Muammar Gaddafi address to the UNGA September 23rd, 2009
The Libyan leader addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York. His 96 minute speech, which broke the alloted 15 minute protocol, marked the first time he addressed the international body since leading a coup in 1969 which ended rule by monarchy in Libya and brought him to power. A great speech, well reasoned, and 20 pages long when printed out.
In the name of the African Union, I would like to greet the members of the General Assembly of the United Nations. I hope this session will be among the most historic in the history of the world. In the name of the General Assemblies 64th session, Libya, the African Union, and the 1,000 African Kingdoms and in my own name I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate our son Obama who is here attending, and we welcome him as the host nation for this gathering. This session takes place in the midst of so many challenges, and we hope the whole world will unite to overcome these challenges which are a shared enemy. Climate change, capitalist economic decline, food and water scarcity, global warming, terrorism, immigration, piracy, man made and natural diseases, and nuclear weapons proliferation. Perhaps the H1N1 influenza virus was created in an out of control labratory designing a military weapon? The challenges also include hypocrisy, poverty, fear, materialism, and evil.
As everyone knows, the UN was founded by 3 or 4 countries who had banded together to fight Germany in WW2. They formed a body called the Security Council, made themselves permanent members, and gave themselves monopoly of the veto. We were not present for this. The UN was shaped according to the 3 countries, and approached us as if we were wearing the shoes of Germans. That is the truth of the UN's founding over 60 years ago. This happened in the absence of 165 countries. For every country present, 8 were absent. They drafted the Charter, and I have a copy here. If you read the Charter of the UN, you find that the Preamble of the Charter differs from its Articles. How did this happen? All those who attended the San Francisco summit in 1945 helped draft the Preamble, but they left the Articles and the proceedures of the so called Security Council to experts, professionals, and select countries, the ones who had fought on the side of the Allies against Germany.
The Preamble is beautiful, and no one objects to it, but the Articles which follow are in complete contradiction. We reject such rules and proceedures and will never support them. The need for them ended with WW2. The Preamble says that all nations, large or small, are equals. But are we equals with those who sit in the permanent seats? No, we not equal. Do we have a veto? So the veto contradicts the Charter. The permanent seats contradict the Charter.
The Preamble states that military force should not be used save for the common interest. That is what we signed when we joined the UN. What has happened since the founding? 65 wars have been fought, with millions more victims than WW2. Were all those 65 wars fought in the common interest? No, they were in the interests of 1 or 3 or 4 countries, not all countries. These wars flagrantly contradict the Charter of the UN which we signed, and we are not afraid to cut diplomatic relations with anyone. It was hypocrisy which brought about the 65 wars since the founding of the UN. The Preamble also states that if armed force is to be used, it must be a United Nations force, thus a UN military, not just 1 or 2 or 3 countries. If a country, Libya for example, were to exhibit aggression against France, then the UN would protect France, because France is a Permanent Member of the UN. But none of these 65 wars have had any intervention by a United Nations army. 8 massive and fierce wars, claiming the lives of 2 million soldiers each, have been waged by the member states with veto power. With the veto power they grant themselves immunity from scutiny, while claiming they are fighting for the sovereignty and independence of the people they are killing.
The principle of non interference in the internal affairs of nations is enshrined in the Charter of the UN. Every member state, be they democratic, dictatorial, socialist, capitalist, fascist or progressive, has the right of internal indipendence. It is a matter for the people of the country to decide. The senators of Rome initially elected Julius Caesar as dictator, because it was beneficial to Rome in that moment. But they did not give Caesar the veto, and the veto is not mentioned in the UN Charter. We joined the UN welcomed as equals, only to discover that a single country can object to every motion we make. Who granted the permanent members their status on the Security Council? 4 of them gave it to themselves.
To reform the Security Council by increasing the number of participants, this would only make things worse. To use a common expression, if you add too much water, you get mud. It would be the addition of insult to injury. We reject the addition of more permanent members, which is dangerous. To grant more nations superpowers would only further crush those below, the small and vulnerable third world countries. They are coming together in what is called the Group of 100, 100 small countries allied in a forum that another member calls the Forum of Small States. An increase in uber national entities would crush the Group of 100 with their power. Adding more seats to the Security Council would increase poverty, injustice, and conflict on a global level, creating competition between countries such as Italy and Germany; Indonesia, India and Pakistan; the Philipines and Japan; Brazil and Argentina; Nigeria, Algeria, Libya and Egypt; the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa and Tanzania; Turkey and Iran; Greece and Ukraine. All these countries would use the Security Council seat to outcompete their rivals. What different things are possible? The solution is for the General Assembly to adopt the resolution submitted by Mister Treki, which represents the majority consensus of member states.
