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 [trans.] 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.
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 superPowers 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 allcountries 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 London’s 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 favour 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-Qaida 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 practise 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 toloerated 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 confinded to use of their own soverign 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 Counci,l 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 Agency’s 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, 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 o’clock New York time, before dawn, because in Libya it is 11 in the morning. When I wake up at 11 o’clock it is supposed to be daytime; at 4 o’clock 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-Qaida, 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-Qaida 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 approve 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-Qaida. 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 honour 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 metres. 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 President’s 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 Amirate, 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 aeroplanes that hit New York? Did those aeroplanes 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 Congo’s 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 aeroplane 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 Kennedy’s 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 destrucion. 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 country’s 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 children’s 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 twoState solution is impossible; it is not practical. Currently, these two States completely overlap. Partition is doomed to failure.
These two States are not neighbours; 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 Hariri’s 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.
The University of Nottingham published a study from the West Midlands General Practice Database (n=29,238) and gave the world a rare look at how unvaccinated children compared to those who received combinations of vaccines DPPT (Diphtheria, Polio, Pertussis, Tetanus) at months 2, 3, 4 and MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) at 12 and 15 months.
The authors reported hazard ratios far in excess of two and attempted to adjust them by frequency of visits. I can tell you as an epidemiologist that the crude measures of association are far more important. For example, if an unvaccinated child is perfectly healthy without problems, then the visit rate to the clinic will be very low. In this group, there was a more than 10-fold increased risk with vaccination. Conversely vaccinated with asthma or eczema the visit rates will be higher.
As you can see from the table, both DPPT and MMR were significantly associated with the later development of asthma and eczema. These data suggest that children who undergo routine combination vaccination face higher risks of childhood allergic diseases. Conversely the unvaccinated have low or negligible risks. Going natural appears to be a healthier way to have a young child remain healthy.
I got Professor Ian Plimer in Dublin – YES! You can download the interview here and share anywhere with my permission! https://vimeo.com/1034748595/32b08ea8…
NOTE: My extensive research and interviewing / video/sound editing journalistic travel and much more does require support – please consider helping if you can with monthly donation to support me directly, or one-off payment: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_…
Fed A Lie follows Paul Saladino MD, Nina Teicholz PhD, Chris Knobbe MD and Bethany Hamilton as they expose the truth about seed oils, also known as vegetable oils, and their correlation to the recent rise in obesity and chronic disease.
Presented by Heart & Soil Films, a Cumberland Creative production.
Credits:
Executive Producers: Dean Brennan, Paul Saladino, Hunter Collins, Kyle Bush
Directed by: Tom Dyer
Produced by: Matthew Artigues, Matt Benton, Mike Beach Featuring: Paul Saladino MD, Nina Teicholz PhD, Chris Knobbe MD, Bethany Hamilton
Director of Photography: Chris Haggerty Editor: Erik Sharpnack
Associate Producers: Cade Prior, Makaila Howard, Teresa Price, David DiCicco
About Heart & Soil: Heart & Soil is a beef organ supplements company helping hundreds of thousands of people achieve radical health. Heart & Soil was founded by Dr. Paul Saladino, a double board certified MD and founder of the “animal-based” eating philosophy. Visit Heartandsoil.co to reclaim your birthright to radical health with the most nutrient-dense foods on the planet.
The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 laid the foundation for the modern world order, which is based on a balance of power between sovereign equals to obstruct hegemonic ambitions. The Westphalian balance of power could reduce zero-sum rivalries by championing the principle of indivisible security, as enhancing the security of adversaries would also improve one’s own security.
Since the end of the Cold War, the US has been promoting a revisionist world order based on US hegemony and sovereign inequality, which is legitimized under the banner of universal liberal values. The hegemonic world order aimed to transcend international anarchy, yet it was inevitably temporary and unstable as its durability depended on obstructing the rise of potential rivals and promoting a system of sovereign inequality. The era of hegemony is already over as the world transitioned to a multipolar balance of power, and there is subsequently a need to rediscover the principle of indivisible security.
China’s Global Civilisational Initiative can contribute to restoring and improving a stable Westphalian world order based on a balance of power among sovereign equals. China’s Global Civilizational Initiative, organized around the principle of “the diversity of civilizations”, can be interpreted as a rejection of universalism and thus support for sovereign equality. By rejecting the right to represent the values of other people, the Global Civilizational Initiative reassures the world that an intrusive US hegemony will not be replaced by an intrusive Chinese hegemony. The Global Civilization Initiative complements China’s economic and security initiatives around the world, which are also organized around the principle that stability requires a multipolar world order.
World order: Hegemony or balance of power?
World order refers to the arrangement of power and authority that provides the foundation for the rules of the game in terms of how world politics should be conducted. The modern world order is primarily based on the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, in which a hegemonic order was replaced with a balance of power between sovereign equals. While the Peace of Westphalia was a European order, it laid the foundation for the modern world order due to 500 years of Western dominance.
The European order had previously been organized under the hegemony of the Holy Roman Empire. However, power began to fragment and the Reformation undermined the universalism of the Catholic Church as a legitimacy for its rule. The collapse of the hegemonic order led to the brutal Thirty Years War (1618-48) in which none of the conflicting sides were able to claim a decisive victory and reassert hegemonic control, while the universal legitimacy of the Catholic Church had collapsed. While the Thirty Years’ War initially began as a religious dispute between the Catholics and the Protestants, the primacy of power politics became evident as even Catholic France aligned itself with Protestant Sweden to balance the excessive power of the Catholic Hapsburg Empire. The Europeans were killing each other at a horrific rate, yet none would be able to restore a European order based on one centre of power.
The war ended with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which laid the foundation for the modern world order. The Westphalian peace outlined a new European order based on a balance of power among sovereign equals. The Peace of Westphalia eliminated the overlapping authorities by asserting the sovereignty of princes, which in time led to the concept of national sovereignty. In a system of sovereign states, peace was ensured by a balance of power as a nation or group of nations defended itself by matching the power of the other side.
In the absence of a hegemon, Europe had to address the subsequent international anarchy as the state became the highest sovereign. International anarchy refers to a state of international relations where there is no centralized authority or governing body to regulate the interactions and behaviour of nation-states. In other words, it is a situation where each country is sovereign and independent, with no superior authority to enforce rules or resolve disputes. Conflicts thus derive from security competition, as the efforts by one state to increase its security may undermine the security of others.
A key principle of the Peace of Westphalia was thus the principle of indivisible security as ensuring the security of opponents was a critical step toward achieving lasting peace and stability in Europe. To ensure stability, it is required to guarantee the security of all states participating in the order. This principle was a departure from the traditional approach to international security in which the victors in a conflict could punish and subjugate the defeated side. Thus, the order aimed to replace conquest and domination with constraints and cooperation. This principle was largely embraced with the establishment of the Concert of Europe in 1815 as France was included as an equal participant, despite being defeated in the Napoleonic War.
However, Westphalia was a European order and sovereign equality was limited to the Europeans as the representatives of advanced and “civilized states”. However, the gradual diffusion of power and weakening of European dominance resulted in the incremental dismantlement of colonial empires, which entailed extending sovereign equality to all states. The Westphalian world order subsequently laid the foundation for international law in accordance with the UN Charter and the concept of colonial trusteeship was gradually eliminated. Yet, the bloc politics of the Cold War and the security dependencies recreated limited sovereignty.
