Reminder to the World: The Dysfunction of the UN, explained by Gaddafi


Reminder to the World: The Dysfunction of the UN, explained by Gaddafi

Muammar Qaddafi’s historic speech to the heads of state of the world at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2009. As a result of this speech, the globalist elite which controls most governments and banks in the world, decided they must get rid of this truthful leader.

Below is a short summary of the transcript of Muammar Qadhafi‘s September 2009 speech to the United Nations General Assembly:

“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 sixtyfourth 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 behaviour. 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.”

For the full text of the speech, see this article from Mathaba in September 2009 with the full official text of the more than one hour long historic speech which provided a blue print for the governments of the world to avoid the present catastrophe.

About these ads

CIA recruits 1,500 from Mazar-e-Sharif to fight in Libya


CIA recruits 1,500 from Mazar-e-Sharif to fight in Libya

By: Azhar Masood | Published: August 31, 2011

ISLAMABAD – The Central Intelligence Agency of the United States recruited over 1,500 men from Mazar-e-Sharif for fighting against the Qaddafi forces in Libya.

Sources told TheNation: “Most of the men have been recruited from Afghanistan. They are Uzbeks, Persians and Hazaras. According to the footage, these men attired in Uzbek-style of shalwar and Hazara-Uzbek Kurta were found fighting in Libyan cities.”

When Al-Jazeera reporter pointed it he was disallowed by the ‘rebels ‘to capture images.
Sources in Quetta said: “Some Uzbeks and Hazaras from Afghanistan were arrested in Balochistan for illegally traveling into Pakistan en route to Libya through Iran. Aljazeera’s report gave credence to this story. More than 60 Afghans, mainly children and teenagers, have been found dead after suffocating inside a shipping container in southwestern Pakistan in an apparent human smuggling attempt.
More than 100 illegal immigrants were discovered 20km from the border town of Quetta last week inside the container, which had been locked from the outside.
Aljazeera having dubious record gave human touch to this story as most of the men who intruded inside Pakistan from Afghanistan were recruits for Libyan Rebels’ Force.

The sources said: “The CIA funded Libyan Rebels with cash and weapons.” In a report the New York Mayor’s TV Channel Bloomberg said, “Leaders of the Libyan rebels’ Transitional National Council flew to Istanbul seeking legitimacy and money. They will leave with the official recognition of the US and 31 other nations. As for the cash, they will have to wait.
The decision to treat the council as the “legitimate governing authority” in Libya is a key step to freeing up some of the government’s frozen assets for rebels seeking the ouster of Muammar Qaddafi. Still, obstacles such as existing United Nations sanctions won’t disappear overnight.
“We still have to work through various legal issues, but we expect this recognition will allow the TNC to access various forms of funding,” said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

At stake are about $34 billion in frozen Libyan government assets that are held by the US institutions and as much as $130 billion more held around the world.

Speaking via phone from Istanbul, Transitional National Council spokesman Mahmoud Shammam put the total in excess of $100 billion globally.
Qaddafi, in an audio message broadcast to supporters in the town of Zlitan, said the Libyan people “will never give up” in the fight to prevent him being ousted, the Associated Press reported. “The Libyan people will persevere,” he said.

In the coming weeks, the US officials will consult with the TNC and international partners on the most effective and appropriate method of making additional significant financial assistance available, according to a Treasury official who was not authorised to discuss the matter publicly.

Shammam said the TNC needs $3 billion to cover the budget for six months. The council is seeking loans secured by the Qaddafi regime’s assets abroad as a means of funding, he said.

Recognition may lawfully allow nations to buy state-owned oil from the TNC, which controls the oil-rich eastern part of the country. Italy’s Eni SpA and France’s Total SA are the top oil companies operating in Libya, a former Italian colony.
How much money the Benghazi-based government can get, and when, may be more tied to politics than the law.

“The legal issues are in the eye of the beholder,” said Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “If Obama and Clinton want to go slow in paying out the money, their lawyers can invent plenty of legal issues to justify the chosen pace.”