We should focus on the realization of a democracy of the member states, and the powers of the Security Council should be transferred to the General Assembly. A seat at the UN should be for coalitions of nations, not the nations themselves. This would increase representation by introducing parties to the UN. If a seat is given to Italy, then how can Germany be denied a seat? If we give India a seat, Pakistan would argue that it also deserves one, and all the nuclear powers would demand to be given one as well. But they are at war with each other, and it would be dangerous to have them both on the Security Council. If we give a seat to Japan, then Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation, also deserves one. Turkey, Iran and Ukraine would make the same arguments. What would we say to Argentina or Brazil? Libya also deserves a seat for its efforts to advance the cause of global peace, by dismantling its weapons of mass destruction. Security Council membership should be frozen. An increase in participation has been shown to be a trick and a lie. The United Nations is composed of 192 countries, this is democracy on a global level. The Security Council is composed of 15 of these countries. How could we be happy with this state of affairs, where the whole world is controlled by 5 countries?
These 187 nations are like the Speakers Corner in London's Hyde Park, we do nothing but talk and nobody listens to us. We are decorations with no substance. The Security Council should be run by coalitions of nations. The 27 countries of the European Union should have one seat. The coalition of African nations should have one seat. South America and the Pacific rim countries should each have a seat. The Russian Federation and the United States of America already have one seat each. The 22 countries of the Arab League should have a seat. The 57 countries of the Islamic Conference should have a seat. The 118 countries of the Non Aligned Movement should have one seat. Then there is the G-100, perhaps a coalition of the small countries should have one seat? Countries not part of any coalition could perhaps be assigned a rotating seat, moving them through every 6 or 12 months, countries like Japan and Australia who are isolated, or like the Russian Federation which is part of neither Europe nor Asia. The President of the General Assembly, Mister Ali Abdussalam Treki, and Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, will draft a proposal and submit it to a vote, converting the seats of the Security Council into seats for coalitions of nations, not for individual nations. In this way we will have justice and democracy, and not a Security Council composed of the countries with nuclear weapons, huge economies, and advanced technology. That is terrorism. We cannot allow the Security Council to be run by the strongest, that is terrorism plain and simple. If you prefer to remain a world at war, you can vote no.
We will continue to fight until doomsday and armageddon unless all Security Council members have a right to a veto, or else we should eliminate the whole concept of a veto. Under this proposal the General Assembly will now have all the power, and the Security Council will be subordinate to the General Assembly. Then everyone will be equals. Right now one country has a veto, another country has no veto. One country has a guaranteed seat, anothers is provisional. We should reject this and all the resolutions passed by the Security Council, in its current configuration. We were held under trusteeship, we were colonized, now we are free. We are here today to decide the future of the earth in a democratic manner, to uphold peace and the sanctity of all nations large and small, as equals. Otherwise it is a reign of terrorism. Terrorism is not just Al Qaida, but can take other forms. The majority alone should decide. If the General Assembly votes, then the vote should mean something. Nothing is above the General Assembly, and anyone who claims to be above the General Assembly or an indipendent power should leave the UN. Democracy is not for the rich and powerful, nor for terrorists. All nations should be at the same level.
Right now the Security Council is securing feudalism via the nobility of permanent seating, protecting themselves and opposing us. It should not be called the Security Council, but the Terrorism Council. In international relations if a country has a gripe against us they file a complaint with the Security Council. If they have powers indipendently they ignore the Security Council. If they have a crusade to pursue, an axe to grind, they glorify the Charter of the UN, then they weaponize chapter 7 of the Charter against us poor nations. If however they wish to go against the Charter, they act as they wish and pretend it doesn't exist. If the veto is held by those who are most powerful, this is injustice and terrorism and it is intolerable. We should not live in the shade of justice filled with fear. Superpowers have complicated global interests, and the veto is wielded to protect those interests. For example, the Security Council uses the power of the UN to buttress their business pursuits and to terrorize those who have not yet signed the contracts. From the beginning, in 1945, the Security Council has failed to provide global security. Instead it provides intimidation and sanctions. It is only used against the weak. For this reason I will no longer be commenting on Security Council resolutions at the conclusion of this speech, which marks the 40th anniversary of my rule.
