Image, Peter Schrank (Irlande)http://geneve.blog.tdg.ch/media/00/02/1854935523.gif
La Tribune de Genève
http://geneve.blog.tdg.ch/archive/2008/12/06/dessine-moi-les-droits-de-l-homme-peter-schrank-irlande.html
DESSINE-MOI LES DROITS DE L'HOMME
dimanche 18 septembre 2011
5725
Image, Peter Schrank (Irlande)http://geneve.blog.tdg.ch/media/00/02/1854935523.gif
La Tribune de Genève
http://geneve.blog.tdg.ch/archive/2008/12/06/dessine-moi-les-droits-de-l-homme-peter-schrank-irlande.html
DESSINE-MOI LES DROITS DE L'HOMME
vendredi 16 septembre 2011
5723. TV VROUM. LE MONDE EN 60 SECONDES.
LIBYE. S'AMÉLIORE SANS CESSE
SYRIE. VA S'AMÉLIORER BIENTÔT
IRAN. LE PROGRÈS S'EN VIENT.
CANADA. BON
GOUVERNEMENT HARPER. BON
USA. BON
11 SEPTEMBRE 2001. TRISTE
11 SEPTEMBRE 2011. DEVOIR DE MÉMOIRE
ATTAQUE DU PENTAGONE. UN CRIME CONTRE L'HUMANITÉ
WORLD TRADE CENTER. UN GÉNOCIDE EN AMÉRIQUE
GOUVERNEMENT LIBÉRAL. LE PARTI DE L'ESPOIR
CHAREST. TRISTE DEVANT L'INDUSTRIE DE LA CONSTRUCTION MAIS GARDE LE MORAL.
CHAREST. UN HOMME D'ESPOIR
Photo. https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDn_CywOnq-bgKuerXAfZ_TKZ4qQMYoMHYQINAa0DHOhnrfcDpvapjSfpPWLlZi17QtOhaZZNjBC27EAoEvIJfyFXh1TcgTfmbAx4ZwuolNH8TGjBhFrjxkC0miSp2FvpLUKSQ1jWI-6RL/s1600/10009.jpg
http://white-rabbit-tv.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html
*
Douteur je doute. On ne doute jamais assez. Tout ce qu'on vous dit est faux. Tout ce que vous savez est faux. Parce que tout ce qu'on vous dit est faux. Mais il se peut qu'une partie de ce que savez soit vraie mais laquelle? Le professeur Bulle a parlé. Ou pensé quelque chose. Ou eut une émotion quelconque. Le professeur Bulle pense quelques fois par année donc il lui arrive d'être. Mais pas souvent!
SYRIE. VA S'AMÉLIORER BIENTÔT
IRAN. LE PROGRÈS S'EN VIENT.
CANADA. BON
GOUVERNEMENT HARPER. BON
USA. BON
11 SEPTEMBRE 2001. TRISTE
11 SEPTEMBRE 2011. DEVOIR DE MÉMOIRE
ATTAQUE DU PENTAGONE. UN CRIME CONTRE L'HUMANITÉ
WORLD TRADE CENTER. UN GÉNOCIDE EN AMÉRIQUE
GOUVERNEMENT LIBÉRAL. LE PARTI DE L'ESPOIR
CHAREST. TRISTE DEVANT L'INDUSTRIE DE LA CONSTRUCTION MAIS GARDE LE MORAL.
CHAREST. UN HOMME D'ESPOIR
Photo. https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDn_CywOnq-bgKuerXAfZ_TKZ4qQMYoMHYQINAa0DHOhnrfcDpvapjSfpPWLlZi17QtOhaZZNjBC27EAoEvIJfyFXh1TcgTfmbAx4ZwuolNH8TGjBhFrjxkC0miSp2FvpLUKSQ1jWI-6RL/s1600/10009.jpghttp://white-rabbit-tv.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html
*
Douteur je doute. On ne doute jamais assez. Tout ce qu'on vous dit est faux. Tout ce que vous savez est faux. Parce que tout ce qu'on vous dit est faux. Mais il se peut qu'une partie de ce que savez soit vraie mais laquelle? Le professeur Bulle a parlé. Ou pensé quelque chose. Ou eut une émotion quelconque. Le professeur Bulle pense quelques fois par année donc il lui arrive d'être. Mais pas souvent!
