What is everyone's take on the speech of Gadhafi at the UN in NYC Today, Sept 23 2009
What is everyone's take on the speech of Gadhafi at the UN in NYC Today, Sept 23 2009
The Gathering Spot is a PEERS empowerment website
"Dedicated to the greatest good of all who share our beautiful world"
i went looking for it online. this is the only transcript i found, how accurate i cannot say. Fred's expertise might help with that point. i publish it here as something speaks to me that this may rapidly 'disappear' from the web. my initial feeling upon first read, is that although i may not like the messenger, there may be some truths in there. to date, we remain a world at war, have we seen many prominent political figures here saying H1N1 might be manufactured? etc...so the discussion is now open. hopefully Gadhafi's speech will open a dialogue and result in opening minds rather than deeping separation which may be his intent.
Light finds its way through very unexpected cracks in the darkness.
May Divine Light, Love and Peace prevail. May transparency prevail in politics, governments, big business and global issues on all levels. May the global citizenry continue to wake in unprecedented numbers to the Oneness of all Creation. When we harm one we harm all; when we honor one we honor all. May we remember. May we act to Peace above all else in our world. Today. Now. So be it. Breathing sacred love, onesong
Transcript: Moammar Gadhafi Speech to the UN General Assembly 9-23-09
Distinguished members of the General Assembly of the United Nations, in the name of the African Union, I would like to welcome you. This gathering will be an historic one in the world and the history of the world.
And in the name of the General Assembly that is presided by Libya now, in the name of the African Union, and in the name of 1,000 traditional African kingdoms in your own name, I would like to seize this opportunity to present congratulations to our son, Obama, because this is the first time that he’s attending the General Assembly in this capacity as the president of the United States, and we greet him because it is the hosting country of this gathering.
This meeting comes at the corner at the (inaudible) of so many challenges that face us, and that the whole world should come together and unite and should put all efforts together. Serious efforts should be put together by the world so that the world will defeat these challenges which constitute the main common enemy to all of us — challenges of climate, challenges of international crises, or the economic capitalist deterioration, and the food crisis (inaudible).
Perhaps this swine virus may be one of those viruses that was created in the laboratory and it got out of control because it was meant in the beginning to be used as a military weapon, as well as the military — the nuclear proliferations, as well as the hypocrisy, the deteriorations, and the control of (inaudible).
Dear brothers, as you know, the United Nations was established and founded by countries where — against the Germans at the time. The United Nations that we have today is different today. But the United Nations — it is the countries or the nations that would come together against Germany during the Second World War.
These countries constituted (inaudible) and give members — seats its own members. And granted we were not present at the time. And the United Nations was tailored according to these countries and wanted from us to wear the clothes or the suit that was tailored against Germany. That is the real substance and context of the United Nations as it was founded 40 years — or 60 years ago.
This happened during the absence of over 165 countries where the ratio was one of eight. And one was present and eight were absent.
Those — they created — or they made the charter, and you know — I have the charter, a copy of it. And one should read the charter of the United Nations. The preamble of the United Nations is different from the provisions and the articles. How this came to existence, those who attended in San Francisco in 1945, they all participated in the preamble, but they left articles and the provisions and the procedures the (inaudible). They left it to the job of the experts and the countries who are interested, which are the countries who created the Security Council, which countries came together united against Germany.
The preamble is very tempting, and no one is objecting to the preamble, but everything that came after that is completely in contradiction with the preamble. This is what we have now — this is what we are injecting, and we should never continue.
This came to an end during the Second World War. The preamble says that the nations are equal whether they are small or big.
Are we equal in the permanent seats? No. We are not equals.
And the preamble says that all nations are equal whether they are small nations or whether they are big nations as far as rights.
Do we have rights of a veto? Are we equals? The preamble says that we are equals in our rights whether we are big or small. This is what is stated, and this is what we have agreed in the preamble.
So, the veto is against the charter. The permanent seats are against the charter. We do not accept it and we do not acknowledge it, neither do we recognize it.
The charter states that we — in the preamble, I mean — that we should not resort to military force unless it is a common interest.
This is the preamble which we were happy and we signed, and we joined the United Nations because we wanted the charter to be like that.
It says that the armed forces only use it when it is a common interest to all nations. But after that, what happened? Sixty-five wars broke out after the establishment of the United Nations and after the establishment of the Security Council, and after this establishment. Sixty-five, and the victims are millions more than victims of the Second World War.
Are these wars and the aggressions and the force that was used, and the power (ph) in the 65 wars, in the common interest of all of us? No. It was the interest of one country or three countries or four countries or one country. But it was not in the interest of all the nations.
And we shall come and discuss about the wars, whether these wars broke out was in the interest of one country or were in the whole nations. This is in full contradictions and full intervention of the United Nation charters, and we signed that. And unless we do things in the charter of the United Nations, according to which we agreed, otherwise we don’t speak diplomatically, we are not afraid. We don’t (inaudible), and we were not being nice to anybody.
Now we are talking about the future of (inaudible). There is no hypocrisy, no diplomacy, because it is a decisive and important matter. (inaudible) of understanding and hypocrisy created to 65 wars after the establishment of the United Nations.