65 wars have been fought between the small countries and by the superpowers against the small countries. The Security Council, in violation of the Charter of the UN, has failed to stop these wars. The General Assembly will be voting on a number of historic proposals. Either we act as one or we act for ourselves. If each nation were to have it's own version of the General Assembly, of the Security Council, and stood on equal footing, the powers which currently sit in the permanent seats would be restricted to the use of their own natural powers, whether there be 3 or 4 of them, and would have no option other than indipendent action. This does not worry us. If they wish to keep their permanent seats, fine. We don't care about the permanent seats because we will never submit to their demands or their vetos. We are not so stupid as to honor the right of veto when it is used by the superpowers to keep us second class citizens and to destroy nations. We did not elect these superpowers to superintend on behalf of the 192 nations. You should be fully aware we will be ignoring the Security Council resolutions because they are used solely against us and never against the superpowers, who have the permament seats and the right of veto. This has turned the UN into a tragedy of itself, generating wars violating the sovereignty of independent nations. It has led to war crimes and genocides, all in violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
Since no one pays any attention to the Security Council of the United Nations, each country and region has established its own security council, and the Security Council here has become a pariah. The African Union has already established its own Peace and Security Council, the European Union has established its own security council, and Asian countries are establishing their own as well. Soon Latin America will have its own security council, as will the 120 non aligned nations. We have lost confidence in the UN Security Council, which has failed to provide security, and that is why we are now pursuing our own regional security council. In its present form we will not commit to obeying the rules and resolutions of the United Nations Security Council because it is undemocratic, dictatorial, and unjust. No one can force us to serve on the Security Council or to obey the orders given by the Security Council. There is no longer any respect for the United Nations and no longer is any attention paid to the General Assembly, which is the true United Nations, whose resolutions are non binding.
The decisions of the International Court of Justice, the international judicial body, concerns itself with only the small countries and the third class nations. The powerful countries are immunized. When decisions are taken against these powerful countries, they are ignored.
The International Atomic Energy Agency is an important subdepartment within the UN. However, the superpowers hold themselves above its regulations, and we have realized the IAEA is actually used as a cudgel against us. We are told it is an international authority, but if that is so why are the 5 veto nations not under its juristiction? The President of the General Assembly should talk to the Director General of the IAEA, Mister Muhammad El Baradei, and ask him for a itemized list of uranium and plutonium inventories for all the countries who declare themselves to be nuclear powers, and if he suspects any deviousness in the numbers, he should provide us with all this information, then we would be willing to submit to his agencies juristiction. But if he says he can't go into certain countries with nuclear materials and his juristiction doesn't extend to them, then we should shut the agency down and refuse to honor its juristiction. To let you know, I called Mister El Baradei when we had the problem of the Libyan nuclear bomb. I called Mister El Baradei and asked him if the treaties by the superpowers to reduce their nuclear stockpiles were part of his agencies authority and under their inspection. Was he aware of any increases in their nuclear weapons? He told me he was not in a position to question the superpowers or to inspect them. So, the agency is only inspecting us? If that is the case then it cannot claim to be an international orginization because it is selective, just like the Security Council and the International Court of Justice. This is not equitable nor is it a United Nations. We totally reject this global ordering.
Regarding Africa, Mister President (Obama), whether the United Nations can reform itself or not, and before the next vote is taken, Africa should be given a permanent seat on the Security Council. It has waited too long already. Without a doubt Africa was colonized, cut off and raped, and it's rights were violated. Its people were enslaved like animals, and its territory put under trusteeship. This is a debt from the past that must be paid, and it has nothing to do with an agreement among the United Nations. It is a first priority matter, and high on the agenda of the General Assembly. How can anyone deny Africa deserves a seat?
Another matter which should be put to a vote is that of compensation for the colonized countries, so as to prevent the enslavement of a continent, the denial of its rights, and the pillaging of its wealth, from ever happening again. Why are Africans emmigrating to Europe? Why are Asians settling in Europe? Why are Latin Americans moving to Europe? Because Europe has stolen their property. They have stolen their oil, minerals, uranium, gold, diamonds, fruit, vegetables, livestock, and they have molested the peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Now a new generation of Asians, Latin Americans and Africans are seeking to take back their stolen wealth, and they have the right to do this.