5719
LA LIBYE ÉLUE AU CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME DE L'ONU
13.05.10
Journal Le MOnde.
AFP
http://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2010/05/13/la-libye-elue-au-conseil-des-droits-de-l-homme-de-l-onu_1351318_3210.html
La Libye a été élue, jeudi 13 mai, au Conseil des droits de l'homme de l'ONU, malgré les efforts de nombreuses ONG qui la jugent indigne d'y siéger.
Un groupe de 37 organisations de défense des droits de l'homme a adressé, jeudi matin, aux 192 Etats membres de l'ONU un appel de dernière minute pour qu'ils ne donnent pas à la Libye un siège au Conseil, principal organe de l'ONU pour les droits de l'homme situé à Genève.
Cet appel est resté sans écho, et la Jamahiriya libyenne du colonel Mouammar Kadhafi a recueilli 155 voix à l'Assemblée générale des Nations unies, largement plus que la majorité absolue (97) nécessaire pour être élu, lors d'un vote à bulletin secret.
La Libye et 13 autres Etats concouraient sans opposition à 14 sièges à pourvoir au Conseil.
Les ONG avaient d'ailleurs également critiqué le fait que cette année, pour la première fois, chaque groupe régional de l'ONU avait présenté un nombre de candidats égal à celui des sièges à pourvoir, assurant leur élection sans contestation. "Des élections sans compétition n'ont aucun sens", avaient-elles affirmé.
Le Conseil compte 47 Etats membres, élus pour trois ans. L'effectif est renouvelable par tiers tous les ans. La constitution du Conseil est fonction de la composition géographique de l'ONU, et les sièges sont répartis par zones. Dans le groupe Afrique, outre celui de la Libye, les trois autres sièges à pourvoir ont été obtenus par l'Angola (170 voix), la Mauritanie (167) et l'Ouganda (164).
Dans le groupe Asie, le retrait en avril de la candidature de l'Iran, salué par les organisations de droits de l'homme, a laissé la Malaisie, les Maldives, le Qatar et la Thaïlande concourir et être élus aux quatre sièges à pourvoir.
Pour l'Amérique latine, l'Equateur et le Guatemala ont été élus aux deux sièges disponibles, tout comme l'Espagne et la Suisse pour l'Europe occidentale et la Moldavie et la Pologne pour l'Europe de l'Est.
Les résultats ont été annoncés par le président de l'Assemblée générale, Ali Triki, qui est de nationalité libyenne.
13.05.10
Journal Le MOnde.
AFP
http://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2010/05/13/la-libye-elue-au-conseil-des-droits-de-l-homme-de-l-onu_1351318_3210.html
La Libye a été élue, jeudi 13 mai, au Conseil des droits de l'homme de l'ONU, malgré les efforts de nombreuses ONG qui la jugent indigne d'y siéger.
Un groupe de 37 organisations de défense des droits de l'homme a adressé, jeudi matin, aux 192 Etats membres de l'ONU un appel de dernière minute pour qu'ils ne donnent pas à la Libye un siège au Conseil, principal organe de l'ONU pour les droits de l'homme situé à Genève.
Cet appel est resté sans écho, et la Jamahiriya libyenne du colonel Mouammar Kadhafi a recueilli 155 voix à l'Assemblée générale des Nations unies, largement plus que la majorité absolue (97) nécessaire pour être élu, lors d'un vote à bulletin secret.
La Libye et 13 autres Etats concouraient sans opposition à 14 sièges à pourvoir au Conseil.
Les ONG avaient d'ailleurs également critiqué le fait que cette année, pour la première fois, chaque groupe régional de l'ONU avait présenté un nombre de candidats égal à celui des sièges à pourvoir, assurant leur élection sans contestation. "Des élections sans compétition n'ont aucun sens", avaient-elles affirmé.