At the end of the Cold War, there was an opportunity to establish a truly reformed Peace of Westphalia based on the principle of indivisible security within a global balance of power between sovereign equals. Yet, the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in an immense concentration of power in the West, under the leadership of the US. Furthermore, the ideological victory of the Cold War fuelled hubris and the conviction that liberal democratic values were universal and should lay the foundation for sovereign inequality. Subsequently, an international balance of power was rejected in favour of what was envisioned to be hegemonic stability.
The Rise and Fall of Pax-Americana
For the first time in history, there was a prospect of establishing a truly global hegemon under US rule. The desire to establish a new world order based on US hegemony was legitimized by claims of representing universal values – liberal democracy.
The benign theory was that hegemony and liberal democratic values would ensure a more durable peace than a balance of power. The peaceful coexistence in the West during the Cold War was to be extended to the entire world in the post-Cold War era. One month after the Soviet Union ceased to exist, President Bush triumphantly declared at the State of the Union address in January 1992: “We are the United States of America, the leader of the West that has become the leader of the world”.
The concept of Pax-Americana derives from “Pax-Romana”, a period of peace and stability that existed under the hegemonic rule of the Roman Empire during the first and second centuries AD. The 200-year-long period ensured relative peace and exceptional levels of economic prosperity and cultural development. While Pax-Romana was characterized by relative peace and stability, it was also marked by the suppression of dissent and the imposition of Roman culture and values on conquered peoples. The US ambition of advancing its global primacy to spread liberal values had many benign intentions, yet hegemony requires suppressing rising powers and denying sovereign equality. President John F. Kennedy had cautioned against a hegemonic peace in 1963 when he stated: “What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave”.
Hegemonic peace can only be sustained by preventing the rise of rival powers. Less than two months after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Wolfowitz doctrine of global dominance was revealed in a leaked draft of the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) of February 1992. The document asserted that the “first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival”, which included the rise of allies such as Germany and Japan. Furthermore, under the rule of a hegemon, the principle of sovereign equality is abandoned as the hegemon claims the right to represent and defend other peoples. Thus, international law per the UN was undermined and replaced with what Washington refers to as the “international rules-based order”, which is a hegemonic system based on sovereign inequality. To some extent, this replicates the same authority the Catholic Church previously had in Europe to claim universal sovereignty over all peoples.
Under a balance of power international law is designed to promote mutual constraints, when there is a hegemon the new rules of the game will remove constraints on the hegemon. Under the collective hegemony of the West during the unipolar era, the world was subsequently artificially redivided into liberal democracies with full sovereignty versus authoritarian states with limited sovereignty. Irrespective of benign intentions, the common denominator of democracy promotion, humanitarian intervention, and the global war on terror was full sovereignty for Western liberal democracies and limited sovereignty for the rest. Liberal democracy thus became a new indicator of civilized states worthy of full sovereignty, and the West could again reassert its virtue in a new civilizing mission – recreating the ideas of the garden versus the jungle.
In 1999, NATO invaded Yugoslavia in a breach of international law in accordance with the UN Charter. However, it was argued that the war was illegal but legitimate. This was an extraordinary framing as legitimacy was decoupled from legality. Liberal democracy and human rights were argued to be the alternative source of legitimacy. Implicitly, the reference to liberal values as a non-legal source of legitimacy was the sole prerogative of the West and its allies. Liberal values thus become a clause of exceptionalism in international law for the US and its allies. Following the illegal invasion of Iraq, British Prime Minister Tony Blair dismissed the relevance of Westphalia in the era of liberal hegemony:
“I was already reaching for a different philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held sway since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648; namely that a country’s internal affairs are for it and you don’t interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance. I did not consider Iraq fitted into this philosophy, though I could see the horrible injustice done to its people by Saddam”.
There was a desire to institutionalize the clause of exceptionalism to legitimize liberal hegemony. Discussions began to advocate for an “alliance of democracies” as an alternative source of legitimacy to the UN, as the West should not be constrained by authoritarian states. This idea was reformed as the proposal for a “Concert of Democracies”, which “could become an alternative forum for the approval of the use of force in cases where the use of the veto at the Security Council prevented free nations from keeping faith with the aims of the U.N. Charter”. John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, likewise promised to establish a “League of Democracies” if he won the presidency to reduce the constraints on Western democracies under US leadership.
Decoupling legitimacy from legality eventually resulted in the so-called “rules-based international order” based on sovereign inequality, which replaces international law with its foundation in sovereign equality. The rules-based international order allegedly builds on international law by supplementing democratic values and humanitarian law, although in reality, it is instrumental in legitimizing hegemony. When conflicting principles such as territorial integrity or self-determination emerge, the “rules” are always power interests. In the case of Kosovo and increasingly Taiwan, the US leans towards self-determination. In Crimea, the US insists on the principle of territorial integrity. The West’s deliberate dismantlement of international law thus resulted in what was interpreted by much of the world as a hypocritical condemnation of Russia.
Liberal hegemony predictably came to an end as the US exhausted its resources and legitimacy to dominate the world, while other centres of power such as China, India and Russia began to collectively balance the excesses of the US and create alternatives. The international system subsequently gravitates towards equilibrium, which is the “natural state” of the international system.
China’s Multipolar Balance of Power
China has been the leading state among the “rise of the rest”, which develops a multipolar balance of power based on sovereign equality. To ensure that a new balance of power is benign, China is seemingly reviving the principle of indivisible security by arguing that no state can have proper security unless the other states in the international system also have security. China’s support for a multipolar distribution of power, legitimized by civilizational diversity, signifies powerful efforts to restore the Westphalian world order – although as a world order rather than a European order.
China has to some extent replicated the three-pillared American System of the early 19th century, in which the US developed a manufacturing base, physical transportation infrastructure, and a national bank to counter British economic hegemony and subsequent intrusive political influence. China has similarly decentralized the international economic infrastructure by developing leading technological ecosystems, launched the impressive Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013, and developed new financial instruments of power.
A natural “balance of dependence” has emerged, which replicated the geopolitical balance of power logic. All economic interdependent partnerships are defined by asymmetries, as one side will always be more dependent than the other. In an asymmetrical interdependent partnership, the more powerful and less reliant side in a dyad can convert economic dependence into political power. The more dependent side, therefore, has systemic incentives to restore a balance of dependence by enhancing strategic autonomy and diversifying economic partnerships to reduce reliance on the more powerful actor. The international system thus moves toward a natural equilibrium in which no states can extract unwarranted political influence over other states.
China has not displayed hegemonic intentions in which it would seek to prevent diversification and multipolarity, rather it has signalled to be content with merely being the leading economy as the “first among equals”. Case in point, Russian efforts to diversify its economic connectivity in Greater Eurasia have not been opposed by Beijing, which has made Moscow more positive to China’s economic leadership in the region. This represents a very different approach from the hegemonic model of Washington, in which the US attempts to decouple Russia from Germany, China, India, Turkey, Iran, Central Asia, and other economic partners.
China has avoided imposing dilemmas on other countries to choose between “us” and “them” and has even been reluctant to join formal military alliances that advance a zero-sum approach to international security. The development of BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation as economic institutions are similarly pursuing the seeking of security with member states rather than security against non-members, which is evident as membership in these institutions is extended to rivals such as India. The Global Development Initiative and the Global Security Initiative are attempts to create new platforms for global economic and security cooperation.