The preamble states also that if there is a use of force, then there must be — then it must be the United Nations force, or the United Nations military interventions, according to the joint ventures of the United Nations, not country, or one, two country, or three country, using the force or the military power. The United Nations, all of it, will decide to go to war to maintain peace and world security.
And if there’s any aggression by one country against another after the 45 — after the establishment of this United Nations, if there is any aggression against any country, the United Nations, all together, should deter and stop this aggression, and should check this aggression. I mean, if a country, any country, Libya, for instance, makes an attack or an aggression against France, then the whole United Nations should check the Libyan aggression against France, because France is a member state, an independent state in the United — General Assembly, that is a sovereign country, a member state of the United Nations. And all of us, we have to protect the sovereignty of all nations collectively.
But 65 wars, aggressive wars, took place without any actions from the United Nations to stop and check these wars. And eight fierce, big wars — and victims of these wars among 2 (ph) million — made or initiated by the countries who have member states and veto. Those countries who are believed that they would maintain the sovereignty and independence of the people, these countries actually use aggressive force against people.
We wanted to believe that these countries will make peace and security in the world and protect the people. These countries actually resorted to aggressive wars and (inaudible) wars. And as a matter of fact, they enjoyed the veto that was given to them by themselves and enjoyed the member states of the Security Council. But in the meantime, they actually initiated the war which amounted to millions of victims.
So, in this charter, there is nothing that the United Nations will interfere which will be the pure business of the internal affairs — I mean, the government. It is the internal affairs of a certain government.
No country has the right to interfere in this affair, the sort of government whether it is a socialist, capitalist system, or whether it is a reactionary progressive. This is the responsibility of the society. It is an internal matter of the people concerned of a certain country.
Rome — one day the senators of Rome they gave him (ph) the amendment (ph) to be a dictator, because at the time it was good for Rome. No one can say to Rome at the time that you give Caesar this veto. The veto is not mentioned in the charter.
(inaudible) we joined the United Nations because we thought we are equals. And then there is one country that can object to all of the decisions that we make, and it has a member seat. And who has given this country this member seat?
These four countries, they have given themselves member states. The only country that we have voted in this General Assembly is China. China, we have voted to give China a member state in the Security Council.
This was done democratically, but the other member seats was not Democratic, was imposed upon us. This should not be accepted by us, and it was a dictatorial procedure that was done against our will.
United (ph) reform is not increasing of the member states. It is just making things worse. I don’t know how this will be translated, but if we add more water, it will be more muddy.
This is a typical expression (ph) to add insult to injury. I mean, to make things worse, and to make things even worse by how? Because many big countries will be added further to the former big countries that we already have, and like this it will be (inaudible). So we’ll have more superpowers.
Then from here we reject having any more seats done in this way. The solution is not in having more seats. And the most dangerous one, if we have more superpowers — already, the superpowers that we already have — this will crash down the peoples of all small peoples of third-world countries which now are coming together in what may be called the G-100.
There are 100 small countries coming together in a forum that is called a forum of small states. These countries will be crushed by superpowers, because further superpowers, further big countries will be added to already (inaudible). This door should be closed, and we reject that strongly and categorically.
Then you open the door to have more seats in the Security Council. This will add more poverty, more injustice, more tension at the world level, and more competition and the level of the Security Council. And then we shall have — there will be high competition between certain countries — between Italy, Germany, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Japan, Brazil, Nigeria, Argentina, Brazil, Nigeria, Libya, Egypt, Congo, South Africa, Tanzania, Turkey, Iran, Greece, Ukraine (ph).
All of these countries will ask to have a seat at the Security Council. And like this, we shall have a raise (ph) of competitions, then it will be impractical.
So, what is the solution? The solution is that for the solution presided for the General Assembly by (inaudible), which will be a binding resolution taken by the General Assembly, which will not (inaudible) any other quarter.
The solution is that we shall close the admission of the member states and we don’t have anymore member states. This is an item that is provided for the General Assembly, presided by Dr. Thratcher (ph) right now.
And in place of that will be the achievement of the democracy based on equality between member states. There should be equality between member states and instrumentation of the powers and demanded of the Security Council, the General Assembly. And the membership will be for the associations, not for countries, because if we open the door for more members and more memberships for the countries — because this will give the right to any country to have a member seat in the country. And the preamble allowed that.
No country can say, for instance, you don’t have a seat in the Security Council if a seat is given to Germany. Italy will — Germany, maybe for the argument of Italy, will say it was not — Germany was an aggressive country, was (inaudible), and was defeated in the Second World War. And if we give India a seat, then Pakistan will say we’re a nuclear country and we are at war, and then Pakistan — that would be a danger thing.
If we give it to Japan, then we should give Indonesia, being the biggest Muslim country in the world. And then Turkey or Kenya will have the same rights. What can we say to them? Argentina, Brazil, Libya — Libya, that has discarded the WMD program, because it will deserve a member state because then it then has done service to security by discarded this program. And South Africa will do the same and Tanzania will do the same.
All these countries are important, and (inaudible).