Le Conseil compte 47 Etats membres, élus pour trois ans. L'effectif est renouvelable par tiers tous les ans. La constitution du Conseil est fonction de la composition géographique de l'ONU, et les sièges sont répartis par zones. Dans le groupe Afrique, outre celui de la Libye, les trois autres sièges à pourvoir ont été obtenus par l'Angola (170 voix), la Mauritanie (167) et l'Ouganda (164).
Dans le groupe Asie, le retrait en avril de la candidature de l'Iran, salué par les organisations de droits de l'homme, a laissé la Malaisie, les Maldives, le Qatar et la Thaïlande concourir et être élus aux quatre sièges à pourvoir.
Pour l'Amérique latine, l'Equateur et le Guatemala ont été élus aux deux sièges disponibles, tout comme l'Espagne et la Suisse pour l'Europe occidentale et la Moldavie et la Pologne pour l'Europe de l'Est.
Les résultats ont été annoncés par le président de l'Assemblée générale, Ali Triki, qui est de nationalité libyenne.
5718
CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME
LA LIBYE ÉLUE SANS DIFFICULTÉ
13 mai 2010
http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/International/2010/05/13/007-conseil-droits-homme-libye.shtml
L'ONU a accordé à la Libye, jeudi, l'un des 14 sièges à pourvoir au sein du Conseil des droits de l'homme, une décision vivement critiquée par les organisations non gouvernementales.
Lors d'un vote secret, le pays dirigé par le colonel Mouammar Kadhafi a obtenu l'appui de 155 des 192 États membres de l'ONU, largement plus que la majorité absolue nécessaire (97) pour être élu. Les résultats ont été annoncés par le président de l'Assemblée générale, le Libyen Ali Triki.
LES AUTRES PAYS NOUVELLEMENT ÉLUS AU SEIN DU CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME
L'Angola, la Mauritanie, l'Ouganda, les Maldives, la Malaisie, le Qatar, la Moldavie, la Pologne, l'Équateur, le Guatemala, l'Espagne, la Suisse et la Thaïlande.
L'Assemblée générale des Nations unies a ainsi fait fi de l'appel lancé un peu plus tôt par un groupe de 37 organisations de défense des droits de l'homme, qui jugent le pays indigne de siéger au principal organe de l'ONU.
Si ces ONG dénoncent le bilan en matière de droits de la personne de pays comme l'Angola, la Libye, la Malaisie, l'Ouganda et la Thaïlande, elles ont cependant concentré leurs attaques sur la Libye.
La Libye est « une des sociétés les plus répressives au monde » et « la liberté d'expression, les partis politiques et les médias libres [y] sont interdits », avaient-elles argué, ajoutant que le régime libyen est « une des tyrannies les plus brutales et les plus anciennes ».
«La place du colonel Kadhafi est en prison, pas au sein du plus important organe de l'ONU en matière de droits de la personne.»
Plaidoyer des ONG
Les ONG ont également critiqué le fait que, pour la première fois, chaque groupe régional de l'ONU a présenté un nombre de candidats égal à celui des sièges à pourvoir, assurant ainsi leur élection sans contestation.
« Des élections sans compétition n'ont aucun sens »,
avaient-elles affirmé. Une directrice de l'organisme Human Rights Watch, Pegy Hicks, a déclaré que
« les élections du conseil se transforment en processus joué d'avance qui ôte leur sens aux critères d'adhésion établis par l'Assemblée générale ».
L'Iran avait également posé sa candidature avant de la retirer, il y a un mois,
en échange d'un siège à la commission de l'ONU sur le statut des femmes.
LE CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME EN BREF
Le Conseil, qui siège à Genève, compte 47 États membres, élus pour trois ans. Sa composition est renouvelable au tiers chaque année.
Cet organe de l'ONU a été créé en 2006 afin de remplacer la Commission des droits de l'homme, discréditée par le bilan peu reluisant de certains pays qui y siégeaient.