The Global Civilisational Initiative
More recently, China built further on the initiatives for a multipolar distribution of power by launching the Global Civilizational Initiative. Xi Jinping’s call for a diversity of civilizations is very significant as it translates into support for sovereign equality, and rejecting universalist ideals that can legitimize interference in domestic affairs. The anti-hegemonic rhetoric was made apparent by China’s President Xi Jinping in his argument for civilizational distinctiveness:
“A single flower does not make spring, while one hundred flowers in full blossom bring spring to the garden… We advocate the respect for the diversity of civilizations. Countries need to uphold the principles of equality, mutual learning, dialogue and inclusiveness among civilizations, and let cultural exchanges transcend estrangement, mutual learning transcend clashes, and coexistence transcend feelings of superiority”.
Xi Jinping’s vision of constructing a benign Westphalian peace was also indicated by reiterating the need to replace zero-sum calculations with the recognition that security is inherently indivisible:
“Humanity lives in a community with a shared future where we rise and fall together. For any country to achieve modernization, it should pursue common development through solidarity and cooperation and follow the principles of joint contribution, shared benefits and win-win outcome”.
The ideas of Xi Jinping reflect those of the 18th-century German philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder, who argued that preserving national distinctiveness builds international diversity and strength when it does not disparage other nations or claim cultural superiority. Translated to the current era, preserving civilization distinctiveness requires avoidance of concepts such as a “clash of civilizations” and “superiority of civilizations”.
The proposal for Xi Jinping enjoys support from Russia, as President Putin previously argued that each nation must have the freedom to develop on its own path and that “primitive simplification and prohibition can be replaced with the flourishing complexity of culture and tradition”. These words are based on the ideas of Nikolai Danilevsky who argued in the 19th century that pursuing a single path of modernization prevented nations from contributing to universal civilization:
“The danger consists not of the political domination of a single state, but of the cultural domination of one cultural-historical type… The issue is not whether there will be a universal state, either a republic or a monarchy, but whether one civilization, one culture, will dominate, since this would deprive humanity of one of the necessary conditions for success and perfection – the element of diversity”.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky similarly argued in 1873 that Russia would not be able to be independent or contribute much to the world if it merely emulated the West:
“Embarrassed and afraid that we have fallen so far behind Europe in our intellectual and scientific development, we have forgotten that we ourselves, in the depth and tasks of the Russian soul, contain in ourselves as Russians the capacity perhaps to bring new light to the world, on the condition that our development is independent”.
Civilizational diversity is imperative as it, much like biodiversity, makes the world more capable of absorbing shocks and handling crises: “Universalism, if realized, would result in a sharp decline of the complexity of the global society as a whole and the international system in particular. Reducing complexity, in turn, would dramatically increase the level of systemic risks and challenges”.
The objection to intrusive claims of universalism is also fundamental to Western civilization. In ancient Greece, the cradle of Western civilization, it was recognized that universalism and uniformity weakened the vigour and resilience that defined the Hellenic idea. The benign cooperation and competition between various Greek city-states created a diversity of ideas and a vitality that elevated Greek civilization. Integration into one political system would entail losing the diversity of philosophy, wisdom, and leadership that incentivized experimentation and advancement.
The first world order that truly encompasses the entire world
It can be concluded that restoring a Westphalian world order does not only require a multipolar distribution of economic power, it also demands respect for civilizational diversity to ensure that the principle of indivisible security is preserved. The international order should counteract nefarious claims of civilizational superiority clothed in the benign rhetoric of universal values and development models. Through this prism, the US efforts to divide the world into democracy versus authoritarianism can be considered a strategy to restore hegemony and a system of sovereign inequality by defeating adversaries, rather than building an international system based on harmony and human progress. Xi Jinping has thus repudiated the US hegemonic model, and instead advanced the Westphalian argument that states must “refrain from imposing their own values or models on others”.
The new Westphalia can for the first time truly be a world order by including non-Western nations as sovereign equals. One should therefore not be surprised by the positive response from the majority of the world to the proposal of replacing conflict and dominance with cooperation based on equality and mutual respect.
International Criminal Court’s (ICC) landmark decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli regime leaders Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gollant has sparked outrage from Western leaders, who have for decades used the Hague-based tribunal for political agendas.
Though the arrest warrants are riddled with glaring contradictions, such as describing Hamas military leader Mohammed Deif as a “war criminal” and equating Hamas resistance leaders with war criminals in Tel Aviv, the warrants are still significant because even the institutions founded by the Western world are unable to dismiss the criminality of the Zionist regime.
But now comes the true test: are the states that are signatories to the Rome Statute, which recognizes the authority of the Hague-based international tribunal, willing to follow through with their pledge?
Many countries have reluctantly expressed their willingness to accept the decision – such as Canada, Italy, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. However, some have been more reluctant, retreating to “analyze” the verdict issued by the ICC.
Perhaps the case that deserves the most attention is that of Germany, a Rome Statute signatory and one of the biggest allies of the child-murdering Tel Aviv regime that has been deeply complicit in the Gaza genocide.
A German government spokesperson, Steffen Hebestreit, said he “finds it hard to imagine” that they would make arrests “on this basis,” questioning the authority and decision of the Court entirely.
Naturally, these statements have caused a stir, and have journalists pressing German officials on what their stance actually will be on ICC arrest warrant, which took more than six months to make headway.
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, when pressed on the enforcement of the warrants, retreated.
“As I said, we abide by the law and legislation nationally, at the European level and internationally, and that is why we are now examining exactly what that means for us for implementation in Germany,” he said.
She made no comments regarding whether Germany would follow through with the arrest warrants, despite being obligated as a signatory of the Rome Statute – something Hebestreit mentioned himself.
Germany has been one of the most staunch European supporters of the Zionist entity, particularly amid the ongoing genocidal war on Gaza, refusing persistent calls to halt arms sales to the Tel Aviv regime.
Time and time again – throughout the decades – Germany has attributed its ironclad and unconditional support for the Israeli occupation to its own Nazi-era crimes against Jewish people in the 1930s and 40s.
Germany claims it is motivated to support the Zionist regime because of its own guilt.
But this is a complete distortion of the truth. The fact of the matter is, the German Nazi regime was a direct collaborator with the Zionist movement from the early days of Nazi party rule in Germany.
In fact, while most Jewish organizations were banned, the lone organization permitted to legally exist was the German Zionist movement, under different initiatives.
To the uninitiated, an alliance between the Zionist movement and the Nazi regime seems completely contradictory. But when looking at the material desires of both the Zionist movement and that of Nazi Germany, the motivations become quite clear and obvious, and manifested in the infamous Haavara Agreement, signed by the Zionistische Vereinigung für Deutschland (Zionist Federation of Germany) and the German Reich Ministry of Economics in August 1933.
The agreement is quite simple: in exchange for Jewish immigrants (particularly, those loyal to the Zionist doctrine, and some of the most wealthiest – indicating it was never about moralism but rather preserving class interests within Zionism) to safely leave Germany, the Nazi regime would help transfer the Jewish population themselves to Palestinian territories, accelerating the removal of indigenous Palestinians from a territory where they were already persecuted by a growing Zionist population and British colonialism.
