop these wars or acts of
aggressions against small nations and peoples.
The General Assembly will vote on a number
of historic proposals. Either we act as one
or we will fragment. If each nation were to
have its own version of the General Assembly,
the Security Council and the various
instruments and each were to have an equal
footing, the Powers that currently fill the
permanent seats would be confined to use of
their own sovereign bodies, whether there be
three or four of them, and would have to
exercise their rights against themselves.
This is of no concern to us.
If they want to keep their permanent seats,
that is fine; permanent seats will be of no
concern to us. We shall never submit to their
control or to their exercise of the veto that
was given to them. We are not so foolish as
to give the right of veto to the super-Powers
to use so they can treat us as second-class
citizens and as outcast nations. It is not we
who decided that those countries are the
super-Powers and respected nations with the
power to act on behalf of 192 countries.
You should be fully aware that we are
ignoring the Security Council resolutions
because those resolutions are used solely
against us and not against the super-Powers
which have the permanent seats and the right
of veto. Those Powers never use any
resolutions against themselves.
They are, however, used against us. Such
use has turned the United Nations into a
travesty of itself and has generated wars and
violations of the sovereignty of independent
States. It has led to war crimes and
genocides. All of this is in violation of the
Charter of the United Nations.
Since no one pays attention to the
Security Council of the United Nations, each
country and community has established its own
security council, and the Security Council
here has become isolated.
The African Union has already established
its own Peace and Security Council, the
European Union has already established a
security council, and Asian countries have
already established their own security
council. Soon, Latin America will have its
own Security Council as will the 120 non-aligned
nations.
This means that we have already lost
confidence in the United Nations Security
Council, which has not provided us with
security, and that is why we now are creating
new regional security councils.
We are not committed to obeying the rules
or the resolutions of the United Nations
Security Council in its present form because
it is undemocratic, dictatorial and unjust.
No one can force us to join the Security
Council or to obey or comply with resolutions
or orders given by the Security Council in
its present composition.
Furthermore, there is no respect for the
United Nations and no regard for the General
Assembly, which is actually the true United
Nations, but whose resolutions are non-binding.
The decisions of the International Court of
Justice, the international judicial body,
take aim only at small countries and Third
World nations. Powerful countries escape the
notice of the Court. Or, if judicial
decisions are taken against these powerful
countries, they are not enforced.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
is an important agency within the United
Nations. Powerful countries, however, are not
accountable to it or under its jurisdiction.
We have discovered that the IAEA is used only
against us. We are told that it is an
international organization, but, if that is
the case, then all the countries of the world
should be under its jurisdiction. If it is
not truly international, then right after
this speech we should no longer accept it and
should close it down.
Mr. Treki, in his capacity as President of
the General Assembly, should talk to the
Director General of the IAEA, Mr. ElBaradei,
and should ask him if he is prepared to
verify nuclear energy storage in all
countries and inspect all suspected increases.
If he says yes, then we accept the
Agencys jurisdiction. But if he says
that he cannot go into certain countries that
have nuclear power and that he does not have
any jurisdiction over them, then we should
close the Agency down and not submit to its
jurisdiction.
For your information, I called Mr.
ElBaradei when we had the problem of the
Libyan nuclear bomb. I called Mr. ElBaradei
and asked him if the agreements by the super-Powers
to reduce nuclear supplies were subject to
Agency control and under inspection, and
whether he was aware of any increases in
their activity. He told me that he was not in
a position to ask the super-Powers to be
inspected.
So, is the Agency only inspecting us? If
so, it does not qualify as an international
organization since it is selective, just like
the Security Council and the International
Court of Justice. This is not equitable nor
is it the United Nations. We totally reject
this situation.
Regarding Africa, Mr. President, whether
the United Nations is reformed or not, and
even before a vote is taken on any proposals
of a historic nature, Africa should be given
a permanent seat on the Security Council now,
having already waited too long.
Leaving aside United Nations reform, we
can certainly say that Africa was colonized,
isolated and persecuted and its rights
usurped. Its people were enslaved and treated
like animals, and its territory was colonized
and placed under trusteeship. The countries
of the African Union deserve a permanent seat.