Or, le Conseil est régulièrement accusé d'inaction dans les dossiers de pays connus pour leurs violations des droits de la personne.
Radio-Canada.ca avec Agence France Presse et Reuters
Hyperlien externe
Conseil des droits de l'homme
Site officiel. http://www2.ohchr.org/french/bodies/hrcouncil/
26 comemntaires
*
LE CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME
http://www2.ohchr.org/french/bodies/hrcouncil/
Le Conseil des droits de l'homme est un organe intergouvernemental du système des Nations Unies, composé de 47 états qui ont la responsabilité de renforcer la promotion et la protection des droits de l'homme autour du globe.
Le Conseil a été créé par l'Assemblée générale de l'ONU, le 15 mars 2006, avec le but principal d'aborder des situations de violations de droits de l'homme et d'émettre des recommandations à leur encontre.
Un an après avoir tenu sa première réunion, le 18 juin 2007, le Conseil a adopté sa mise en place des institutions , lui fournissant les éléments pour le guider dans ses futurs travaux.
Parmi ces éléments, on trouve le nouveau mécanisme d' examen périodique universel qui permettra d'évaluer les situations de droits de l'homme dans chacun des 192 Etats membres de l'ONU.
D'autres dispositifs incluent un nouveau Comité consultatif qui sert de « groupe de réflexion » au Conseil, lui fournissant expertise et conseil sur des questions thématiques des droits de l'homme, ainsi que le mécanisme révisé de procédé de plaintes , qui permet à des individus et à des organismes de porter à connaissance du Conseil des plaintes de violations de droits de l'homme.
Le Conseil de droits de l'homme continue également à travailler étroitement avec les procédures spéciales de l'ONU, établies par l'ancienne Commission des droits de l'homme et assumées par le Conseil.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/ngos/HRS_LibyaAJ.pdf
*
U.N. ELECTS IRAN TO COMMISSION ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS
Joseph Abrams
April 29, 2010
FOXNews.com
NEW YORK
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/29/elects-iran-commission-womens-rights/
(En français) http://sisyphe.org/spip.php?article3591
(En hystérie) http://www.postedeveille.ca/2010/04/onu-liran-%C3%A9lu-membre-de-la-commission-de-la-condition-de-la-femme.html
http://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/international/article/l-iran-pays-feminophobe-elu-a-la-74677
Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged "immodest."
Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council,
it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women,
which is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women,"
according to its website.
Buried 2,000 words deep in a U.N. press release
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ecosoc6419.doc.htm
distributed Wednesday on the filling of "vacancies in subsidiary bodies," was the stark announcement:
Iran, along with representatives from 10 other nations, was "elected by acclamation,"
meaning that no open vote was requested or required by any member states —
including the United States.
FOXNews.com learned of the press release only after being alerted to it by Anne Bayefsky director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.
http://www.touro.edu/ihrh/about_us.asp
The U.S. currently holds one of the 45 seats on the body, a position set to expire in 2012.
The U.S. Mission to the U.N. did not return requests for comment on whether it actively opposed elevating Iran to the women's commission.
Iran's election comes just a week after one of its senior clerics declared that women who wear revealing clothing are to blame for earthquakes,
a statement that created an international uproar — but little affected their bid to become an international arbiter of women's rights.
"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,"
said the respected cleric, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi.
As word of Iran's intention to join the women's commission came out, a group of Iranian activists circulated a petition to the U.N. asking that member states oppose its election.
"Iran's discriminatory laws demonstrate that the Islamic Republic does not believe in gender equality,"
reads the letter, signed by 214 activists and endorsed by over a dozen human rights bodies.
The letter draws a dark picture of the status of women in Iran:
"women lack the ability to choose their husbands, have no independent right to education after marriage, no right to divorce, no right to child custody, have no protection from violent treatment in public spaces, are restricted by quotas for women's admission at universities, and are arrested, beaten, and imprisoned for peacefully seeking change of such laws."