This door should be — this is falsehood, and this is a trick, and if we went to reform the United Nations, and then we bring more superpowers, more countries, and then we add more to the already big superpowers which did quite a lot of suffering to us. And then the solution is to achieve democracy at the level of the general congress of the world, which is the General Assembly, which is transformation of the Security Council power to the General Assembly.
And the Security Council will be just an instrument to implement the decisions taken by the General Assembly. It will be the parliament of the world and the legislative assembly of the world, and this is democracy, and the Security Council should be responsible before the General Assembly, and we should not accept it.
These are the legislators which are the members of the General Assembly and the resolution should be binding. It is said that the General Assembly should do this and this at the recommendation of the Security Council. The Security Council should do this and that according to the rules and the orders of the United Nations.
These are the United Nations, are including all the members of the world, not the Security Council, which include only 10 member states. How can we be happy about the world peace and security if the four countries or 10 countries are controlled by the whole world?
We are 190 nations and countries, and we are like the (inaudible). I mean, we just speak and nobody is implementing our decisions. We are just like decor.
You are made like decor. You are like a Hyde Park. You were — I mean, without any real substance. It’s just according to speaker like the speakers of the Hyde Park corner. No more, no less. You just make a speech and then disappear. This is who you are right now.
The Security Council is an executive body for the resolution taken by the General Assembly only. And in this case, there will be no competition for the Security Council member states, because once the Security Council becomes a tool to implement the resolution taken by the General Assembly, there will be no need for any competition.
The Security Council should just be a representative for all nations, but not by a state — this is what is submitted now to the General Assembly — but a permanent seat for all space, for all union, I mean. Twenty-seven countries for European Union. They should have a permanent seat at the Security Council.
The African Union should have a member seat in the Security Council, 53 countries. And Latin Americans should have a permanent seat and the (inaudible) should have a permanent seat. And the (inaudible), plus two or countries, should have a permanent seat. The Russian federation should have a permanent seat.
The United States of America, which is 50 states, it has already a permanent member seat at the Security Council. (inaudible), once it is established — or is about to be established — should have a member state. (inaudible) should have a member seat, 22 countries.
The Islamic Conference, 45 countries, should have also a member seat. Then (inaudible) should have a permanent member seat in the Security Council.
Then we have the G-100. Then we think about that perhaps all small countries, the forum (ph) of small countries, perhaps they would have a permanent member seat also. If there are countries outside of the (inaudible) that I mentioned, maybe we can assign a permanent seat will be given to them by rotation every six months. Japan, Australia, may be outside any union, or Australia, or in other countries.
Perhaps they would not join the (inaudible) or the Russian Federation, or not a member in the European Union or the Latin American Union, or in the African Union. Perhaps any country will be given — this is the solution, that now this is meant for a vote for the Security Council — for the General Assembly to take a vote.
This is a vital, important issue. And I mentioned, the General Assembly is the congress of the world, the parliament of the world, the master of the world, and no one should object. No one should — we are the nations. Anyone outside this General Assembly we do not recognize.
(inaudible) and Ban Ki-moon, his excellency, the secretary- general of the United Nations, will make the draft, the legal draft, and set up the necessary committees to submit this for voting. The Security Council from now will be made of unions.
This is justice. This is democracy. And then we put an end to the Security Council will be occupied by the countries — which one has nuclear weapons, which one has technology, one has technology.
This is terrorism. We cannot have the Security Council and the countries which have the superpowers. This is terrorism in itself.
If you went a world that lives in peace, united, we should do that. If we want a world, then it’s up to you. Then we have conflict, and then we should continue fighting each other, or conflict until doomsday or until the end of the world.
These members which have a veto or they don’t have a veto. All the Security Council, they should have the right of the veto. All of these unions belonging to the seats. Or we should cancel the whole veto with the new formation.
This is the real Security Council. And anyhow, the new Security Council that is submitted to the new proposals, submitted to the General Assembly for voting, will be an executive council which will be under the control of the General Assembly. The General Assembly, which will have the real power and the real (inaudible), like all countries will be equal in the Security Council in the same way they are equal in the General Assembly.
We are in the General Assembly. We have equal votes. We should also be equals next door, which is the Security Council.
A country has a veto, a country doesn’t have a veto, a country has a member seat, and then a country should not have a member seat, we should not accept it and it should be a mandate (ph) from now. And we should not be subjected to it, and we should not accept any resolution taken by the Security Council according to the composition right now.
We were (inaudible). We are independent. And now we are here to decide the future of the world in a democratic way that will maintain world and peace security. All people, small and big, are equals.
This is terrorism, like the terrorism of the Al Qaida. This is terrorism. Terrorism is not just Al Qaida, but it can be also in other forms.
We should resort to the maturity of the votes of the General Assembly alone, and we should not vote (ph). If the General Assembly takes a vote, then it should be implemented and should be taken, and taken into decision. And it should be enforced.
And no one should say I am above and higher than the General Assembly. Anyone who says that I’m higher than or above the General Assembly should leave the United Nations and be alone.
Democracy is not for the rich or for the — for the rich or for the one who terrorizes. So, for the one who is more powerful than us, (inaudible) democracy? No.
The higher (inaudible) should be their own nations at equal footing. Now the Security Council is security feudalism, political feudalism for those who have permanent seats protected by them. And they are used against us.