This is a debt from the past that has to be
paid and has nothing to do with United
Nations reform. It is a priority matter and
is high on the agenda of the General Assembly.
No one can say that the African Union does
not deserve a permanent seat.
Who can argue with this proposal? I
challenge anyone to make a case against it.
Where is the proof that the African Union or
the African continent does not deserve a
permanent seat? No one can possibly deny this.
Another matter that should be voted on in
the General Assembly is that of compensation
for countries that were colonized, so as to
prevent the colonization of a continent, the
usurpation of its rights and the pillaging of
its wealth from happening again.
Why are Africans going to Europe? Why are
Asians going to Europe? Why are Latin
Americans going to Europe? It is because
Europe colonized those peoples and stole the
material and human resources of Africa, Asia
and Latin America the oil, minerals,
uranium, gold and diamonds, the fruit,
vegetables and livestock and the people
and used them. Now, new generations of
Asians, Latin Americans and Africans are
seeking to reclaim that stolen wealth, as
they have the right to do.
At the Libyan border, I recently stopped 1,000
African migrants headed for Europe. I asked
them why they were going there. They told me
it was to take back their stolen wealth
that they would not be leaving
otherwise. Who can restore the wealth that
was taken from us? If you decide to restore
all of this wealth, there will be no more
immigration from the Philippines, Latin
America, Mauritius and India. Let us have the
wealth that was stolen from us. Africa
deserves $777 trillion in compensation from
the countries that colonized it. Africans
will demand that amount, and if you do not
give it to them, they will go to where you
have taken those trillions of dollars. They
have the right to do so. They have to follow
that money and to bring it back.
Why is there no Libyan immigration to
Italy, even though Libya is so close by?
Italy owed compensation to the Libyan people.
It accepted that fact and signed an agreement
with Libya, which was adopted by both the
Italian and Libyan Parliaments. Italy
admitted that its colonization of Libya was
wrong and should never be repeated, and it
promised not to attack the Libyan people by
land, air or sea. Italy also agreed to
provide Libya with $250 million a year in
compensation over the next 20 years and to
build a hospital for Libyans maimed as a
result of the mines planted in Libyan
territory during the Second World War. Italy
apologized and promised that it would never
again occupy the territory of another country.
Italy, which was a kingdom during the Fascist
regime and has made rich contributions to
civilization, should be commended for this
achievement, together with Prime Minister
Berlusconi and his predecessor, who made
their own contributions in that regard.
Why is the Third World demanding
compensation? So that there will be no more
colonization so that large and
powerful countries will not colonize, knowing
that they will have to pay compensation.
Colonization should be punished. The
countries that harmed other peoples during
the colonial era should pay compensation for
the damage and suffering inflicted under
their colonial rule.
There is another point that I would like
to make. However, before doing so and
addressing a somewhat sensitive issue
I should like to make an aside. We Africans
are happy and proud indeed that a son of
Africa is now President of the United States
of America. That is a historic event. Now, in
a country where blacks once could not mingle
with whites, in cafés or restaurants, or sit
next to them on a bus, the American people
have elected as their President a young black
man, Mr. Obama, of Kenyan heritage. That is a
wonderful thing, and we are proud. It marks
the beginning of a change. However, as far as
I am concerned, Obama is a temporary relief
for the next four or eight years. I am afraid
that we may then go back to square one. No
one can guarantee how America will be
governed after Obama.
We would be content if Obama could remain
President of the United States of America for
ever. The statement that he just made shows
that he is completely different from any
American President that we have seen.
American Presidents used to threaten us with
all manner of weapons, saying that they would
send us Desert Storm, Grapes of Wrath,
Rolling Thunder and poisonous roses for
Libyan children. That was their approach.
American Presidents used to threaten us with
operations such as Rolling Thunder, sent to
Viet Nam; Desert Storm, sent to Iraq;
Musketeer, sent to Egypt in 1956, even though
America opposed it; and the poisonous roses
visited upon Libyan children by Reagan. Can
you imagine? One would have thought that
Presidents of a large country with a
permanent seat on the Security Council and
the right of veto would have protected us and
sent us peace. And what did we get instead?
Laser-guided bombs carried to us on F-111
aircraft. This was their approach: we will
lead the world, whether you like it or not,
and will punish anyone who opposes us.