At the Libyan border I recently detained 1,000 African refugees headed to Europe. I asked how they chose Europe? They told me it was to reclaim their stolen wealth, otherwise why leave? Who is willing to return our stolen wealth? If you decide to return it, the exodus from the Phillippines, Latin America, Mauritius and India will stop. Return our stolen wealth. Africa is entitled to 777 trillion US dollars in compensation from her colonizers. Africans will be demanding that amount, and if it is not given they will go to you and take it. They have the right to do this.
Why are Libyans barred from Italy to this day, even though they are neighbors? Italy owed reparations to the Libyans. They admitted it and signed an agreement with us, and it was adopted by the Italian and Libyan Parliaments. Italy confessed that its colonization of Libya was wrong and without justification. Italy agreed to yearly payments of 250 million dollars for 20 years, and also built a hospital for Libyans crippled by the mines planted in our country during WW2. Italy apologized and promised never again to colonize another nation. Italy was a member of the Axis, but has also made rich contributions to civilization and deserves praise, as does Prime Minister Berlusconi and his predesessor, who have made meaningful contributions.
Why does the third world demand compensation? To attach a fine to colonization. To prevent the large and powerful countries from colonizing again, afraid of being fined. Colonization should be punitized. The countries that harmed other people during the colonial era should pay compensation for damages suffered under their colonial rule.
There is another point I would like to make, but before doing so and addressing a somewhat sensitive issue, I would like to make an aside. We Africans are happy and proud that a son of Africa is now President of the United States of America. This is a historic event. A country where blacks were once prevented from mingling with whites in cafes and restaurants or on a bus, has now elected as their president a young black man, Mister Obama, of Kenya. This is a wonderful thing and makes us proud. It marks the begining of change. However, as for my personal opinon, Obama is merely temporary relief for just 4 to 8 years. I fear we will then return to square one. No one can say how America will be governed after Obama. We would be overjoyed if Obama remained President of the United States forever. The statement he just gave shows he is completely different from any American President we have seen before. American Presidents used to threaten us with all types of weapons, saying they would send us a Desert Storm, Grapes of Wrath, Rolling Thunder, and poisoned roses for the Libyan children. That was their approach. American Presidents used to threated us with operations such as Rolling Thunder in Vietnam, Desert Storm in Iraq, Musketeer in Egypt in 1956.. although America opposed that one. And the poisoned roses sent to Libyan children by Reagan, can you beleive that? You would expect that a leader of a large country with a permanent seat on the Security Council and the right of veto would protect us and bring peace. What do we get instead? Laser guided bombs delivered to us from F-111 airplanes. This was their game plan: we will be leaders of the world without consent, and we will punish those who cause trouble.
What our son Obama said today is completely opposite. He made an impassioned plea for nuclear disarmament, which we applaud. He said America could not single handedly solve all the problems, and the entire world should band together. He said we must do more than make speeches. We agree and applaud the remarks. He said we are here to talk to each other and he said democracy should not be imposed by force. Until this, American Presidents have said that democracy should be imposed on Iraq and other countries. But Obama said these are internal matters. He spoke the truth when he said democracies cannot be imposed by outsiders. So we have to be careful.
Before I make some sensitive remarks, I wish to note how polarized the world has become. Can we not stand on an equal footing? Is it better to have a polarized world or a multipolar world? Should we keep patriarchs? Should we keep popes? Should we keep gods? Should the world be allowed to have so many values? We reject a limited world, and call for a big world where big and small stand side by side.
The sensitive point concerns the Headquarters of the United Nations. Can I have your attention please? All of you have just come from across the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, crossing the whole continent of Asia or Africa to reach this place. Why? Is this Jerusalem? Is this the Vatican? Is this Mecca? All of you are exhausted with jet lag and can't sleep at night. You are tired and physically exhausted. One person has just arrived this moment, after 20 hours of flying, then he is expected to make a speech and talk to you about this matter. All of you are sleeping, you are tired. It is clear you lack energy because this journey is so long. Why do we do this? Most of our countries are asleep right now. You should be sleeping now, because your biological clock and your biological mind is accostomed to be sleeping now. I wake up at 4am New York time, before the sun has risen, because in Libya it is 11am. When I wake at 11am in Libya it is light, but here I wake at 4am. Why? Think about it. This site was chosen in 1945, should it endure for eternity? Why can't we agree on a place that is in the middle, and more comfortable?