It should not be called the Security Council. It should be called the “Terror Council.”
You see, my brothers, that in our life, in our political life, that if the Security Council is used against us, then they go to the Security Council, they resort to the Security Council. If they have no need to use it against us, then they ignore the Security Council.
If the charter — they have interests, an ax to grind to use against us, they respect the charter. They look for the seven chapters of the Security — charter (inaudible). But if they want to violate the charter, they would ignore the charter as if it doesn’t exist at all.
If the veto on the permanent seat is given to the one who has the power is injustice and terrorism that will not be accepted by us, and we should not live under the shadow of this injustice and this terror. Superpowers have interests, complicating (ph) interests, and they use the interests, they use the (inaudible), they use the power of the United Nations to protect their interests. And these terrorized and intimidated the Third World. The Third World is terrified and being terrorized and living under the fear of terror.
The Security Council ever since it was established in ‘49 did not provide us with security, but provided us, on the contrary, terror and sanctions. It is used against us only. For this reason, we are not committed to adhere to the Security Council resolutions after this speech of the fortieth anniversary.
Sixty-four wars took place — broke out against the war (ph) — against the world, against small (inaudible). That it is fighting between small countries or aggression in wars against — by superpowers against countries, big countries against us. And United Nations or the Security Council did not take any actions to stop these wars and aggressions in violation of the charter of the United Nations against small nations and small peoples. And the General Assembly will vote for these historic resolutions.
Either we continue together in one nations or we go into — break into two equal nations, have its own general assembly, its own security council belonging to it, where they have equal footing, standing on equal footing or — and the big countries who have the permanent seats, who have their rights, will stay in their own councils, whether there are four or three, as they wish (inaudible).
And they should exercise veto against themselves, and this is not of our interest.
And if they want to stay in permanent seats, OK, that’s OK, but permanent is a threat for (inaudible) but we shall never stay under the supervision or the control of the veto and the right of veto to given countries. We are not (inaudible) to give — we are not fool to give the right of a veto to big powers to use us, and we are treated like second class and like despised nations. We have not decided that these are big nations, (inaudible) nations, respected nations. These are the nations of the world which represent 190 countries.
We know that now ignoring the resolutions of the Security Council is now — though it is unjust, and it is only used against us. It is not used against the big countries who have the permanent seats or those countries who have the right of veto. They never use any resolution against them. In the country, it is used against us.
So, any resolutions taken against us, it has become a travesty of the United Nations, and it has become wars and violations of independent states authorities (ph) and committing war crimes and genocides. And these are all in violation of the Security Council, even though there is a Security Council, and nobody cares about the Security Council and even though now each now, each country has — each (inaudible) community have become security councils, establishing its own security councils and with the security councils in its own formation.
Now it has — the Security Council (inaudible) has become isolated. The African Union has already established MASS (ph), which is the peace and security for Africa, and the European Union has already established the security council. The (inaudible) already establishing its own security councils. America will have its own concerns, non-alignment (ph). One hundred twenty countries will have its own peace and security council.
This means that we have already lost the trust in the Security Council, which have not provided us with security. And now that’s why we are creating regional peace securities or regional security councils. We are not committed to obey the rules or the resolutions of the security councils in this formation because it is undemocratic, unjust, and no one can force us to be a member of the security councils and to obey or adhere to resolutions or all of this given by Security Council in its composition as it is right now.
Now, brothers, there is no respect to the United Nations. No regard to the General Assembly, which constitutes (ph) actually the real substantive (inaudible), and which — it has no decisions that is abiding. The International Court of Justice, it is a judicial international body, and resolutions only implemented against the small countries, the small nations. And big countries are rejected to be implemented against the big countries. There are resolutions or court orders taken against these big countries, but they have been refused to be implemented against them.
The International — the IAEA (ph), an important one in the United Nations, are not — big countries are not responsible for it, or are not under control. And we have discovered that this is only used against us. It is a (inaudible) against us. You told us, this is an international one, so if it is an international one, then all the countries of the world should be under jurisdictions of this one. If it’s not international, then we close the door and arrive from this now, from this speech, we shall close the door, and we should not accept it.
And adopt a (inaudible) president of the General Assembly. He will talk to the director of the — Baradei (ph) or the (inaudible). They will ask him, do you inspect the nuclear supplies of all? Do you supervise the increase of this nuclear storage? Then if he says, yes, then OK, then we accept that we’ll be under control. But if he says that we cannot go to these countries who have the nuclear powers, and I cannot have any jurisdiction, then we should close the door, and we not accept it to be under its control.
For your information, I told Baradei when we had the problem (inaudible) nuclear bomb, and predecessor, I called them and I told them, Mr. Baradei, the agreements to increase — to decrease the nuclear supplies between the superpowers, is it under control? Is there any provisions that if it’s in a country increased its nuclear heads, are you aware of that? He said to me, no. These big powers I cannot go so close to it. I cannot ask them. I cannot — so, you’re only coming to us.
I said that this is not an international organization. So, it is meant only for us. Security Council’s against us. International — IAEA against us. International Court of Justice against us. And they are free. This is not injustice — this is not justice. This is not United Nations. This is rejected totally.