The US envisions a “short timeframe” for releasing some of the Libyan government assets frozen by the US, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said.
President Barack Obama signed an order on February 25 freezing any US assets of Muammar Qaddafi, his family and members of his regime in Libya. As a practical matter, most of the frozen $34 billion is tied up in complicated property interests, including ownership interests in non-publicly traded companies or real estate, according to the Treasury official.
The mechanics of how the US will unfreeze assets still has to be worked out. The United Nations sanctions against Libya remain in place, a hindrance to efforts to get money to the rebels.
The UK and France, which led the campaign to unseat Qaddafi, yesterday didn’t commit any financial contributions.

Recognition of the council “will allow some countries to unfreeze some money,” French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said. Libyan frozen assets in France total $250 million, he said.

Other nations have already found the means to act.
Italy will open a credit line to rebels using frozen assets as collateral, and will provide them with 100 million euros ($141 million), Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said yesterday. Another 300 million euros will be released in two weeks and in total, Italy will release 400 million euros, he said, describing the money as loans.

The council is expecting $100 million from Turkey within three days, Shammam said.

The main criterion for international law for the recognition of a rebel group as the government of a state is its effective control over the territory.

The recognition of the TNC, given the fact that Qaddafi still controls Tripoli, could “arguably constitute an illegal interference in internal affairs,” Stefan Talmon, a professor of International Law at the University of Oxford, wrote in a paper for the American Society of International Law.

A number of actions by the rebels convinced the US to offer recognition, including a commitment to pursue a reform process, and to seek more inclusive representation of Libyans, politically, geographically and tribally,” according to a State Department officially.

The US will continue to watch closely how they perform, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The contact group laid out conditions for a “genuine ceasefire” in a final statement and declared that “Qaddafi and certain of his family members must go.”
The way he will leave power has yet to be defined, the group said. The ceasefire conditions call for complete withdrawal of Qaddafi-led forces to their bases, the release of detainees and hostages, provision of water and electricity to all regions, and the opening of all borders for the quick return of refugees.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization started air strikes in late March to protect civilians, an intervention that aided rebels seeking Qaddafi’s ouster. Qaddafi has already lasted longer than allies had anticipated, though his hold on the capital, Tripoli, appears to be weakening amid shortages of food and fuel. There are reports that his government is seeking a political solution to end the fighting.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will be the only person authorized by the contact group to negotiate with both sides in Libya. Ban will set up a board of two to three interlocutors from Tripoli and the rebel-held town of Benghazi, Frattini said.

The military campaign against Qaddafi will continue “indefinitely” until he steps down, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague told reporters yesterday in Istanbul.

 

Newspapers … NATO extras rebels who are fighting on the ground in Tripoli are actually a British commando French


Newspapers … NATO extras rebels who are fighting on the ground in Tripoli are actually a British commando French

Monday, 29 August (August 2011)

With the claim that the NATO intervention in the war on Libya is the only intervention of air, but the foreign newspapers, including the Pentagon itself began to uncover the existence of commandos on the ground is occupied Tripoli is leading the operations … The young people who appear on satellite channels and each one of them Bashbah, a pair of shorts or riding a bus on the text of the transfer, what are the extras, but are used only for filming and to pass the lie that NATO’s intervention is the only intervention from the air

Pentagon revealed the presence of commandos on the ground in Tripoli from Jordan, Qatar … The Daily Mail revealed today that the English troops for that already exist on the ground in Tripoli is that you search for Gaddafi and his group, said the Daily Mail that British special forces on the ground in Libya, is leading the search for Colonel Muammar Gaddafi after the rebel forces Libyan the capital Tripoli. The newspaper said that British defense sources confirmed for the first time that units of the British special forces deployed in Libya weeks ago, and played a key role in coordinating the fall of Tripoli ..