An important consideration is that the United States, our host nation, bears the burden of expenses and upkeep of the Headquarters and Diplomatic Missions, with the responsibility of providing security for every head of state who comes here. They are very stingy, but they also dump a pile of money into it, New Yorkers and all Americans being very smart with money. We should unburden America and thank them for their contributions, and all the trouble they have gone to on our behalf. We thank the United States for providing these services.
We also wish to help America and New York in the maintainence of peace. They shouldn't be put on the hook for security. Perhaps in the future a terrorist will bomb a president? This place is targeted by Al Qaida, this very building. It was lucky to not get hit on September 11th, nothing would have stopped an attempt. The fifth target would have been the UN. I don't say this lightly. We have dozens of members of Al Qaida held in Libyan prisons. Reading their confessions is terrifying. America suffers from tremendous anxiety, never knowing what might happen. Perhaps a place in America will again be attacked from the sky? Perhaps dozens of Senators will die? We want to releive America of these worries.
Let us move the Headquarters to a country not targeted by terrorists, in another hemisphere. After 50 years in the western hemisphere, lets do 50 years in the eastern hemisphere, or the tropics, on a rotational basis perhaps? But now we are in our 64th year here, so we have to add another 14 years to the 50 that the Headquarters should move to another place. It is not an insult to America, it is a service to America. We should be thanking America. This could have been done in 1945, and it can be done now. Of course the General Assembly should decide the matter, because in section 23 of the Headquarters Agreement it says the United Nations Headquarters can be moved only by a resolution of 51% of the General Assembly, then it can move.
We shouldn't have to be subjected to such scrutiny to visit New York. One nations president told me his aircrafts copilot could not cross the Atlantic due to a visa issue. I asked how he could fly without a copilot? Another president said a member of his honor guard was denied entry based on a misunderstanding of his legal name. Another president said his personal physician was denied a visa to come to the United States. The security measures here are very strict. If America has any sort of negative relationship with another nation, these are the restrictions they impose, as if one is at Guantanamo. Is this a member state of the UN or is it a prison camp in Guantanamo restricting our movements? This is submitted for a vote to the General Assembly, moving the Headquarters.
If 51% agree, then we come to the second vote, to the tropics or the eastern hemisphere? If we choose to remain in the hemisphere, we could still relocate to Libya or Austria. One would be allowed admittance without a visa, and if you arrive as a president in Libya it will be safe for you. Libya is a peaceful nation, and I believe the same holds true for Austria.
If the vote is to move to the eastern hemisphere, then it will be in New Delhi or Beijing. That is sensible my brothers. I do not think there will any objections. Then you will thank me for bringing this vote, for eliminating suffering and the burden of flying 14, 15 or 20 hours to come here. No one should blame America or suggest America will reduce its donations to the United Nations. No one should worry about that. I am sure America is committed to international obligations, they wont get mad, they will thank you for alleiviating their burdens, for taking on these burdens, since this place is targeted by terrorists. We are about to put the UN on trial. The old organization will end and a new one will emerge. This is not a normal event. Even our son Obama said this is not a normal gathering, but a historic summit.
The wars that took place after the establishment of the UN, why did they occur? We can start with the Korean war because it took place right after the founding of the UN. How did it happen? They say it came close to a nuclear battleground. Those responsible for the war should be held responsible and pay reparations and damages.
Next was the Suez Canal war of 1956. That file should be looked into deeply. 3 countries with permanent seats on the Security Council and the power of the veto attacked a member of the General Assembly. A sovereign state, Egypt, was attacked, its army destroyed, thousands of Egyptians killed, and many towns and organizations destroyed, all because Egypt wanted to nationalize the Suez Canal. How could such a thing happen in the era of the UN? How is it possible to guarantee that this will not happen again unless we hold the guilty responsible?
Next was the Vietnam war, which claimed 3 million lives. During one 12 day period, more bombs were dropped then during the entirety of WW2. It was a more brutal war, and it took place after the creation of the UN and after we had committed to eliminating war. The future of humanity 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 at the General Assembly of the United Nations must put an end to these wars.
Next Panama was attacked, even though it was a member state in the General Assembly. 4,000 people died, and the president of that country was put in prison. Noriega should be released, that is another file we should open. How can a country that is a UN member state wage war against another member state, capturing their president and treating him like a criminal and imprisoning him? Who accepts that? It could happen again. We should not stay quiet, we should investigate. Any one of us could face the same fate, especially if the aggressor is by a state with a permanent seat on the Security Council, responsible for maintaining global peace.