As regards Africa, Dr. (inaudible), if you want to reform — whether they reform the United Nations or not, and even before you take any historic decisions or vote against Africa, a need is now for now a permanent member seat in the Security Council because this is (inaudible). Even if we are not talking about the United Nations reform, Africa was colonized, was isolated, was persecuted, was usurped (ph), was treated like animals, was treated like slaves, was treated colonies, was colonized, was put under the trusteeship.
These countries, the African Union deserves a permanent seat for the past. It’s an outstanding bill to be paid, like (inaudible). And it has nothing to do with the United Nation reforms. This is a priority and high on the agenda for the General Assembly, and no one can say that the African Union does not deserve a permanent seat.
Who has the argument? Anyone can talk to me even right now or argue with me. Any proof that the African Union does not deserve a permanent seat or that the African continent does not deserve a permanent seat. No one can argue, or no one can refute what I am saying.
It is also for voting for the General Assembly for compensation to countries who were colonized. And why? So that no more repetition of colonizations and no more usurpation and stealing of the wealth of the people.
And why the Africans should go to Europe? Why do Africans go to Europe? Why do Asians go to Europe? Why do Latin American people go to Europe? Because Europe was colonized by — they took the mines (ph), the wealth, all the resources of Africa, of Asia, of Latin America. And they took all the oil, the fruit, the vegetables and the stock and the people, and they used them.
Now, the new generation, the African generations whether it is Asian, whether it is Latin America or it is in Africa, now they are looking for these ones which have been usurped and stolen. Now, when I stop one African (inaudible) going to Europe (inaudible), I told them where are you going? They told me, I’m going to take my usurped wealth. If you bring my reserved wealth, then I don’t go. I stop.
Who can bring back the wealth that was taken to me? Make a decision to bring all these resources and wealth so that no more immigration from the Philippines to Latin America, to Mauritius, to India. Let us have the wealth that was taken from us and looted from us. Africa deserves compensation — trillion $7.7, $7.77 trillion.
That’s the compensation Africa deserves from the countries who colonized Africa. Africa will call for that.
And if you don’t give us this amount, 7.77, the Africans will go to where you have taken these trillions. They have the right. They have to follow. Bring the money back. And then they can be (inaudible).
No Libyan immigration to Italy, even though Libya’s so (inaudible). Why there is no Libyan immigration to Italy? Because Italy (inaudible) compensation for the Libyan people (inaudible) and accepted the compensations and signed the (inaudible), a treaty, an agreement with the Italian — with Libyan, and it was endorsed by the Italian parliament, and accepted that the colonization was wrong, and we should not be repeated again.
And Italy would not accept to be attacked whether by air, sea against the Libyan people and that Libya will compensate for the next 20 years, will pay a quarter of billions and will build hospitals for the Libyans who are lost their members of their hands or their fingers because of the mines during the Second World War when the mines were laid upon the Libyan land.
Italy made apology and was sorry and said that it will never be a country — will occupy other country, the territories of other countries. And it was — Italy when it was a kingdom and it was Italy during the fascist regime. And Italy has done a glorified thing and a civilized thing and should be commended during the Berlusconi and even the predecessor to Berlusconi did their own contribution until we achieved this result.
The Third World calls for compensation, why? So that we don’t have any more colonizations, so we don’t have a repeat of colonizations. And so that no country will be big and will covet (ph) to colonize another country. So that this country will know that there will be compensation, and will not go on (inaudible). Colonization should be eliminated, and countries should pay compensations who have done damage to the peoples during the colonization area, and they should be compensated for the damage and the suffering that they have inflicted during their colonial power.
The other point I would hope that we have to face patiently — but before I say this point, it’s is rather sensitive to a certain extent. There are sentences between two brackets I would like to shed some light upon and mention. We as a matter of fact that we Africans are happy, proud, that one son of Africans governs the United States of America, of Africa. This is a historic event. One day that the black doesn’t go where the white go and cannot be in a bus where the white is. Now, the American people, the black African Kenyan, young — voted for him and made him a president. This is a great thing, and we are proud of that.
You are the beginning of a change. He did go for a change. But as far as I’m concerned, Obama is a glimpse in the dark for the four years or the next eight years, and I’m afraid that we may go back to square one. How can you guarantee America after Obama? Can you guarantee after Obama how America will be governed?
No one can guarantee America. We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as the president of the United States of America.
The speech made by Obama just before me, it is completely different when (ph) an American president that we have witnessed or that we have lived with or — the former Americans, they used to say, and I quote, they say, “We shall send you the — all the weapons. We shall send you the road clusters and the sandstorms and the rolling thunder, and we shall send you the poisonous roses to the Libyan children.”
This was the logic. The American presidents used to say to us, they shall terrorize us. We shall send you the like rolling thunder like the one was sent to Vietnam. We shall send you rolling thunder the same way that was sent to Vietnam, and the sandstorm like it was sent to Iraq.
We shall send you — the night (ph) as it was sent to Egypt in ‘56 even though America was against the night operations. And we shall send you the poisonous rose that Reagan sent to the Libyan children. Can you imagine the president of a permanent country, a big country has a permanent seat at the Security Council, has a right to veto? We thought that America will protect us and send us peace.