The Nazi regime received tremendous material benefits for this. Jewish organizations were enacting worldwide boycotts of the German regime at the time, on the grounds of the Nazi laws persecuting the Jewish population in Germany.
The Nazi regime saw this as a major threat, as it created grounds for economic isolation in a post-World War I world. The open collaboration with the Zionist movement allowed the Nazi regime to dodge the accusations of antisemitism, and further dangerously conflated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, a defense the Zionist regime would use to the modern day.
Furthermore, the German government was able to enact further economic deals under Haavara, which resulted in a new German market in the British-occupied Palestinian land.
The agreement materially improved a heavily boycotted Nazi regime while laying further groundwork for the Zionist colonization of Palestine. The transfer of wealth was often cited and met with glee in Zionist-controlled media in occupied Palestine.
Fast forward 91 years. The German government, which has enacted laws that criticism of the Israeli regime is “anti-semitic” in nature, is yet again making a callback to its Nazi roots.
Hebestreit, quoted in The Telegraph, states that “it is a consequence of German history that we share unique relations and great responsibility with Israel.”
This is completely true, but not in the context in which they are using to deceive the public. Germany is not defying the ICC arrest warrants because of any shame to its Nazi crimes. Rather, functionally speaking, it is the same dedication to the Zionist movement Germany declared in 1933, in order to not only evade allegations of anti-Semitism, but continue making billions of dollars from exports to the Zionist occupation.
Refusing to enforce the ICC warrants means that Germany can continue its arms shipments to the Zionist occupation. Just last month, Germany approved a sale of over $100,000,000 worth of arms to the Israeli regime. Some researchers suggest that Germany exports nearly 30 percent of the arms sent to the occupation regime.
Germany is in a particularly debased state of affairs, due to its close allegiance to the United States. The American insistence to cut off energy imports from Russia as well as the US involvement in bombing the Nord Stream II pipeline has drastically impacted the German economy.
The economic peril due to this commitment the led the German government to collapse earlier this month. However, the US encourages its allies (rather, proxies) to continue arming the Israeli occupation.
The road ahead indeed goes both ways. German purchases of Israeli surveillance and military equipment, recently and most notably the Arrow 3 ballistic defense systems raised eyebrows to Palestinian solidarity organizations. There is also documentation that German police have purchased Israel’s infamous Pegasus software to be used for spying on its own citizens.
Acknowledging the ICC arrest warrants means that the imports and exports of arms come to a grinding halt.
Indeed, the reluctance to enforce the ICC arrest warrants on behalf of the German government is not rooted in any sense of “moralism.” This is a talking point to earn the sympathy of Western liberals who still do not see the massive fingerprint of their own governments in the ongoing Gaza genocide.
The root of the decision, as it usually is within the context of imperialism, is money. Germany is solely motivated by its role as a junior agent in American imperialism, hoping to make a quick buck while its US masters erode its own energy infrastructure.
A refusal to enforce an already toothless warrant, which attacks two Israeli regime leaders and not the issue of Zionism itself, is simply the German government conducting business as usual as it has for over 90 years.
The infamous Haavara agreement lives on today, not in its original context, but not far from it either. Germany’s stance on the ICC arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant reveals deep ties to Zionism rooted in the Haavara agreement.
Musa Iqbal is a Boston-based researcher and writer with a focus on US domestic and foreign policy.
The UK and the US intended to resettle Palestinians in the neighbouring countries, after they were forced to flee their homes in Palestine in 1947 and 1948 due to the terrorist actions of Zionist forces, British documents reveal.
The documents, unearthed by MEMO in the British National Archives, also show that the British government viewed the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) as a tool to achieve this goal.
UNRWA was established by a UN General Assembly resolution on 8 December 1949, and officially began operations on 1 May 1950, with its headquarters in Beirut, Lebanon. Since its inception, the agency’s main mission was to transfer Palestinian refugees from direct relief to work programmes while awaiting a political solution to their plight. By mid-June 1950, the UN reiterated that the agency “has no mandate to deal with political settlement of the problem of the Palestinian refugees”.
In December 1949, the UN adopted Resolution 194, which recognised the Palestinian refugees’ right to return to their homes in Palestine. The resolution called for refugees who wished to return and live peacefully with their neighbours to “be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.” It was adopted with 35 votes in favour, including from the United Kingdom and the United States, 15 votes against and 8 abstentions.
The resolution also stipulated that compensation should be provided to those “choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”
However, in August 1949, 13 months after the announcement establishing Israel, the British government decided that the “final solution” of the problem lies in “resettlement not in relief”.
Prime Minister Clement Attlee, in a memo on the “Palestinian Arab refugees” problem, instructed his foreign, treasury and economic ministers to “discuss what further provision should be made” for addressing the problem. “The emphasis should lie heavily on resettlement,” he wrote.
When UNRWA’s operations began in 1950, the agency was assisting around 750,000 Palestinian refugees residing in 58 recognised refugee camps across Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Attlee’s memo further instructed that no financial support should be given to the governments of countries hosting the refugees unless they contributed to the resettlement effort. “Any further specific contributions from British funds should be conditional on the recognition by the local government concerned, to a greater extent than hitherto, of responsibilities in the matter,” the memo added.
This followed deliberations among various British governmental departments to establish an official British stance on the refugee problem. The ministers recommended that the governments of the neighbouring countries should “make a substantial contribution to the relief and resettlement” of the Palestinian refugees. They stressed that the British government should prioritise resettlement over relief efforts, and that “the major emphasis should be on the framing of the scheme for resettlement in preference to relief.”
At the time it was estimated that the combined costs of relief and resettlement efforts from both Western and non-Western governments amounted to around $24 million. The ministers recommended waiting to see what contributions other governments would make before committing further British funds. “We should also expect them to contribute a larger proportion to any future fund than their share,” they wrote.
In a letter to the prime minister, Lord Jay, the British economic minister, expressed his belief that “the only radical solution of the relief problem is by way of resettlement and not relief.”
“The prime responsibility for these Arab (Palestinian) refugees rests with the local governments concerned,” he wrote. While acknowledging that Britain had a “special position in the Middle East,” Lord Jay suggested that Britain had a “substantial interest” in the refugee question. However, he also argued that the British contribution to the relief fund was already “more than our appropriate share.”
Lord Jay’s letter was sent to the prime minister after a request from Ernest Bevin, the then foreign minister, who proposed that “further funds should be provided for relief and/or resettlement” of the Palestinian Arab refugees. In his response, Lord Jay again emphasised that the main focus “should be on resettlement”.
The British government viewed the refugee issue as “a direct responsibility” shared not only by Israel but also by the neighbouring Arab states and the international community.
In his letter, Lord Jay reminded his colleagues that the Arab states “inhabit an area so important from the political and strategic aspect” and noted that the Arabs “tend to consider that British policy over the last thirty years has been responsible for the setting up of a Jewish state and, in some degree, for the displacement of these Arab refugees.”
The documents also reveal that the UK and the US were in frequent contact to discuss how best to resettle the Palestinian refugees in host countries through ongoing relief activities.
The British “have been considering both in London and with the Americas how best to stimulate the local governments to continue the work of relief and turn it into resettlement,”Lord Joy’s letter explained. The British and the Americans believed that the resettlement “would provide the only long-term solution of the problem.”
The documents reveal that less than a year later, a number of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon appealed to Britain and human rights defenders for the right to return to Palestine, their homeland. In a letter to the British prime minister, sent through the British consul in Beirut, they wrote in Arabic: “We truly believe that you could send us back to our homes by using your powers if you wished.”