What our son Obama said today is
completely different. He made a serious
appeal for nuclear disarmament, which we
applaud. He also said that America alone
could not solve the problems facing us and
that the entire world should come together to
do so. He said that we must do more than we
are doing now, which is making speeches. We
agree with that and applaud it. He said that
we had come to the United Nations to talk
against one another. It is true that when we
come here, we should communicate with one
another on an equal footing. And he said that
democracy should not be imposed from outside.
Until recently, American Presidents have said
that democracy should be imposed on Iraq and
other countries. He said that this was an
internal affair. He spoke truly when he said
that democracy cannot be imposed from outside.
So we have to be cautious. Before I make
these sensitive remarks I note that the whole
world has so many polarities. Listen: should
we have a world of so many polarities? Can we
not have nations on an equal footing? Let us
have an answer. Does anyone have an answer as
to whether it is better to have a world of so
many polarities? Why can we not have equal
standing? Should we have patriarchs? Should
we have popes? Should we have gods?
Why should we have a world of so many
polarities? We reject such a world and call
for a world where big and small are equal.
The other sensitive point is the
Headquarters of the United Nations. Can I
have your attention, please? All of you came
across the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean,
crossing the Asian continent or the African
continent to reach this place. Why? Is this
Jerusalem? Is this the Vatican? Is this Mecca?
All of you are tired, have jet lag, and have
sleepless nights. You are very tired, very
low, physically. Somebody just arrived now,
flying 20 hours. Then we want him to make a
speech and talk about this.
All of you are asleep, all of you are
tired. It is clear that all of you are
lacking energy because of having to make a
long journey. Why do we do that? Some of our
countries are in nighttime and people are
asleep. Now you should be asleep, because
your biological clock, your biological mind
is accustomed to be asleep at this time. I
wake up at 4 oclock New York time,
before dawn, because in Libya it is 11 in the
morning. When I wake up at 11 oclock it
is supposed to be daytime; at 4 oclock
I am awake.
Why? Think about it. If this was decided
in 1945, should we still retain it? Why can
we not think about a place that is in the
middle, that is comfortable?
Another important point is that America,
the host country, bears the expenses and
looks after the Headquarters and diplomatic
missions and looks after the peace and
security of the heads of State who come here.
They are very strict; they spend a lot of
money, New York and all of America being very
tight.
I want to relieve America of this hardship.
We should thank America; we say to America,
thank you for all the trouble that you have
taken on yourself. We say thank you to
America. We want to help reassure America and
New York and keep them calm. They should not
have the responsibility of looking after
security. Perhaps some day a terrorist could
cause an explosion or bomb a president. This
place is targeted by Al-Qaeda, this very
building. Why was it not hit on 11 September?
It was beyond their power. The next target
would be this place. I am not saying this in
an offhand manner. We have tens of members of
Al-Qaeda detained in Libyan prisons. Their
confessions are very scary. That makes
America live under tension. One never knows
what will happen. Perhaps America or this
place will be targeted again by a rocket.
Perhaps tens of heads of State will die. We
want to relieve America from this worry. We
shall take the place to where it is not
targeted.
Now after 50 years United Nations
Headquarters should be taken to another part
of the hemisphere. After 50 years in the
western hemisphere, for the next 50 years it
should be in the eastern hemisphere or in the
middle hemisphere, by rotation. Now, with 64
years we have an extra 14 years over the 50
that Headquarters should have been moved to
somewhere else.
This is not an insult to America; it is a
service to America. We should thank America.
This was possible in 1945, but we should not
accept it now. Of course this should be put
to the vote in the General Assembly
only in the Assembly, because in section 23
of the Headquarters Agreement it says that
the United Nations Headquarters can be moved
to another location only by a resolution of
the General Assembly. If 51 per cent of the
Assembly approves relocation of Headquarters,
then it can be moved.