Next was the war in Grenada. Another member state which was invaded. It was attacked by 15 battleships, 7,000 soldiers and dozens of military aircraft, and it is easily the smallest country in the world. The President of Grenada, Mister Maurice Bishop, was assassinated. How can that happen without consequences? It is a tragedy. How can it be guaranteed that the UN is a force for good or not, that a certain country is good or not? Can we be happy with the safety of our future or not? Can we trust the Security Council or not? Can we trust the UN or not?
We must look into the bombing of Somalia, another UN member state, and an independent country ruled by Aidid. We call for an investigation. How did this happen? Who allowed it? Who green lit the invasion?
Then there is the extinct nation of Yugoslavia. No country was more peaceful than Yugoslavia, rebuilt bit by bit after being destroyed by Hitler. We all share the blame along with Hitler. Tito rebuilt that peaceful nation brick by brick, and then the UN arrived and smashed it to pieces for imperial selfish interests.
Next comes the war in Iraq, the mother of all evils. The invasion of Iraq was in violation of the Charter of the UN, accomplished without justification by superpowers with permanent seats on the Security Council. Iraq was an indipendent member state in the General Assembly. How could they be attacked by their allies? The UN should have intervened to protect their sovereignty. We spoke up in the assembly against the invasion of Kuwait. The Arab countries fought for Iraq in the UN on behalf of all the nations under the umbrella of the UN Charter. In the first war, the Charter was respected. But for the second war no one called for the Charter to be respected. Why? Mister Treki and the General Assembly should investigate the reason that Iraq was invaded. Was there one? The reasons for that second war remain mysterious and unknown, and any of us could face the same fate. It involved a total massacre and genocide, killing more than 1.5 million Iraqis. We wish to bring the Iraqi case to the International Criminal Court and to hold the invaders responsible for the mass murder of Iraqis. It is easy to bring Charles Taylor to justice, or Al Assad, or Noriega. That is no problem. But the mass murder of Iraqis cannot be brought to trial? That cannot go before the ICC? If the court cannot accomodate our concerns, then we should reject it. Either it is for all of us, or it should be rejected. We are not animals like those slaughtered for the Eid, we have a right to life, and we are ready to defend ourselves. We have the right to dignity under the sun and on the earth. We have already been tested and we have passed the test.
There are other issues as well. How is it that Iraqi POW's can be sentenced to death? When Iraq was invaded the president was taken prisoner. He should not have been tried, he should not have been hanged. Once the war ended, he should have been released. Where are the laws allowing the execution of POW's? Who sentenced the president of Iraq to death? Can someone answer that question? We know the name of the judge, but as to who tied the noose around the neck on the day of sacrifice, they were masked. How could this happen in a civilized world? These people were prisoners of war under the protection of international law. How could government ministers and a head of state be sentenced to death and summarily executed with no appeal? Were the prosecutors actual lawyers or the members of some system? Do you know what people say? They say the faces behind those masks are the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of England, who executed the President of Iraq.
My third point concerning the Iraq war relates to Abu Gharaib. This is a blot on humanity. I know the US authorities will investigate this scandal, but the UN must not ignore it either. Prisoners of war held in Abu Ghraib prison were tortured. Dogs were sicked on them, men were raped. It is unprecedented in the annals of war. Sodomy is a grievous sin, and these prisoners were raped in prison by another nation, by a permanent member of the Security Council. It goes against civilization and mankind. We must know the facts. Even to this day, a quarter million Iraqis, men and women, are still in Abu Gharaib, being mistreated, persecuted, and raped.
Next is the war in Afghanistan, this too must be looked into. Why are we opposed to the Taliban? Why are we opposed to Afghanistan? Who is the Taliban? If the Taliban demand a religous state, what is the problem? What about the Vatican? Are they a threat? Not at all. It is a peaceful religion, and a very peaceful state. If the Taliban wish to create an Islamic Caliphate, who says this makes them criminals? Is anyone claiming that Bin Laden is with the Taliban, or with Afghanistan? Is Bin Laden a member of the Muhadeen? No, he's not an Afghan nationalist and he's not even Afghan. Were the terrorists who struck New York City from the Muhadeen? Did they represent Afghan nationalism? No. Then what was the reason for invading Afghanistan?