The letter was written by Ali Ahmed El-Abed, who had been forced to leave his village, Shafa Amr, in northern Palestine. He had to live as a refugee in the Wavel Camp, located in Baalbek, east of Beirut.
The letter placed the responsibility for the Palestinian refugees’ plight squarely on the UK. It reminded the British government that Palestinians had been under British protection for 30 years and noted: “As a result, we are scattered away far from our homes, our country, and our people.” The situation of the refugees was deteriorating, the letter explained, stating that “the situation goes from bad to worse,” and warning that “death is nearer to us than life.”
The letter, dated 21 June 1950, reminded the British government that the refugees still considered themselves “under British protection, and carry passports bearing the British crown.”
On 18 July, the British government rejected the petition. In its response, the government expressed “sympathy” for the refugees, but clarified that “it is not possible for His Majesty’s government to take any action in this matter except through the medium of the United Nations.” The response, sent to El-Abed, affirmed the British government’s “full and unqualified support” for the UN in addressing the issue.
A few weeks later, the former Soviet Union’s ambassador received a similar letter, signed by 10,000 refugees, requesting support for the Palestinians’ return to their homes. This letter rejected UNRWA as a project that “aimed to prevent the implementation of the decisions of the United Nations.” The signatories viewed this project as a “pursuit of an imperialist policy.”
The letter, written in Arabic with an English translation, was sent to the British government and insisted on the implementation of UN Resolution 194, which affirmed the Palestinians’ right to return to their homes in Palestine.
Hello, my name is Dr. Mike Yeadon, and in the next 15 minutes or so, I would like to address those of you who’ve been vaccine injured or bereaved, and also those of you who are involved in the political process in Northern Ireland, as well as anywhere else in the world who might hear me. At the end of this process, I hope you will believe what I’m going to tell you, which, shockingly, is that the materials masquerading as vaccines were designed intentionally to harm the people who received them. I’m probably the most qualified former pharmaceutical company research executive in the world speaking out on this matter, and since I spent my entire career in the business of working with teams designing molecules to be new potential medicines, I think I am qualified to comment on it, and that is my shocking judgement that has been only reinforced over the last almost four years since I first said it.
I’ll also have some suggestions for what we can do together to fight against the global crime which is ongoing. So, just a little bit about me so you can decide whether or not to believe me. So, I’m a career-long research scientist.
I’ve worked all of my life in the pharmaceutical industry and in biotech. My first degree included a training in toxicology, so that’s an understanding of how materials can injure human beings at a molecular level, and what the relationship is between the structure of them and the toxicity. In my second degree, a PhD, I did research in respiratory pharmacology, control of breathing and control of respiratory reflexes.
So, and then after that, I joined the pharmaceutical industry in 1988, and I worked until very recently on new medicines for allergic and respiratory diseases. In my corporate career, I was for a long time responsible at Pfizer, then the biggest research-based drug company in the world, for everything to do with allergic and respiratory diseases in the research field. So, that was my responsibility.
And in the last 10 years, after leaving in 2011, I was an independent and I became the founder and CEO of a biotech company, which was eventually acquired by Novartis, which was then the biggest drug company in the world. So, I have had a good career, and I was well regarded in the industry for my scientific acumen and judgments, until, of course, I started speaking out against the nonsense, the COVID pandemic, and especially the so-called vaccines. I’ve become persona non grata.
It was my former colleagues after that. So, I’m well qualified to comment on the toxicological principles, properties of molecules, and the kind of effects you might see from certain structures. So, just very briefly, before I talk about the so-called vaccines, what happened in 2020? It’s taken me a long time to get there, and I haven’t made everybody happy with the decision I’ve reached, but there was not a pandemic or a public health emergency.
I don’t think there was anything at all, apart from lies, propaganda, fear-based information, fake diagnostic tests called PCR, and then, as it were, misattribution of real illnesses that people did have, which were called COVID when there was no such thing. But what happened, shockingly, was that after the World Health Organisation’s chairman called a pandemic, which was not true. There’s never been a pandemic.
There won’t be pandemics. They’re immunologically impossible. But after he called them, many countries in the world changed radically their medical management practises for people in hospitals, also in care homes, and in the community.
And very briefly, in hospitals, many people were sedated, had a plastic tube put down their airway, and unconscious, put on mechanical ventilators. I can assure you that is not ever an appropriate treatment for someone with an influenza-like illness, whatever you might think COVID was. But that would not be something you would do, and if applied to frail and elderly people, they will die in large numbers, which they did.
So that was the first crime. It’s not a mistake. There are no mistakes here.
Mistakes were not made. They were told to do this by figures at supranational level. We don’t know exactly who, but we know this because these mad procedures changed in many countries all at the same time.
So that’s hospitals, in care homes, assisted living, old-age people’s homes, and so on. Many people were given drugs like Midazolam, which is an injectable form of a drug like Valium, a sedative. But they were also given injections of pain-relieving drugs like morphine, even if they weren’t in pain.
My PhD was in the field of understanding what opiate drugs like morphine do to the respiratory reflux, and I can assure you it suppresses and suppresses it and depresses it. So if you give an elderly person on their own an injection of Midazolam, they will become sedated and sleepy, and if you give them an injection of morphine, their breathing will slow. I can tell you, it’s absolutely forbidden to give a person those two drugs together, those two drug classes together, unless they are under intense ongoing medical monitoring.
And the reason is they’re likely to fall asleep and stop breathing. That, of course, is what happened. So that’s hospitals and care homes.
Your relatives were killed by the medical procedures that were imposed. Now, it’s quite possible early on that not everybody involved knew what was happening, but I’m afraid after a few days, you’d have to be a blockhead not to realise that it was what you were doing to your charges, your patients, that was resulting in their deaths. So I’ve completely lost any trust in the medical profession because virtually no one has spoken up four and a half years later.
This happens to lots of people. If you listen to the recordings, heartbreaking recordings given to the Scottish COVID Enquiry, I think that’s probably the only place where there’s been an official taking of evidence from people. And what I just described is exactly what happens to lots of people’s relatives and no doubt happens to some people in Northern Ireland as well.
It certainly happens in England. There were worse things as well. People in the community were deprived of medical care that would have saved their lives.
And there’s plenty of evidence to say that not being given antibiotics when they had incipient bronchial pneumonia also killed thousands, possibly tens of thousands of people. And there, ladies and gentlemen, was your pandemic. All of those deaths were attributed to COVID and you were told this is this terrible pandemic, you need to lock down, wear masks, do what you’re told.
Nothing was happening at all apart from medical murder and propaganda from the television and the newspaper, politicians and many public, well-known public figures who are doing what they were told. So of course one conclusion I’m going to come to later is stop listening to liars. The people who’ve lied to you shouldn’t listen to them ever again.
Stop listening to them today. But for me, I think the worst thing, because it comes out of my industry and because it’s so deliberate, it requires such a lot of forethought, are the so-called vaccines. Now we were told there was this new infectious disease, so far so good ladies and gentlemen, but then they said don’t worry we’ll rustle up a vaccine and they did so at least in about 10 months, something like that.
I can tell you after spending a career in this industry, you can no more make a baby in one month with nine women than you can make a complicated biological product in 10 months. It cannot be done. It was not done.