America has the right to make security
tight because it is targeted by terrorists
and by Al-Qaeda. America has the right to
take all security measures; we are not
blaming America for that. However, we do not
tolerate these measures. We do not have to
come to New York and be subjected to all
these measures. One president told me that he
was told that his co-pilot should not come to
America because there are restrictions. He
asked how he could cross the Atlantic without
a co-pilot. Why? He does not have to come
here. Another president complained that his
honor guard could not come because there was
some misunderstanding regarding his name when
it came to granting a visa. Another president
said his own doctor could not get a visa and
could not come to America.
The security measures are very strict. If
a country has any problem with America, they
will set up restrictions on the movements of
member delegations, as if one is in
Guantanamo. Is this a Member State of the
United Nations, or is it a prisoner in the
Guantanamo camp that cannot be allowed free
movement?
This is what is submitted to the General
Assembly for a vote moving the
Headquarters. If 51 per cent agree, then we
come to the second vote: to the middle of the
globe, or to the eastern part. If we say that
we must move the Headquarters to the middle
of the hemisphere, why do we not move to
Sirte or Vienna? One can come even without a
visa. Once you come as a president, Libya is
a secure country. We are not going to
restrict you to 100 or 500 meters. Libya has
no hostile actions against anybody. I think
the same holds true of Vienna.
If the vote says we should move
Headquarters to the eastern part, then it
will be Delhi or Beijing, the capital of
China or the capital of India.
That is logical, my brothers. I do not
think there will be any objection to that.
Then you will thank me for this proposal, for
eliminating the suffering and the trouble of
flying 14, 15 or 20 hours to come here. No
one can blame America or say that America
will reduce its contributions to the United
Nations. No one should have that bad thought.
America, I am sure, is committed to its
international obligations. America will not
be angry; it will thank you for alleviating
its hardship, for taking on all that hardship
and all the restrictions, even though this
place is targeted by terrorists.
We come now to the issues that will be
considered by the General Assembly. We are
about to put the United Nations on trial; the
old organization will be finished and a new
one will emerge. This is not a normal
gathering. Even son Obama said that this is
not a normal gathering. It is a historic
meeting.
The wars that took place after the
establishment of the United Nations
why did they occur? Where was the Security
Council, where was the Charter, where was the
United Nations? There should be
investigations and judicial intervention. Why
have there been massacres? We can start with
the Korean War because it took place after
the establishment of the United Nations. How
did a war break out and cause millions of
victims? Nuclear weapons could have been used
in that war. Those who are responsible for
causing the war should be tried and should
pay compensation and damages.
Then we come to the Suez Canal war of 1956.
That file should be opened wide. Three
countries with permanent seats on the
Security Council and with the right of veto
in the Council attacked a member State of
this General Assembly. A country that was a
sovereign State Egypt was
attacked, its army was destroyed, thousands
of Egyptians were killed and many Egyptian
towns and entities were destroyed, all
because Egypt wanted to nationalize the Suez
Canal. How could such a thing have happened
during the era of the United Nations and its
Charter? How is it possible to guarantee that
such a thing will not be repeated unless we
make amends for past wrongs? Those were
dangerous events and the Suez Canal and
Korean War files should be re-opened.
Next we come to the Viet Nam war. There
were 3 million victims of that war. During 12
days, more bombs were dropped than during
four years of the Second World War. It was a
fiercer war, and it took place after the
establishment of the United Nations and after
we had decided that there would be no more
wars.
The future of humankind is at stake. We
cannot stay silent. How can we feel safe? How
can we be complacent? This is the future of
the world, and we who are in the General
Assembly of the United Nations must make sure
that such wars are not repeated in the future.
Then Panama was attacked, even though it
was an independent member State of the
General Assembly. Four thousand people were
killed, and the President of that country was
taken prisoner and put in prison. Noriega
should be released we should open that
file. How can we entitle a country that is a
United Nations Member State to wage war
against another country and capture its
president, treat him as a criminal and put
him in prison? Who would accept that? It
could be repeated. We should not stay quiet.
We should have an investigation. Any one of
us Member States could face the same
situation, especially if such aggression is
by a Member State with a permanent seat on
the Security Council and with the
responsibility to maintain peace and security
worldwide.