If I wished to entrap my American and British friends, I would encourage them to send more troops and to persist in the bloodbath, because they will never succeed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Look what happened in Iraq, which is open desert, even more difficult to defend than Afghanistan. But I want to save the citizens of the United States and the United Kingdom from suffering, and so I say leave Afghanistan to the Afghans, leave Iraq to the Iraqis. If a nation wishes to fight a civil war, let them fight. America had its civil war, and no one took advantage of them by interefering. There have been civil wars in Spain, China, and every country in the world. Let Iraq fight a civil war, that is fine. Who will say the Taliban is prohibited from establishing a government? Are they worried the Taliban will gain possession of intercontinental ballistic missles, or airplanes capable of bombing New York? Did their airplanes take off from Afghanistan or Iraq? No, they took off from American airports. Why then is Afghanistan being struck? The terrorists were not Afghans or Taliban or Iraqis. Why do we stay silent? We must never become devils of war, and anyone who stays silent is a devil by ommision. We are commited to peace, and wish to save humanity.
As President of the General Assembly, Mister Treki should open investigations into all the assassinations, in addition to the wars. Who killed Patrice Lumumba and why? We merely want to record it as a piece of African history. We want to know how an African leader, a liberator, was assassinated. Who killed him? We want our sons to read the history of Patrice Lumumba, the hero of Congo's liberation struggle, and to know who killed him, even 50 years after the fact.
Who killed Secretary General Hammarskjöld? Who opened fire on his airplane in 1961, and for what reason?
Then there is the assassination of United States President Kennedy in 1963. We want to know who killed him and why? There was the man named Lee Harvey Oswald, who was then killed by Jack Ruby. Why did Jack Ruby, an Israeli, kill Lee Harvey Oswald? Then Jack Ruby died under mysterious circumstances before he could be brought to trial. We must reopen the files. Everyone knows that Kennedy was questioning the need for Israel to build the Dimona nuclear reactor. International peace and security and weapons of mass destruction are the issues at play.
Then the assassination of Martin Luther King, the black pastor and human rights activist. His assassination was a conspiracy, and we should know why he was killed and who did it.
Khalil Wazir or Abu Jihad, a Palestinian, was killed. He was living peacefully in Tunisia, another member state, and that countries sovereignty was violated. We cannot stay silent. Even though submarines and ships were seen along the coast of Tunisia, no one was accused or brought to justice.
Abu Iyad was killed, and we should know why. The events surrounding his killing were mysterious.
In Operation Spring Youth, the poet Kamal Nasser, Kamal Adwan and Abu Youssef al Najjar, all Palestinians, were killed in Lebanon, a free country and a member state in the General Assembly. They were killed while sleeping peacefully. We should know who killed them and bring them to justice so the crimes will not be repeated.
We have mentioned the disproportionate force used in the invasion of Grenada, 7,000 troops, 15 battleships, and dozens of bombers. President Bishop was killed even though Grenada was a member state. These are crimes, and we cannot stay silent, otherwise we are sacrifial beasts. But we are not animals. Year after year we are attacked, and we defend ourselves and our sons and children. We are not afraid. We have the right to life. The earth was not designed for war, but for us. We cannot live on earth under such humiliation.
So, those are the wars. The remaining files are the massacres. In the Sabra and Shatila massacres 3,000 people were killed. The area was under the protection and occupation of the Israeli army, where in a huge and chaotic massacre 3,000 Palestinian men, women and children were killed. How can we stay silent? Lebanon is a sovereign state and a member of the General Assembly, but they were then under Israeli occupation, when a massacre took place.
In 2008 there was another massacre, this time in Gaza. 1,000 women and 2,200 children were among the victims. 60 UN facilities and another 30 belonging to NGO's were damaged. 50 clinics were destroyed. 40 doctors and nurses were killed while helping people survive. This took place in Gaza in December 2008. The perpetrators are still living, and should be brought before the International Criminal Court. Should we try only the underdogs, the weak and the poor from third world countries, but not influential and protected people? Under international law they should all face the consequences of their crimes, otherwise the International Criminal Court will never be respected. If the decisions of the International Criminal Court are disrespected and ignored, then the General Assembly and the Security Council mean nothing. If the International Atomic Energy Agency inspects only certain countries, then what is the meaning of the United Nations? It would mean they are nothing and they are meaningless. Where are these United Nations? They don't exist.
Piracy is happening on the high seas and is said to be a form of terrorism. People talk about the piracy problems offshore of Somalia, but the Somalis are not pirates, we are the pirates. We went there and stole their countries resources, their fish, and their wealth. Libya, India, Japan and America, in fact every country in the world, is engaged in piracy. We have all entered the territorial waters and economic zones of Somalia and stolen passage. The Somalis are merely protecting their fish and their livelihoods. They are forced to become pirates because they must defend their childrens food. We have approached the matter in the wrong way, and should instead be sending the warships to the Somali pirates, so they can defend their economic zones and the wealth of Somalia, and so they can feed their children.