They did something else. They created materials which were essentially injected poisons. They were not vaccines.
There was never anything to vaccinate against. And when you’ve listened to what I’ve just told you, you know that must be true because you can’t do something in 10 months that normally takes 6 to 12 years. Medicines are not put together randomly.
They are built. And they’re built by people who are discussing with colleagues, work out what kind of materials, what kind of structures, what kind of formulations, what kind of doses you would need to add in order to hit a particular molecular target to have a chance of a particular therapeutic goal being reached without unacceptable side effects. That’s called rational design.
And that is my whole career, ladies and gentlemen, from my undergraduate days to today. So when I look at the design of the medicine, whatever kind it is, and look at the design on paper and its composition structures and so on, it is as if I’m looking over the shoulder of the designer, someone like me, someone with my qualifications designed these things. So when I look at them, I’m looking over the shoulder of the designer and I can discern something of what their objectives were, what were they trying to do? And I came quickly to the conclusion that they wanted to bring about toxicity that would injure, kill and reduce fertility.
There aren’t any other alternatives. And remember, there was no public health emergency. So I’ll just give you three examples.
I’m not going to be too scientific, but three things so you can check them. The objective of these so-called gene-based vaccines was to inject you with a genetic sequence for something called spike protein. Now, it doesn’t really matter what spike protein is, if it’s real, where it came from.
The point is, it’s a genetic sequence for a protein that doesn’t belong in your body. It’s non-self, it’s foreign. Your immune system is a wonderful work of God and nature.
It distinguishes self, things that are meant to be inside you and are fine from anything else, foreign, non-self. If you inject a person with a genetic sequence that instructs your body to become a factory for some protein that doesn’t belong in you, your immune system will detect that and it will attack every cell that’s done that instruction and kill it. Now, these materials, when injected in your arm, didn’t stay in your arm, they travelled around your heart, your lungs, your kidneys, your brain, your ovaries.
And in every place it landed, if it was taken up and expressed, your body registered that as foreign invasion and it attacks and kills every cell doing it. There is no other possible consequence from doing that. So that’s step one and no one can argue that’s not what they did.
That is the design of them. It also picks a particular protein. I’m not really sure where spike protein came from, if it’s really real, but proteins like the one they claim was encoded in these gene-based materials are known to be toxic.
There are loads of experiments, lots of published experiments, showing that proteins like that one cause blood coagulation, damaged nerves, damaged heart tissue. So they injected you with something that would make your body make a protein that doesn’t belong there, knowing axiomatically, automatically, unavoidably, your immune system would attack that. It would be like rejecting an organ transplant.
Your body would say, that’s foreign, got to go, uses your immune system to kill it. And then they also inject you with something that’s inherently toxic. So if it got out into your body or wherever it was made, it would harm you.
And I’ve got a third one that cannot be argued with. At least the mRNA products from Pfizer and Moderna were encapsulated in something called lipid nanoparticles. It’s really a blob of fat, complicated, technical blob of fat, that’s what it is after all.
And what that material did is allowed your injection to glide all around your body across all biological barriers and get everywhere in your body. So of course, it’s not what you would want, is it? For something that they told you was inhaled into your nose and lungs. But no, it went all around your body, into your brain, blood vessels.
But in particular, I need to tell you, there were publications that are now more than 10 years old in peer-reviewed journal articles. I’m sceptical about whether they’re always very honest, but there were peer-reviewed journal articles showing that lipid nanoparticles were recognised over a decade ago of having a particular property, which you’re not going to like to hear, which shocked me when I learned it. They tend to deposit their payload into the ovaries.
That is exactly what happened with these injected materials. There was at least one study performed with the Pfizer agents, with the Japanese regulatory authorities. Lo and behold, the material accumulated in the ovaries of the test animals.
That is what’s happened, ladies and gentlemen, every woman and girl injected with these materials. Remember what I said about designing molecules to do things deliberately with objectives in mind? They picked lipid nanoparticles, knowing they accumulate the payload in ovaries. It’s not an accident.
Mistakes were not made. So I tell you, as a professional who spent his whole honest scientific career in an industry I did not realise was corrupt, trying to make experimental medicines for respiratory and allergy diseases, that my experience tells me that there are multiple independent, unnecessary and obvious mechanisms of toxicity built into these so-called vaccines. And then by sheer luck, all four companies, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca and Pfizer, all chose basically the same formula for their so-called vaccines.
That would never happen if it was real. For a start, I would call my opposite numbers and say, we should do different things because if something goes wrong, if we’re wrong in an assumption, all of the so-called vaccines will fail for the same reason. We should do different things.
It’s called diversification. But no, they all did the same things because they’re just lying. They were making intentionally dangerous material, passing them off as vaccines to having you and your children.
And that’s what they did. Of course, I didn’t get injected and neither did my children and most of my relatives. Some of them didn’t believe me.
I’m afraid they’ve been injected too. So big picture, what happens, I think from the research I’ve done, and of course, I’m an expert in research and development, not in politics, but I believe that very wealthy people, the kind of people who run foundations with names, have planned, as have their antecedents for a couple of generations, to take over the world, to remove the freedoms of ordinary people like us that they regard as useless eaters. They don’t want us around anymore.
And their intention is to strip us of our freedoms by persuading us that there are very frightening events occurring in the world, and we need them to lead us to safety. There are documents you can find from a group called the Club of Rome, who in the late 1960s were commissioned by some of these people who run the nameless global foundations that have hundreds of billions of pounds of worth. They were asked to come up with scenarios that would produce challenges for countries that couldn’t be solved by countries on their own, so they would have to look outwards and upwards to supranational solutions.
Now guess what? The two things they came up with, pandemics of infectious diseases, which I know as an immunologist are not possible and have never happened. The other thing they said to account for or plan for were climate change crises. I’ve done enough research now, ladies and gentlemen, I’ve spoken to people who have spent as long in climate atmospheric research as I have in pharmaceutical R&D, and they have explained to me, and I understand very well, that there’s all of this nonsense about carbon dioxide, global boiling, net zero.
It’s all a complete scam from the same people who bought you the Covid scam and the dangerous injections. It’s the same people. They want one world government, they want to be deprived of your liberty, and then I’m afraid I think they will kill us using these injections because they’re going to do it again.
All over the world, factories to make mRNA-based materials are being thrown up, billions of doses are being made, and if we let them they will sicken in our arms and people will sicken and die. So those of you who have been injured or bereaved, in my mind no blame whatsoever attaches to you. How could you know that people you trusted and thought you could trust were lying to you? Well, you didn’t know, but if you let them inject you again, you have no sympathy for me because they have lied to you, you’ve been injured or killed, and I’ve explained to you that they’re liars and they have attacked us.
So if you go along with it, you cannot be saved. All we need to do is enough of us continue to speak out about this and say we’re not having it anymore, get lost, don’t listen to liars anymore. People who’ve lied to you forfeit their trust forever, in my view, and so anyone who’s in the political process, for example in Northern Ireland looking at this so-called public health bill, which if you pass it would allow these supranational criminals to take you from your house, to inject you by force if necessary, they are aiding and abetting a global crime.
And I saw someone online say recently that if you pass that legislation, I don’t think it’d be unreasonable to interpret that as an act of war. It’s as serious as that. So politicians, you may well be under pressure from shadowy figures, but if you go along with it and hope for like an easier time of it, you will have unlocked the doors of hell and pushed everybody in it and you as long with it as well.