Then there was the war in Grenada. That
country was invaded even though it was a
Member State. It was attacked by 5,000 war
ships, 7,000 troops and dozens of military
aircraft, and it is the smallest country in
the world. This occurred after the
establishment of the United Nations and of
the Security Council and its veto. And the
President of Grenada, Mr. Maurice Bishop, was
assassinated. How could that have happened
with impunity? It is a tragedy. How can we
guarantee that the United Nations is good or
not, that a certain country is good or not?
Can we be safe or happy about our future or
not? Can we trust the Security Council or not?
Can we trust the United Nations or not?
We must look into and investigate the
bombing of Somalia. Somalia is a United
Nations Member State. It is an independent
country under the rule of Aidid. We want an
investigation. Why did that happen? Who
allowed it to happen? Who gave the green
light for that country to be attacked?
Then there is the former Yugoslavia. No
country was as peaceful as Yugoslavia,
constructed step by step and piece by piece
after being destroyed by Hitler. We destroyed
it, as if we were doing the same job as
Hitler. Tito built that peaceful country step
by step and brick by brick and then we
arrived and broke it apart for imperialistic,
personal interests. How can we be complacent
about that? Why can we not be satisfied? If a
peaceful country like Yugoslavia faced such a
tragedy, the General Assembly should have an
investigation and should decide who should be
tried before the International Criminal Court.
Then we have the war in Iraq the
mother of all evils. The United Nations
should also investigate that. The General
Assembly, presided over by Mr. Treki, should
investigate that. The invasion of Iraq was a
violation of the United Nations Charter. It
was done without any justification by super-Powers
with permanent seats on the Security Council.
Iraq is an independent country and a member
State of the General Assembly. How could
those countries attack Iraq? As provided for
in the Charter, the United Nations should
have intervened and stopped the attack.
We spoke in the General Assembly and urged
it to use the Charter to stop that attack. We
were against the invasion of Kuwait, and the
Arab countries fought Iraq alongside foreign
countries in the name of the United Nations
Charter.
In the first instance, the Charter was
respected. The second time when we wanted to
use the Charter to stop the war against Iraq,
no one used it and that document was ignored.
Why did that occur? Mr. Treki and the General
Assembly should investigate to determine
whether there was any reason at all to invade
Iraq. Because the reasons for that attack
remain mysterious and ambiguous, and we might
face the same destiny.
Why was Iraq invaded? The invasion itself
was a serious violation of the United Nations
Charter, and it was wrong. There was also a
total massacre or genocide. More than 1.5
million Iraqis were killed. We want to bring
the Iraqi file before the International
Criminal Court (ICC), and we want those who
committed mass murder against the Iraqi
people to be tried.
It is easy for Charles Taylor to be tried,
or for Bashir to be tried, or for Noriega to
be tried. That is an easy job. Yes, but what
about those who have committed mass murder
against the Iraqis? They cannot be tried?
They cannot go before the ICC? If the Court
is unable to accommodate us, then we should
not accept it. Either it is meant for all of
us, large or small, or we should not accept
it and should reject it.
Anyone who commits a war crime can be
tried, but we are not livestock or animals
like those that are slaughtered for the Eid.
We have the right to live, and we are ready
to fight and to defend ourselves. We have the
right to live in dignity, under the sun and
on earth; they have already tested us and we
have withstood the test.
There are other things as well. Why is it
that Iraqi prisoners of war can be sentenced
to death? When Iraq was invaded and the
President of Iraq was taken he was a prisoner
of war. He should not have been tried; he
should not have been hanged. When the war was
over, he should have been released. We want
to know why a prisoner of war should have
been tried. Who sentenced the President of
Iraq to death? Is there an answer to that
question? We know the identity of the judge
who tried him. As to who tied the noose
around the Presidents neck on the day
of sacrifice and hanged him, those people
wore masks.
How could this have happened in a
civilized world? These were prisoners of war
of civilized countries under international
law. How could Government ministers and a
head of State be sentenced to death and
hanged? Were those who tried them lawyers or
members of a judicial system?
Do you know what people are saying? They
are saying that the faces behind the masks
were those of the President of the United
States and the Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom and that it was they who put the
President of Iraq to death.