I met with the pirates, and told them I would negotiate an agreement between them and the economic community, for recognition of a 200 mile offshore exclusive economic zone, protecting all the marine resources which belong to the Somali people, preventing countries from dumping toxic waste off the Somali coastline. For their part, the Somalis have agreed they would then halt their piracy. We will be drafting an international treaty and submiting it to the General Assembly. This is the only solution. More warships off the coast of Somalia is not a solution.
Today we have a swine flu epidemic, perhaps tomorrow we will have a fish flu epidemic. Some of these viruses are produced by us, as a commercial business. Capitalist companies produce viruses so they can boost the sales of vaccines, which is shamefull and unethical. Vaccinations and medicine should not be sold. In The Green Book I write that medicines should not be sold or subject to commercial interest. Medicine should be free of charge and vaccinations given to children for free, but instead capitalist companies produce the viruses and the vaccinations, to make a profit. Why are they not free? They should not be sold. The entire world should work for the protection of the people, by creating and manufacturing vaccinations and giving them for free to women and children, with no profit taken. These are all items on the agenda of the General Assembly, which has yet to bring them to fruition.
The Ottawa Convention on Landmines forbids their production. This is wrong. Landmines are defensive weapons. If I place them along the border of my country and someone wishes to invade me, they might get killed. That's good, because they are invading me. The Ottawa Convention should be reconsidered. I don't place landmines in other countries, the enemy would be in my country. On the Al Qadhafi website, I call for the treaty to be modified or annulled. I wish to use anti personnel mines in the defense of my homeland. Weapons of mass destruction should be eliminated, not landmines, which can only be used for defensive purposes.
With regard to the Palestinian situation, a two state solution is impossible. Currently the two states are completely overlapping. A partition plan is doomed to failure. These two states could never be neighbors, they occupy the same land. A buffer zone can't be created between them because a half million Israeli settlers live in the West Bank, and a million Arab Palestinians live in the land known as Israel. The solution is a single democratic state which is not defined by religion or ethnicity. The generation of Sharon and Arafat has failed. We need a new generation to bring peace. Look at the Palestinian and Israeli youth, they both want peace and democracy and a single country. This conflict is poisoning the world. The White Book provides a solution, and I hold it here. The solution is Israelistine. Arabs have no hostility or animus towards Israel. We are cousins from the same race and wish to be at peace. The refugees should return to their homeland.
You are the ones who brought the Holocaust to the Jews. You burned them, not us. We gave them refuge and safe haven during the Roman era, during the Arab rule in Spain, and during the rule of Adolf Hitler. You are the ones who poisoned them. You are the ones who annilihated them. We provided them with protection. The exodus was by your hands. Let us be capable of seeing the truth. We are not belligerent enemies of the Jews. One day the Jews will need the Arabs, and then the Arabs will give them protection and save them, as we have done before. Look at the way everyone else has treated the Jews. Hitler is an example. You westerners are the ones who hate Jews, not us.
To briefly finish, Kashmir deserves sovreignty, independent of India and Pakistan. That conflict must end. Kashmir will then be a buffer state between India and Pakistan.
With regards to Darfur, I hope the assistance provided by the international organizations can be used for development, agriculture, industry, and irrigation. You are the one who turned it into a crisis, you sacrified it on the altar for control of its internal affairs.
You have brought the Hariri problem to the global level, and you are profiting off Hariri's dead body, all to settle a score with Syria. Lebanon is an independent state with laws, courts, judges and police. At this point the murderers are no longer being sought, because it is the punishment of Syria which is desired, not to bring justice to Hariri.
The cases of Khalil al Wazir, Lumumba, Kennedy, and Hammarskjöld should be taken up by the UN, and if the Hariri case is considered important, then that as well.
The General Assembly is now gaveled by Libya, and we are justified in doing so. Libya hopes you will assist in the transition from a world full of problems and tensions to a world in which peace and tolerance prevails.
I will be personally following up on these issues with the General Assembly, President Treki, and the Secretary General. We are not accustomed to compromising when it comes to the future of humanity, the struggles of the third world, and the fate of the 100 small nations, who should all be enjoying eternal peace.