What is it? These are lesser-guided bombs sent to us according to the — carried on the F-1 airplanes. This was the logic. And we shall lead the world, and we shall punish anyone who — anyone whether they like it or not. We shall punish anyone who will be against us. Now, what our son Obama said is completely different today. He’s calling for the — seriously, for discardment (ph) or the deproliferation (ph) of nuclear weapons, and we should applaud that. America cannot solve the problem alone, and the whole world should come together.
And he said that the position we are at now, we should not continue. Now we are meet (ph) and making a speech it should not be like that. We accept it. We applaud it. And then the United Nations also we come here to United Nations to talk against each other. It’s true that we come here, we should have equal footing and equal unions and equal associations, and he says that democracy we should not be imposed from outside.
So, the reason there is the American president who recently says that we should impose democracy against Iraq and against so on, so on, so on. He did say that this is an (inaudible) of everybody. This was lost (ph) words, and what we hear right now is the true sense of the word when he said that democracy cannot be imposed from outside.
So, we have to be cautious, and before I just say my sensitive remark or the whole — the whole world has so many problems (ph).
Shh, whole world, shh, listen, listen. World of so many problems (ph). Should be like that, should we have so many problems (ph)? Can’t we nations on equal footing? Can’t we — let’s have an answer.
Anyone have an answer that it is better to have a world of so many polarities? Why can’t we have equal standing? Should we have a patriarch (ph)? Should we have bombs? Should we have guns? Is it — and this is — why should we have a world of so many polarity?
We reject — we accept — we don’t — we do not accept that a world living not equal, big and small. The other point that is sensitive, the quarters of the United Nations. Please, can I have your attention? Please, can I have your attention?
All of you came across the Atlantic, crossing the Atlantic oceans, the Asian continent or the African continent to reach this place. Why? Is this the Jerusalem? Is this the Vatican? Is this Mecca? All of you are tired, having jet lag, suffering from jet lag, tired, had sleepless night, and very tired and physically speaking, you are very low. One just arrived now, flying 20 hours, and then you 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 the energy because of having to travel a long journey. Why do that? Your country now, some of our countries are in nighttime, and they are asleep, and now you should be asleep because your biological hour or your biological mind is accustomed to be asleep at this time. I wake up 4:00 at New York time, before dawn, because in Libya it is 11:00 in the morning.
Because when I wake up at 11:00, I am supposed to be daytime. At 4:00 I’m awake. Why do you think? Why do you think, why? Think about it. If this was put in ‘45, should we keep it up to now? Why can’t we think about a place that is in the — comfortable?
The other point, America, the hosting country, that bears the consequences — the expenses and the looking after the headquarters and the looking after the peace and security of heads of state who come here, very strict, and they spend a lot of money and New York and all of America being very tired. I want to relieve America from this hardship. We should thank America, and we say to America, thank you for all the trouble that incurred upon itself. And we say thank you to America. We want to help America. We want to make America secure and New York secure, and we should not have the responsibility of looking after the security.
Perhaps somebody would do — any terrorists will make an explosion or a bomb of an aircraft or a president or an American, and then this place is a target by — targeted by the Al Qaida. This very same place, the same building. And if it was — and why? Because on the 11th of September, it did not hit it. That was beyond their power.
And the next target, that would be — and I’m not saying this out of the record that we have tens of members of Al Qaida being detained in the Libyan prisons and (inaudible), very scary. And this makes America lives in — under tension, and perhaps you never know what will happen.
Perhaps America will be targeted again by a rocket, or by perhaps tens of heads of state will die.
We want America, to relieve America from this worry, and we shall take the place to a place where it is not targeted. Now, after 50 years, should be taken to another part of the hemisphere. Fifty years in the western hemisphere. Now for the next 50 years should be in the eastern hemisphere or in the middle hemisphere, like this by rotation. Now 64 years now, now we have extra 14 years over the 50 years that the quarters should have been taken from this.
This is not any insult to America. This is a service to America. We should thank America. This was possible in 1945, but we should not accept it now. And, of course, this is also put for vote in the General Assembly. Only in the General Assembly, because Article 23 of the — of the agreement 64, it says that — (inaudible).
After the America has the right to make any tight securities because America is targeted by the terrorists and by Al Qaida. America has the right to be — to take all the security measures. We’re not blaming America for that. But we don’t tolerate these measures. We don’t have to come to New York. And we don’t have to be submitted to all these measures. One president told me that your copilot should not come to America because there is restrictions. He said, how can I come — how can I cross the Atlantic without a copilot? Why, why? He doesn’t have to. He doesn’t have to come here.
When another president complained that his guard cannot — his honor guard cannot come because there is some misunderstanding in his name and granting him a visa. He came — one other president came and said, my own doctor, he couldn’t get a visa, and he could not come to America because he was not granted an entry visa. You see, the security measures very strict.
And, of course, if there is any problem that a country has with America, then they will put restrictions for the movement of the member delegations like in Guantanamo. Is this a member state of the United Nations or he is a prisoner in the Guantanamo camp that he cannot allow free movement?