So this is your time to do what I’m doing, which is to speak out no matter the consequences. I say to you if you’re frightened about what happens, if you speak out, you should be absolutely terrified about what’s going to happen if you don’t. So really that’s all I’ve got to say.
I do think these criminals are going to do it again, they’re continuing to threaten us with pandemics like bird flu, monkey pox and so on. It is all nonsense. Stop listening to liars right now.
Put things right between you, the people you love, and between you and God if you haven’t already. And for goodness sake, be one of the people who speaks out no matter what the consequences, because if you don’t, we’ll lose our freedom and then our lives. Thank you.
For almost three years, NATO countries have boycotted diplomatic contacts with Russia, even as hundreds of thousands of men have died on the battlefield. The decision by diplomats to reject diplomacy is morally repugnant as diplomacy could have reduced the excess of violence, prevented escalation, and even resulted in a path to peace. However, the political-media elites skilfully sold the rejection of diplomacy to the public as evidence of their moral righteousness.
This article will first outline how NATO planned for a long war to exhaust Russia and knock it out from the ranks of great powers. Second, this article will demonstrate how the political-media elites communicated that diplomacy is treasonous and war is virtuous.
NATO’s Long War
To exhaust Russia in a long war, the goal was to ensure that the Russians and Ukrainians kill each other for as long as possible. The US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin outlined the US objective in the Ukraine War as weakening its strategic adversary: “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine”.[1] In late March 2022, Zelensky revealed in an interview with the Economist: “There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives”.[2]
The Israeli and Turkish mediators confirmed that Russia and Ukraine agreed to the terms of a peaceful settlement in Istanbul, in which Russia would withdraw its forces and Ukraine would restore its neutrality. However, why would the US and its allies accept that Ukraine return to neutrality, when the alternative was to use the powerful proxy army they had built in Ukraine to bleed and weaken Russia?[3]
The Turkish Foreign Minister acknowledged that there are “NATO member states that want the war to continue—let the war continue and Russia gets weaker. They don’t care much about the situation in Ukraine”.[4] The former Israeli Prime Minister also confirmed that the US and UK “blocked” the peace agreement as there was a “decision by the West to keep striking Putin” to destroy a strategic rival.[5] The retired German General, Harald Kujat, a former head of the German Bundeswehr and former chairman of the NATO Military Committee, also argued that this was a war deliberately provoked by NATO, while the US and UK sabotaged all paths to peace “to weaken Russia politically, economically and militarily”.[6] Interviews with American and British leaders in March 2022, revealed that a decision had been made for “the conflict to be extended and thereby bleed Putin” as “the only end game now is the end of Putin regime”.[7]
Chas Freeman, the former US Assistant Secretary of Defence for International Security Affairs and Director for Chinese Affairs at the US State Department criticised Washington for the objective to prolong the fighting to “fight to the last Ukrainian”.[8] Republican Senator Lindsey Graham argued that the US was in a favourable position as it could fight Russia to the last Ukrainian: “I like the structural path we’re on here. As long as we help Ukraine with the weapons they need and the economic support, they will fight to the last person”.[9] Republican leader Mitch McConnell was similarly explicit:
“the most basic reasons for continuing to help Ukraine degrade and defeat the Russian invaders are cold, hard, practical American interests. Helping equip our friends in Eastern Europe to win this war is also a direct investment in reducing Vladimir Putin’s future capabilities to menace America, threaten our allies, and contest our core interests”.[10]
Senator Mitt Romney argued that financing the war was “the best national defense spending I think we’ve ever done” as “We’re diminishing and devastating the Russian military for a very small amount of money” and “we’re losing no lives in Ukraine”. US Congressman Dan Crenshaw also celebrated the proxy war as “investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea”.[11]
Retired US General Keith Kellogg similarly called for extending the war in Ukraine as knocking out Russia would allow the US to focus on China: “if you can defeat a strategic adversary not using any US troops, you are at the acme of professionalism”. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg shared this logic as he argued defeating Russia on the battlefield will make it easier for the US to focus also on China. Stoltenberg also noted that “if Ukraine wins, then you will have the second biggest army in Europe, the Ukrainian army, battle-hardened, on our side, and we’ll have a weakened Russian army”.[12]
Diplomacy as Treason and War as Virtue
When the decision had been made for a long war, the politicians and media began to construct narratives and a moral case for a long war, which would convince the public that diplomacy is treasonous, and war is virtuous.
Presenting the world as a struggle of good versus evil lays the foundation for effective war propaganda, as perpetual peace can be achieved by defeating the evil opponent while negotiations entail sacrificing indispensable values and principles. To this end, the Hitler analogy is very effective as diplomacy becomes dangerous appeasement while peace requires military victory. Reminiscent of George Orwell’s “war is peace”, Stoltenberg argues that weapons are the path to peace.
The Western public was reassured that fuelling the war was required to push Putin to the negotiation table, however, during almost three years of war the West never proposed negotiations. Reading the Western media, one gets the impression that Russia would not negotiate. However, Russia never opposed diplomacy or negotiations, it was the West that shut the door. So-called “peace summits” were held to give the public the impression that governments pursued peace, although Russia was not invited and the stated purpose was to mobilise public opinion and resources against Russia.
In November 2022, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley argued for starting negotiations with Russia. Ukraine had just captured large swaths of territory in Kherson and Kharkov, and General Milley argued Ukraine would not be in a better position to negotiate a peace deal. General Milley was correct in this assessment, yet he neglected that the principal objective of the war was to keep it going to bleed Russia. General Milley had to walk back his statements that threatened to end the war.[13]
The EU almost always advocates for immediate diplomacy and negotiations in conflicts around the world. In Ukraine, the EU’s foreign policy chief at the beginning of the war, Josep Borrell, argued that the war would be won on the battlefield.[14] The incoming foreign policy chief of the EU, Kaja Kallas, rejected any need for diplomacy during the war: “Why talk to him [Putin], he is a war criminal”.[15] Diplomacy now entails sitting in a room with people who agree with you, and pat each other on the shoulder for having isolated the adversary. The EU has completed its transition from a peace project to a geopolitical project.
Arguing against the dangerous precedent of “rewarding” Putin’s aggression with territory has been another seemingly moral argument against peace negotiations. However, this argument is based on the false premise that the war began as a territorial dispute. As we learned from the Istanbul peace agreement, Russia agreed to pull back its troops in return for Ukraine restoring its neutrality. Furthermore, the proxy war has been lost and Ukraine will only lose more men and territory with each passing day.
The Coming Backlash
As the Ukrainian frontlines collapse and their causalities subsequently intensify, the Americans are pushing Ukraine to lower its conscription age as sacrificing the youth could keep the war going for a bit longer. The Ukrainian public no longer wants to fight, desertions increase drastically, and “recruitment” consists of grabbing civilians off the streets and throwing them into vans that take them almost directly to the front lines. A recent Gallup poll found that there is not a single oblast in Ukraine where the majority support continuing the war.[16]
Oleksyi Arestovych, the former advisor to President Zelensky, predicted in 2019 that the threat of NATO expansion would “provoke Russia to launch a large-scale military operation against Ukraine”. NATO would then use the Ukrainian army to defeat Russia: “In this conflict, we will be very actively supported by the West—with weapons, equipment, assistance, new sanctions against Russia and the quite possible introduction of a NATO contingent, a no-fly zone etc. We won’t lose, and that’s good’.[17]
The war did not go as planned and Ukraine is being destroyed, and Arestovych recognises the folly of continuing the war. There is a growing realisation in Ukrainian society that NATO sabotaged the peace to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. Ukrainians will resent Russia for decades to come, although there will also be hatred against the West. The war propagandists in the Western media will then surely act bewildered and blame Russian propaganda.