Why do the executioners not unmask their
faces? Why do we not know their ranks? Why do
we not know whether they were officers,
judges, soldiers or doctors? How does it come
about that the President of a State Member of
the United Nations was sentenced to death and
killed? We do not know the identity of the
executioners. The United Nations is duty-bound
to answer these questions: who carried out
the death sentence? They must have legal
status and official responsibilities; we
should know their identities and we should
know about the presence of a physician and
the nature of all the legal proceedings. That
would be true for an ordinary citizen, let
alone for the President of a State Member of
the United Nations who was put to death in
that manner.
My third point on the Iraq war relates to
Abu Ghraib. This was a disgrace to humankind.
I know that the United States authorities
will investigate this scandal, but the United
Nations must not ignore it either. The
General Assembly should investigate this
matter. Prisoners of war held in Abu Ghraib
prison were torturers; dogs were set on them;
men were raped. This is unprecedented in the
history of war. It was sodomy, and it was an
unprecedented sin, never before committed by
past aggressors or invaders. Prisoners of war
are soldiers, but these were raped in prison
by a State, a permanent member of the
Security Council. This goes against
civilization and humankind. We must not keep
silent; we must know the facts. Even today, a
quarter of a million Iraqi prisoners, men and
women alike, remain in Abu Ghraib. They are
being maltreated, persecuted and raped. There
must be an investigation.
Turning to the war in Afghanistan, this
too must be investigated. Why are we against
the Taliban? Why are we against Afghanistan?
Who are the Taliban? If the Taliban want a
religious State, that is fine. Think of the
Vatican. Does the Vatican pose a threat to us?
No. It is a religious, very peaceful State.
If the Taliban want to create an Islamic
Emirate, who says that this makes them an
enemy? Is anyone claiming that Bin Laden is
of the Taliban or that he is Afghan? Is Bin
Laden of the Taliban? No; he is not of the
Taliban and he is not Afghan. Were the
terrorists who hit New York City of the
Taliban? Were they from Afghanistan? They
were neither Taliban nor Afghan. Then, what
was the reason for the wars in Iraq and in
Afghanistan?
If I truly wanted to deceive my American
and British friends, I would encourage them
to send more troops and I would encourage
them to persist in this bloodbath. But they
will never succeed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Look what happened to them in Iraq, which is
a desert. It is even worse in mountainous
Afghanistan. If I wanted to deceive them I
would tell them to continue the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan. But no, I want to save the
citizens of the United States, the United
Kingdom and other countries who are fighting
in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I tell them:
leave Afghanistan to the Afghans; leave Iraq
to the Iraqis. If they want to fight each
other, they are free to do so.
America had its Civil War, and no one
interfered in it. There were civil wars in
Spain, China and countries all over the world
no place on Earth has been free of
civil wars. Let there be a civil war in Iraq.
If the Iraqis want to have a civil war and
fight each other, that is fine. Who says that
if the Taliban form a Government they would
possess intercontinental missiles or the kind
of airplanes that hit New York? Did those
airplanes take off from Afghanistan or Iraq?
No; they took off from American airports. So
why is Afghanistan being struck? The
terrorists were not Afghans or Taliban or
Iraqis.
Why are we silent? We must never be war
devils: anyone who does not speak the truth
is a silent devil. We are committed to
international peace and security. We do not
wish to scorn or ridicule humankind. We want
to save humanity.
As President of the General Assembly, Mr.
Ali Treki should open an investigation of the
assassinations file in addition to the
war files. Who killed Patrice Lumumba, and
why? We merely want to record it in the
annals of African history; we want to know
how an African leader, a liberator, came to
be assassinated. Who killed him? We want our
sons to be able to read the history of how
Patrice Lumumba, the hero of Congos
liberation struggle, was assassinated. We
want to know the facts, even 50 years on.
That is one file that should be reopened.
And who killed Secretary-General
Hammarskjöld? Who fired on his aero plane in
1961, and why?
Then, there is the assassination of United
States President Kennedy in 1963. We want to
know who killed him and why. There was
somebody called Lee Harvey Oswald, who was
then killed by one Jack Ruby. Why did he kill
him? Jack Ruby, an Israeli, killed Lee Harvey
Oswald, who killed Kennedy. Why did this
Israeli kill Kennedys killer? Then Jack
Ruby, the killer of the killer of Kennedy,
died in mysterious circumstances before he
could be tried. We must open the files. The
whole world knows that Kennedy wanted to
investigate the Israeli Dimona nuclear
reactor. This involves international peace
and security and weapons of mass destruction.