So, this is what is submitted for voting for the United — for the General Assemblies. The transformation or the moving of the headquarters. If 51 percent say, then we come to the second vote. To the middle of the globe or to the eastern part of the globe. If we say that we have to take the headquarters, then certain — the place is (inaudible). Whether the middle — whether the center hemisphere. Why don’t we go to (inaudible). If you go to 1,000 (inaudible), and no one can blame you? And no — you can come even without a visa.
Once you come with a president, it’s a secure country (ph).
We are not going to restrict you to 100 or 500 meters, and Libya has no hostile actions against anybody. And again, I think we’ll be in the same positions. And if the vote, it say that we shall have to take the vote to the eastern part, then it will be Delhi or Beijing in China, the capital of China or the capital city of India.
And this is logic, I believe, my brothers. And I don’t think there will be any objection to that. And then you will play — you will say that thank — you will thank me for this proposal for eliminating the suffering and the trouble of flying over 20 hours and 15 hours to come to this place, and no one can blame America, can say that America will reduce its contribution to the United Nations.
No, nobody should have this bad thought.
America, I’m sure, will be committed to its international obligations, and America will not be angry, and America will thank you for alleviating the hardship of America. And America should thank us for taking all the hardship and all the restrictions for the — this, plus — even though this place is targeted by terrorists. Then we come to the — we come to the issues that will be taken by the General Assembly.
Either we have to try ourselves. Either we do the right thing, or whether we have a new meeting. This is not a normal meeting. This is not a normal gathering.
This is — even my son, Obama said that. He said that this is a historical one. This is not a normal gathering. This is not a normal one.
Now, the wars that took place after the establishment of the Second World War, why did it happen? Where was the Security Council? Where was the charter? Where was the United Nations?
There should be investigations, and there should be court orders. And why there was massacres? We start with the Korean War.
This was taken after the establishment of the United Nations.
How a war broke out and millions of people fell victims, and perhaps there was even a nuclear — a nuclear — the world was about — the world was about to witness a nuclear war. And those who are responsible, and those who caused the war should be tried and should pay the consequence.
Then we come to the Suez Canal war in 1956. The file should be opened. Why three countries who have permanent seats in the Security Councils enjoyed the right, the veto of the Security Council’s attack, a member state in this General Assembly?
A country that is Egypt in this case, that was a sovereign state, was attacked and the army was destroyed. And thousands of Egyptian people were killed, and towns, villages were destroyed.
How could such a thing happen during the era of the United Nations? And how can we guarantee that such a thing will not be repeated unless we redeem the past?
And this is a very dangerous thing. The Suez Canal war, the Korean War, we should open the files.
And then we come to the Vietnam War. Three million victims of the Vietnam War. During 11 days, bombs were used more than the bombs used during the whole war. And during the Second World War, all the shells and the bombs that were used, or bombed during the four years of the war, the bombs that were used in the 12 days were more than.
This was a fierce war. And this war took place after the establishment of the United Nations. And we decided that there would be no wars.
This is the future of the mankind, and we cannot keep quiet. How can we be — how can we be safe? How can we feel accomplished? How can we feel complacent, I mean. This is the future of the world and this is the General Assembly of the world, and we have to make sure that such wars will not be repeated in the future.
Then Panama was attacked, even though it was an independent state, a member state of the General Assembly, of the United Nations. And 4,000 peoples were killed, and the president of this country was taken as a prisoner and was taken — put in prison.
And Noriega should be released, and we should open the file. And how we give the right to a country that is a member state of the United Nations to go and wage a war against a country and take the president of such a country and take him as a criminal and put him in prison? Who would accept that?
This may be repeated. And we should not be quiet, and we should make investigations, and we should — each one of us may face the same destiny. Each member state of us may face the same, especially if this aggression is made by a member state that is — has a member seat in the Security Council and supposed to look and maintain the world peace security.
Then we have the Grenada war. This country was attacked, was invaded even though it was a member state, by 7,000 — 5,000 warships and using 7,000 troops. It is the smallest country in the world.
And after the establishment of the Security Council, after the establishment of the United Nations, and the (inaudible). And the president of this country, Maurice Bishop, was assassinated. How this can be done with impunity? This is a tragedy.
And then how can we guarantee that the United Nations is good or not, that the Security Council is good enough? Can we be safe and happy about our future or not? Can we trust the Security Council or not? Can we trust the United Nations or not?
Then we have to check and investigate the bombing of Somalia.
Somalia was a member state of the United Nations. It is an independent country. And (inaudible).
Why? Who allowed that? Who gave the green light for such a country to attack — to be attacked?
Then the Yugoslav war. No country that is peaceful country like Yugoslavia, that was built — that was built step by step, piece by piece, after it was destroyed by Hitler. We destroy it as if we are doing the same job like Hitler.
Hitler — after the death of Tito — and he built this country step by step and brick by brick, and then we come and dismember it for imperialist personal interests. How can we be satisfied? How can we be happy? If a peaceful country like Yugoslavia faced this tragedy, the General Assembly should make investigations and the General Assembly should decide who should be tried for the (inaudible).
Then we come to the Iraqi war, the mother of all evils. The United Nations also should investigate.
The General Assembly presided by (inaudible) should be investigated by the General Assembly, the invasion of Iraq itself. This was in violation of the United Nations charter without any justifications made by several countries who have member seats in the Security Council.