She added that the soldiers of British special forces in Libya, dressed in civilian clothes and carrying weapons similar to the weapons of the rebels, and received orders to shift their focus to search for al-Gaddafi, since his disappearance from his headquarters fortified Bab Azizia in Tripoli after his fall, however, rebel forces last Tuesday, as he ordered the leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty “NATO” all the drones at their disposal, including spy planes British, the search for al-Gaddafi. The newspaper pointed out that soldiers of the regiment, 22nd Special Forces British sent to Libya a few weeks to coordinate air strikes on military targets, and asked them to stay there to help the rebels in the search for Gaddafi, under orders from British Prime Minister David Cameron ..

Press reports had said that the spy planes and reconnaissance aircraft belonging to the Royal Air Force and NATO combing Libya in search of Colonel Gaddafi, amid fears that it was preparing to flee out of the country. She said that the drone of aircraft, “AWACS” of the British Royal Air Force is monitoring all aircraft civil leave Tripoli and other Libyan cities in the event of Gaddafi tried to escape through the air and convoys of cars heading to the desert in Libya, while the work of a U.S. spy plane model Rivc to monitor all communications through a mobile phone or via satellite ..

The British Defense Minister Lian Fox said Thursday in remarks to the station for British television, especially as NATO contributes to the track, Colonel Muammar Qadhafi, to provide “information and equipment survey.” Fox said in an interview with Sky News: “I can confirm that NATO provides the information and equipment survey to the National Transition Council to help determine where Colonel Gaddafi and other members of his regime. “It has become the Ministry of Defence is a euphemism for military equipment on the lines of” aircraft and ground equipment. “Asked about the possibility that include “information and equipment” on the special forces such as commando teams SAS British Special spokesman said: “We can not comment on special forces at the present time.” According to the Daily Telegraph that the elements in “Air Force Special” ” SA S “deployed in Libya

The newspaper said “for the first time sources in the Ministry of Defense forces have any NAI own published in Libya a few weeks ago and played a pivotal role in coordinating the battle of Tripoli.” These special forces wearing elements in civilian clothes and carrying weapons themselves held by the rebels, received orders to focus on finding Gaddafi, the paper said ..

Sirte residents continue to bomb and kill in the name of “protecting the civilian population”


Sirte residents continue to bomb and kill in the name of “protecting the civilian population

August 30, 2011, 11:59 [“Argumenty.ru,” Alexander Grigoriev  ]

Sirte residents continue to bomb and kill in the name of "protecting the civilian population"

“All last night continued to rocket and bomb strikes at Sirte. In the city there was not a whole building, there is no light, water, food, medicine. Tens of thousands of people living in Sirte, apparently, were sentenced in the name of” democracy “and” protection the civilian population. “doomed city, but still has a resistance,” – said “Argumentam.ru” of Libya‘s Gaddafi aide, a former officer of the Soviet and then Russian special forces colonel, retired Ilya.

“In the pauses between the air strikes a small group of rebels trying to infiltrate into the city. Their swings back. Sirte to prepare the defense for several months, there are equipped with replaceable firing positions,” – said Koren.

Answering the question “Argumentov.ru”, can suffer from NATO aircraft itself Muammar Gaddafi, Korenev said: “Hunting for Qadhafi in Sirte like hunting for a black cat in a dark room. When it’s not there.”

According to a retired Russian colonel, “Gaddafi is in a safe place. But he has information on all events in their country. Including in Sirte.”

“You think in 40 years at the helm Gaddafi has not created a system of independent communication? Moreover, the present version of events is calculated in advance.”

By alfatah69 Posted in Libya

Unseen face of the Libyan conflict


Unseen face of the Libyan conflict

Colin Todhunter

Peel back the veneer of ‘objectivity’, and the media’s record on the Libyan conflict is laid bare. There are lies, more lies and then there is the media. Take the BBC, for instance.

As Britain’s national state broadcaster, it is duty bound to provide impartial news coverage — after all, it is the ordinary person who funds it. However, the question to be asked is why folk should pay for a ‘service’ that consistently misleads in order to secure compliance for state-corporate policies?