That is why we should open this file.
Then there is the assassination of Martin
Luther King, the black reverend and human
rights activist. His assassination was a plot,
and we should know why he was killed and who
killed him.
Then Khalil Wazir, or Abu Jihad, a
Palestinian, was attacked. He was living
peacefully in Tunisia, a Member State, and
that countrys sovereignty was not
respected. We cannot keep silent. Even though
submarines and ships were detected along the
coast of Tunisia, where he was killed, no one
was accused or tried. Abu Iyad was also
killed, and we should know how he was killed.
He was killed in ambiguous circumstances. In
Operation Spring of Youth, Kamal Nasser, a
poet, Kamal Adwan and Abu Youssef al Najjar,
three Palestinians, were killed in Lebanon, a
country that is a free, sovereign State
member of the General Assembly. They were
attacked and killed while sleeping peacefully.
We should know who killed them, and he should
be tried so that those crimes against
humanity are not repeated.
We have already talked about the size of
the force used in the invasion of Grenada
7,000 troops, 15 battleships and
dozens of bombers and President Bishop
was killed even though Grenada was a Member
State. Those are crimes, and we cannot keep
silent. Otherwise, we will look like
sacrificial beasts. We are not animals. Year
after year, we are attacked. We defend
ourselves, our sons and our children, and we
are not afraid. We have the right to live,
and the Earth is not destined for violence,
but for us all. We can never live on this
Earth in such humiliation. So those are the
wars.
The last file is that of the massacres. In
the Sabra and Shatila massacre, 3,000 people
were killed. That area, under the protection
of the occupying Israeli army, was the site
of a huge and calamitous massacre in which 3,000
Palestinian men, women and children were
killed. How can we keep quiet? Lebanon is a
sovereign State; a member of the General
Assembly was occupied, Sabra and Shatila were
under Israeli control, and then the massacre
took place.
Then there was the 2008 massacre in Gaza.
There were 1,000 women and 2,200 children
among the victims killed in the massacre in
Gaza in 2008. Sixty United Nations facilities
and another 30 belonging to non-governmental
organizations were damaged. Fifty clinics
were destroyed. Forty doctors and nurses were
killed while carrying out humanitarian
activities. This took place in Gaza in
December 2008.
The perpetrators are still alive, and they
should be tried by the International Criminal
Court (ICC). Should we try only the underdogs,
the weak and the poor of third-world
countries, and not important and protected
figures? Under international law, they should
all face trial for the consequences of the
crimes that they have committed. Otherwise,
the role of the ICC will never be recognized.
If the decisions of the ICC are not respected
or implemented, if the General Assembly and
the Security Council mean nothing, and if the
International Atomic Energy Agency serves
only certain countries and organizations,
then what is the United Nations? It would
mean that the United Nations is nothing and
is insignificant. Where is it? There is no
United Nations.
Then, while piracy may be a phenomenon of
the high seas, a form of terrorism, we talk
about the piracy in Somalia. Somalis are not
pirates. We are the pirates. We went there
and usurped their economic zones, their fish
and their wealth. Libya, India, Japan and
America any country in the world
we are all pirates. We all entered the
territorial waters and economic zones of
Somalia and stole. The Somalis are protecting
their own fish, their sustenance. They have
become pirates because they are defending
their childrens food. Now, we seek to
address that matter in the wrong way. Should
we send warships to Somalia? We should send
warships to the pirates who have attacked and
seized the economic zones and wealth of the
Somalis and the food of their children.
I met the pirates, and I told them that I
would negotiate an agreement between them and
the international community that respects the
200-mile exclusive economic zone under the
law of the sea, that protects all marine
resources belonging to the Somali people, and
that stops all countries from disposing of
toxic waste along the Somali coast. In return,
the Somalis would no longer attack ships. We
will propose and draft such an international
treaty and submit it to the General Assembly.
That is the solution. The solution does not
lie in sending more military ships to fight
the Somalis. That is not the solution.