The Commission on the Status of Women is supposed to conduct review of nations that violate women's rights, issue reports detailing their failings, and monitor their success in improving women's equality.
Yet critics of Iran's human rights record say the country has taken "every conceivable step" to deter women's equality.
"In the past year, it has arrested and jailed mothers of peaceful civil rights protesters,"
wrote three prominent democracy and human rights activists in an op-ed published online Tuesday by Foreign Policy Magazine.
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/27/iran_gender_discrimination_and_the_uns_womens_commission
"It has charged women who were seeking equality in the social sphere — as wives, daughters and mothers — with threatening national security, subjecting many to hours of harrowing interrogation. Its prison guards have beaten, tortured, sexually assaulted and raped female and male civil rights protesters."
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/29/anne-bayefsky-iran-united-nations-commission-status-women-congress/
Iran's elevation to the commission comes as a black eye just days after the U.S. helped lead a successful effort to keep Iran off the Human Rights Council, which is already dominated by nations that are judged by human rights advocates as chronic violators of essential freedoms. The current membership of the women's commission is little different.
Though it touts itself as "the principal global policy-making body" on women's rights, the makeup of the commission is mostly determined by geography and its membership is a hodge-podge of some human rights advocates (including the U.S., Japan, and Germany) and other nations with stark histories of rights violations.
The number of seats on the commission is based on the number of countries in a region, no matter how small their populations or how scant their respect for rights.
The commission is currently made up of 13 members from Africa, 11 from Asia, nine from Latin America and the Caribbean, eight from Western Europe and North America, and four from Eastern Europe.
During this round of "elections," which were not competitive and in which no real votes were cast, two seats opened up for the Asian bloc for the 2011-2015 period.
Only two nations put forward candidates to fill empty spots — Iran and Thailand.
As at most such commissions in the U.N., backroom deals determined who would gain new seats at the women's rights body.
The activists' letter sent to the U.N. Tuesday argued that it would be better if the Asian countries proffered only one candidate, instead of elevating Iran to the commission.
"We, a group of gender-equality activists, believe that for the sake of women's rights globally, an empty seat for the Asia group on (the commission) is much preferable to Iran's membership. We are writing to alert you to the highly negative ramifications of Iran’s membership in this international body."
A spokeswoman for the U.N.'s Department of Economic and Social Affairs, which oversees the commission, did not return phone calls or e-mails seeking comment.
When its term begins in 2011, Iran will be joined by 10 other countries: Belgium, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Georgia, Jamaica, Iran, Liberia, the Netherlands, Spain, Thailand and Zimbabwe.
*
ONU
UN
United Nations
Economic and Social Council
2010 Organizational Session
8th & 9th Meetings
28 avril 2010
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ecosoc6419.doc.htm
(...)
The Council elected 11 new members to fill an equal number of vacancies on the Commission on the Status of Women for four-year terms beginning at the first meeting of the Commission’s fifty-sixth session in 2011 and expiring at the close of its fifty-ninth session in 2015.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia and Zimbabwe were elected from the Group of African States; Iran and Thailand were elected from the Group of Asian States; Estonia and Georgia were elected from the Group of Eastern European States; Jamaica was elected from the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States; and Belgium, Netherlands and Spain were elected from the Group of Western European and Other States.
(...)
To fill vacancies on the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, the Council elected 16 new members to four-year terms beginning 1 January 2011: Lesotho, Mauritius, Rwanda, Togo, Tunisia and United Republic of Tanzania from the African States; China, India, Iran and Philippines from the Asian States; Latvia from the Eastern European States; Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Peru from the Latin American and Caribbean States; and the United States from the Western European and Other States group. The Council postponed the election of one member from Asian States, two members from Eastern European States and four members from Western European and Other States.
(...)
To membership in the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), the Council elected the following 15 countries: Algeria, Central African Republic, Gabon, Mali, Mozambique and Nigeria from the African States group; Indonesia, Iran, Japan and Pakistan from the Asian States group; Albania and Russian Federation from the Eastern European States group; Argentina and Venezuela from the Latin American and Caribbean States group; and United States from the Western European and Other States group.