[1] G. Carbonaro, ‘U.S. Wants Russia ‘Weakened’ So It Can Never Invade Again’, Newsweek, 25 April 2022.
[2] The Economist. ‘Volodymyr Zelensky on why Ukraine must defeat Putin’ The Economist, 27 March 2022.
[3] The Minsk Peace Agreement was never intended to be implemented but used as an opportunity to build a large Ukrainian military, which both German and France have admitted.
[4] R. Semonsen, ‘Former Israeli PM: West Blocked Russo-Ukraine Peace Deal’, The European Conservative, 7 February 2023.
[5] N. Bennett, ‘Bennett speaks out’, YouTube Channel of Naftali Bennett, 4 February 2023.
[6]Emma, ‘Russland will verhandeln!’ [Russia wants to negotiate!], Emma, 4 March 2023.
[7] N. Ferguson, ‘Putin Misunderstands History. So, Unfortunately, Does the U.S.’, Bloomberg, 22 March 2022.
[8] A. Maté, ‘US fighting Russia ‘to the last Ukrainian’: veteran US diplomat’, The Grayzone, 24 March 2022.
[9] A. Maté, ‘US, UK sabotaged peace deal because they ‘don’t care about Ukraine’: fmr. NATO adviser’, The Grayzone, 27 September 2022.
[10] M. McConnell, ‘McConnell on Zelenskyy Visit: Helping Ukraine Directly Serves Core American Interests’, Mitch McConnell official website, 21 December 2022.
[11] L. Lonas, ‘Crenshaw, Greene clash on Twitter: ‘Still going after that slot on Russia Today’’, The Hill, 11 May 2022.
[12] T. O’Conner, ‘So, if the United States is concerned about China and wants to pivot towards Asia, then you have to ensure that Putin doesn’t win in in Ukraine’, Newsweek, 21 September 2023.
“In 2015, scientists at NASA predicted that the Ozone Hole would be half closed by 2020. That hasn’t happened. Other scientists have forecasted that the hole will not begin to disappear until 2040 or later. But the longer the hole persists, the greater the likelihood that the ozone layer is dominated by natural factors, not human CFC emissions.”
Another year has passed, and that stubborn Ozone Hole over Antarctica refuses to go away. Data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) shows that the area of the Ozone Hole remains about the same as it has been over the last 30 years. But will scientists admit that they didn’t save the ozone layer?
Background
Ozone is a gas made up of three oxygen atoms (O3). Ninety percent of the ozone in the atmosphere is found in the stratosphere, a layer of atmosphere between about 10 and 50 kilometers in altitude. The amount of ozone in the atmosphere varies with time of year.
Dr. Mario Molina and Dr. Sherwood Rowland of the University of California published a paper in 1974 warning that industrial chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution was destroying the ozone layer in Earth’s stratosphere. CFCs were gases used in hair spray, refrigerators, and insulating foams.
The theory of Molina and Rowland postulated that CFCs from human industry move upward through the atmosphere to the stratosphere, where ultraviolet radiation breaks down CFC molecules, releasing chlorine atoms. Chlorine then acts as a catalyst to break down ozone molecules into oxygen, reducing the ozone concentration. According to the theory, the more CFCs consumed, the greater the destruction of the ozone layer.
In 1983, researchers from the British Antarctic Survey discovered a thinning of the ozone layer over Antarctica which occurred during August, September, and October. This became known as the Ozone Hole. This appeared to confirm the theory of Molina and Rowland, who were awarded a Noble Prize in chemistry in 1995 for their work.
Montreal Protocol (1987)
The ozone layer blocks ultraviolet rays, shielding the surface of the Earth from high-energy radiation. According to scientists, degradation of the layer would increase rates of skin cancer and cataracts and cause immune system problems in humans. In Earth in the Balance (1992), Al Gore claimed that hunters reported finding blind rabbits in Patagonia and that fishermen were catching blind fish due to human destruction of the ozone layer, but this was not confirmed.
In 1987, 29 nations and the European Community signed executed the “Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer”. Over the next decade, signers of the treaty rose to over 180 nations, all agreeing to ban the use of CFCs.
Because of the Montreal Protocol ban, world consumption of ozone depleting substances (ODS), or chlorofluorocarbons, began falling in 1990. By 2005, ODS consumption was down 90 percent and is now down more than 99 percent, according to the European Environment Agency.
Result?
The Montreal Protocol was hailed as an example of international success of how nations could unite to resolve a major environmental issue. The Protocol has been praised as an example to follow for elimination of greenhouse gas emissions in the fight to halt global warming. But despite the elimination of CFCs, the Ozone Hole remains as large as ever.
NASA reported this fall that the mean ozone hole area for September 7 to October 13 again reached 23 million square kilometers, roughly the same level as in the last three decades stretching back to 1994–1995. The hole remains large, despite that fact that world ODS consumption has almost been eliminated.
In 2015, scientists at NASA predicted that the Ozone Hole would be half closed by 2020. That hasn’t happened. Other scientists have forecasted that the hole will not begin to disappear until 2040 or later. But the longer the hole persists, the greater the likelihood that the ozone layer is dominated by natural factors, not human CFC emissions.
By Dr. Elias Akleh* | Sabbah Report | May 24, 2010
A build up of heightened tension in the Middle East is escalating in the last few weeks. American and Israeli postures towards Lebanon, Syria, and Iran have become more threatening. Listening to speeches of political leaders one hears talks only about war not peace. Iranians and Israelis are continuously training hard for a possible showdown. Both sides are conducting extensive war games every month. This led Syrians to claim that Israel is preparing for a soon-to-come another war. The Jordanians also are warning that current stalemate of the peace process is an indication of a war breaking out this summer. The Russian President and his army chief hinted, a few months ago, that the US and Israel were planning for an attack on Iran.
Indeed Iran is, as it has been for last few years, the target of most of the threats and accusations of supporting terrorism. Escalating incitement against Iran the American Defense Department sent last month (April) to Congress a report on Iran’s military claiming Iran could develop intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US by 2015.
Ignoring the fact that N. Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel are proven to have nuclear weapons while Iran does not, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chose in her speech, to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference at the UN, to focus on Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions putting the whole world at risk as she put it. According to Clinton Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, rather than Israel’s more than 200 nuclear bombs, is destabilizing the Middle East. She called on the world’s nations to rally around US efforts to hold Iran, not other nuclear countries, to account.
The accusation that Usama Bin Laden is living comfortably in Iran had received a boost after the broadcast of a documentary called “Feathered Cocaine”. This echoed the June 2003 claims of the Italian newspaper Corre de la Sierra that Bin Laden was in Iran according to some intelligence report, and according to Richard Miniter’s book “Shadow War”. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
/ heartandsoilsupplements 
/ heartandsoilhq 
/ heartandsoil 
/ heartandsoilsupplements 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
Aletho News
Aletho News 