We are addressing the phenomena of piracy
and terrorism in the wrong way. Today there
is swine flu. Perhaps tomorrow there will be
fish flu, because sometimes we produce
viruses by controlling them. It is a
commercial business. Capitalist companies
produce viruses so that they can generate and
sell vaccinations. That is very shameful and
poor ethics. Vaccinations and medicine should
not be sold. In The Green Book, I maintain
that medicines should not be sold or subject
to commercialization. Medicines should be
free of charge and vaccinations given free to
children, but capitalist companies produce
the viruses and vaccinations and want to make
a profit. Why are they not free of charge? We
should give them free of charge, and not sell
them. The entire world should strive to
protect our people, create and manufacture
vaccinations and give them free to children
and women, and not profit by them. All those
items are on the agenda of the General
Assembly, which has only to exercise that
duty.
The Ottawa Convention on Landmines forbids
the production of landmines. That is wrong.
Landmines are defensive weapons. If I place
them along the border of my country and
someone wants to invade me, they may be
killed. That is all right, because they are
invading me. The Convention should be
reconsidered. I am not taking that defensive
weapon to another country. The enemy is
coming to me. On the Al-Qadhafi website, I
call for that treaty to be modified or
annulled. This treaty should be modified or
annulled. I want to use anti-personnel mines
to defend my home against invasion. Eliminate
weapons of mass destruction, not landmines,
which are defensive weapons.
With regard to the Palestinian situation,
the two-State solution is impossible; it is
not practical. Currently, these two States
completely overlap. Partition is doomed to
failure. These two States are not neighbors;
they are coextensive, in terms of both
population and geography. A buffer zone
cannot be created between the two States
because there are half a million Israeli
settlers in the West Bank and a million Arab
Palestinians in the territory known as Israel.
The solution is therefore a democratic
State without religious fanaticism or
ethnicity. The generation of Sharon and
Arafat is over. We need a new generation, in
which everyone can live in peace. Look at
Palestinian and Israeli youth; they both want
peace and democracy, and they want to live
under one State. This conflict poisons the
world.
The White Book actually has the solution;
I hold it here. The solution is Isratine.
Arabs have no hostility or animosity towards
Israel. We are cousins and of the same race.
We want to live in peace. The refugees should
go back.
You are the ones who brought the Holocaust
upon the Jews. You, not we, are the ones who
burned them. We gave them refuge. We gave
them safe haven during the Roman era and the
Arab reign in Andalusia and during the rule
of Hitler. You are the ones who poisoned them;
you are the ones who annihilated them. We
provided them with protection. You expelled
them. Let us see the truth. We are not
hostile; we are not enemies of the Jews. And
one day the Jews will need the Arabs. At that
point, Arabs will be the ones to give them
protection, to save them, as we have done in
the past. Look at what everybody else did to
the Jews. Hitler is an example. You are the
ones who hate the Jews, not us.
In brief, Kashmir should be an independent
State, neither Indian nor Pakistani. We must
end that conflict. Kashmir should be a buffer
State between India and Pakistan.
With regard to Darfur, I truly hope that
the assistance provided by international
organizations can be used for development
projects, for agriculture, for industry and
for irrigation. You are the ones who made it
a crisis; you put it on the altar; you wanted
to sacrifice Darfur so that you could
interfere in its internal affairs.
You have turned the Hariri problem into a
United Nations problem. You are selling
Hariris corpse. You just want to settle
scores with Syria. Lebanon is an independent
State; it has laws, courts, a judiciary and
police. At this stage, it is no longer the
perpetrators that are being sought; the real
wish is to settle scores with Syria, not
ensure justice for Hariri. The cases of
Khalil al-Wazir, Lumumba, Kennedy, and
Hammarskjöld should also have been turned
over to the United Nations, if the Hariri
case merits such attention.
The General Assembly is now under the
presidency of Libya. This is our right. Libya
hopes that you will assist in making the
transition from a world fraught with crises
and tension to a world in which humanity,
peace and tolerance prevail. I will
personally follow up on this issue with the
General Assembly, President Treki and the
Secretary-General. It is not our habit to
compromise when it comes to the destiny of
humanity and the struggles of the third world
and the 100 small nations, which should live
in peace always.
5.
|