The reporting on events in Libya has been disgracefully one-sided by most of the mainstream media in Britain. This comes as no surprise, though, given the pious narrative the media puts forward at the best of times, which implies the British government and Nato are essentially civilising forces in a barbaric world.

Picture a different world for a moment, one in which the African Union (AU) had intervened in British affairs on the back of the recent riots, in order to ‘protect’ rioters and then ‘liberate’ them from an oppressive regime. With a bit of arm twisting, it managed to get a UN resolution to implement a no fly zone over Britain.

The AU media then embed themselves with the British ‘rebels’, who had been illegally armed with weapons from AU countries, or its allies elsewhere, in order to overthrow the corrupt Cameron regime. The media report the conflict from the rioters-cum-rebels’ point of view, fail to seriously question the legitimacy of the conflict — indeed, tacitly support it — and jump on every utterance from British PM David Cameron with sneering contempt to portray him as an irrational maniac. As Cameron and his cronies flee for their lives, AU countries’ TV channels show images from inside his home and those of his millionaire government associates to highlight the opulent lifestyles they indulged in. The message is implied that all such riches were robbed from the ordinary people of Britain by Cameron and his ilk through the system they presided over.

Finally, as a no-fly zone policy morphs into a killing campaign from the air, the deaths caused are largely underreported or downplayed. Hypocritical media Substitute Nato for the AU, Gadhafi for Cameron and Libya for Britain, and you get the picture concerning the hypocrisy the mainstream media in Britain has indulged in. It is a media that portrayed those involved in the recent riots in a wholly negative light, and a media which glorifies the unjust opulence and the corporate tyranny that has wrecked the economy.

Yet, when it suits, members of the mainstream media all too readily trip over themselves to praise violent uprisings and rant against perceived injustice, tyranny and leaders who live in opulence.

Peel back the veneer of ‘objectivity’, and the media’s record on the Libyan conflict is laid bare.

How many times have broadcasters failed to focus on where Libyan rebels were getting their arms from in the face of a UN sanctioned arms embargo on Libya?

How many times have broadcasters questioned Nato’s ‘moral right’ to attack Libya, especially given the West’s role in Afghanistan and Iraq and its long history of interventions and support for unscrupulous regimes over the decades?

And how many times did broadcasters question mission drift, whereby a path for Libyan rebels into the heart of Tripoli was blasted from the air, courtesy of a massive Nato bombing campaign?

A compliant, toothless media too often rolled over, peddled the notion of a widespread popular uprising and tended to focus merely on the processes of intervention. After the Nato backed rebels took Tripoli, concerns arose over the fate of reporters Mahdi Nazemroaya and Thierry Meyssan and also British independent journalist Lizzie Phelan, whose blog and Twitter account were suddenly deleted. Her reports for Press TV were stridently anti-Nato. Anxiety over her whereabouts was expressed amid reports of her and the other journalists mentioned having received death threats and attempts by Nato to silence dissent.

The mainstream media could do a lot worse by focussing on a news item that has largely (if not completely) gone unnoticed, that of the 200 prominent African figures who have accused western nations and the International Criminal Court of “subverting international law” in Libya.

The UN has been misused to militarise policy, legalise military action and effect regime change, according to University of Johannesburg professor Chris Landsberg.

He says it is unprecedented for the UN to have outsourced military action to Nato in this way and challenges the International Criminal Court to investigate Nato for “violating international law.” In the absence of dissenting voices, or just plain decent journalism, many ordinary people rely on sources for their ‘news’, which, apart from a brief allusion to oil now and then, have forwarded the notion that Nato’s involvement in Libya has been perfectly legitimate because it’s all been about removing a crazy man from power who was oppressing his own people.

The portrayal of the Libyan conflict has been a damning indictment of a self congratulatory media that continually backs slaps itself on for being ‘impartial’ and ‘free’.

It’s been damning indictment of British ‘democracy’ too.