Iraq is an independent country, member in this General Assembly. How this country is attacked and how this country — how we have already read in the general — in the — in the charter that the United Nations should have interfered and stopped.
We have come to General Assembly, and we have resorted to the General Assembly. We said that we should go to the General Assembly and use the charter for the checking (ph). We were against this invasion of Kuwait, but Arab countries fought with foreign countries in the name of the General Assembly with foreign countries.In the first place, the U.N. charter was respected. And the second time we wanted to use to it stop the war against Iraq, no one used the U.N. charter. And it was discarded in the dustbin.
Why? General Assembly should investigate. Why? Why there was any reason to invade Iraq? Because it is mysterious, ambiguous, and we may face the same destiny. Why did we invade Iraq?
The invasion in itself is a serious violation of the U.N. charter. I mean, the invasion itself, per se, is wrong. Then the total massacre, or the genocide. More than 1.5 million Iraqi people were killed.
We want the — we want to take this file and we want to — those who have committed the general mass murder against the Iraqi people should be tried. Yes.
Make it easy for (inaudible) to go to be tried, or Bashir to be tried. Or it is easy for (inaudible) to be tried, or Noriega to be tried. That is an easy job to be done.
OK. What about those who have committed mass murder against Iraqis? Cannot be tried? Cannot go to the — we should not accept it. Either it is meant for all of us, big or small, or we should not accept it and refuse it.
If anyone who commits a crime and can be tried, we are not animals in the livestock, or in — that we slaughter — we have the right. We are ready to fight. We are ready to defend ourselves. And we have the right to live dignified under the sun, on the Earth, and they have already tested us, and we can put up to test.
The other thing, how come that prisoners of war of Iraq can be sentenced to death? Then when Iraq was invaded and the president of the Iraqi war was caught, it was made as a prisoner of war. He should not be tried. He should not be hanged. And after the end of war, he should be released.
So, we want to know why the prisoner of war have been tried or should have been tried. Who sentenced to death the president of Iraq? Is there an answer to that?
We know who tried — who tried him, the name of the judge, the identity of the judge. Who put on the sacrifice day the rope around the neck and killed — or hanged the president? People we don’t know, they have a mask over their face.
If this is a civilized war, these are prisoners of war under civilized countries, under the international law. How a member of a government and the president of a country should be sentenced to death and hanged, do they have the right? Are they legal people? Are they a member of a judicial system?
Do you know what other people say — or what the people say? People say that the American president and the president — the British president are wearing the masks, and they have already put to death the president of Iraq.
This is — why don’t they uncover their face? Why don’t we know their ranks? Why don’t we know, is he an officer or a judge, a doctor?
Who is he? How come a president of a country, a member state, is sentenced to death and killed? We don’t know the identity.
Those countries, the implementation — the United Nations has the duty to answer these questions. Who have exercised or implemented the death sentence? Those foreigners, they should have the legal status (ph), and they should have the legal status (ph), and we should know the identity of the presence of the doctor, and all the legal procedures should be, even for a layman, let alone as the president of a country, a member state in the United Nations to be sentenced in such a way and put to death in such a way.
This is the Iraqi war.
Point number three in the Iraqi war is the Abu Ghraib situation, which is a disgrace to mankind. I know America made the investigations for this scandal, or the authorities under the Americans, but the United Nations also should not forget it. The United Nations should — the General Assembly of the United Nations should investigate and look into this matter.
The Abu Ghraib decisions, the prisoners of war who were prosecuted there and who were badly treated, and dogs were used on them, and men were made love to. And no one has done this before in previous wars, sodomy, and this is unprecedented. No one — no previous aggressions, or no — or aggressors and prisoners of war, there are — there are soldiers, and they are raped in prisons.
Then by a member state of the Security Council, this Security Council, this is against civilization. And this is a humane kind, and we should not keep quiet. We should know the facts.
And up to now, a quarter of a million prisoners are still — men and women are in Abu Ghraib. They are badly treated and persecuted and raped. We should never forget, and we should open an investigation for that.
Then Afghanistan. Then we have the Afghani war.
There should also be an investigation for the Afghani war. Why are we against Taliban? Why are we against Afghanistan? Who’s Taliban?
If Taliban wants to make a religious state, OK, like the Vatican. (Not even close)
Related: Transcript: Obama UN General Assembly Speech 9-23-09
On the web:
Moammar Gadhafi official website
JANA NEWS (Libyan) Google translation
The transcript was not on the English version of JANA News. They may have not had time to publish it when I last visited. Shrug. What they do have up in Arabic is in bits and pieces. I have not had the time to compare between the version I posted or the translated version on Jana News. I wonder if there are any differences between the two.
Tags: Moammar Gadhafi, news, politics, transcript, UN
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Thank you for this transcript. I always find that even those leaders of countries which the US Government call enemies speak more truth than our own politicians.
(nothing personal, Berry...) shame on us that we continue to elect them! is the fluoride in our water supply THAT effective?
Praying for positive change. Light illuminating our way. Transparency. Everyone's need over greed. onesong
I join in sending Love, Light and Peace to any and all situations/people on this lovely planet Earth.