(...)
the Council elected Benin, Djibouti, Slovakia and Belarus as members of the Executive Board of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women
LA LIBYE ÉLUE SANS DIFFICULTÉ
13 mai 2010
http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/International/2010/05/13/007-conseil-droits-homme-libye.shtml
L'ONU a accordé à la Libye, jeudi, l'un des 14 sièges à pourvoir au sein du Conseil des droits de l'homme, une décision vivement critiquée par les organisations non gouvernementales.
Lors d'un vote secret, le pays dirigé par le colonel Mouammar Kadhafi a obtenu l'appui de 155 des 192 États membres de l'ONU, largement plus que la majorité absolue nécessaire (97) pour être élu. Les résultats ont été annoncés par le président de l'Assemblée générale, le Libyen Ali Triki.
LES AUTRES PAYS NOUVELLEMENT ÉLUS AU SEIN DU CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME
L'Angola, la Mauritanie, l'Ouganda, les Maldives, la Malaisie, le Qatar, la Moldavie, la Pologne, l'Équateur, le Guatemala, l'Espagne, la Suisse et la Thaïlande.
L'Assemblée générale des Nations unies a ainsi fait fi de l'appel lancé un peu plus tôt par un groupe de 37 organisations de défense des droits de l'homme, qui jugent le pays indigne de siéger au principal organe de l'ONU.
Si ces ONG dénoncent le bilan en matière de droits de la personne de pays comme l'Angola, la Libye, la Malaisie, l'Ouganda et la Thaïlande, elles ont cependant concentré leurs attaques sur la Libye.
La Libye est « une des sociétés les plus répressives au monde » et « la liberté d'expression, les partis politiques et les médias libres [y] sont interdits », avaient-elles argué, ajoutant que le régime libyen est « une des tyrannies les plus brutales et les plus anciennes ».
«La place du colonel Kadhafi est en prison, pas au sein du plus important organe de l'ONU en matière de droits de la personne.»
Plaidoyer des ONG
Les ONG ont également critiqué le fait que, pour la première fois, chaque groupe régional de l'ONU a présenté un nombre de candidats égal à celui des sièges à pourvoir, assurant ainsi leur élection sans contestation.
« Des élections sans compétition n'ont aucun sens »,
avaient-elles affirmé. Une directrice de l'organisme Human Rights Watch, Pegy Hicks, a déclaré que
« les élections du conseil se transforment en processus joué d'avance qui ôte leur sens aux critères d'adhésion établis par l'Assemblée générale ».
L'Iran avait également posé sa candidature avant de la retirer, il y a un mois,
en échange d'un siège à la commission de l'ONU sur le statut des femmes.
LE CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME EN BREF
Le Conseil, qui siège à Genève, compte 47 États membres, élus pour trois ans. Sa composition est renouvelable au tiers chaque année.
Cet organe de l'ONU a été créé en 2006 afin de remplacer la Commission des droits de l'homme, discréditée par le bilan peu reluisant de certains pays qui y siégeaient.
Or, le Conseil est régulièrement accusé d'inaction dans les dossiers de pays connus pour leurs violations des droits de la personne.
Radio-Canada.ca avec Agence France Presse et Reuters
Hyperlien externe
Conseil des droits de l'homme
Site officiel. http://www2.ohchr.org/french/bodies/hrcouncil/
26 comemntaires
*
LE CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME
http://www2.ohchr.org/french/bodies/hrcouncil/
Le Conseil des droits de l'homme est un organe intergouvernemental du système des Nations Unies, composé de 47 états qui ont la responsabilité de renforcer la promotion et la protection des droits de l'homme autour du globe.
Le Conseil a été créé par l'Assemblée générale de l'ONU, le 15 mars 2006, avec le but principal d'aborder des situations de violations de droits de l'homme et d'émettre des recommandations à leur encontre.
Un an après avoir tenu sa première réunion, le 18 juin 2007, le Conseil a adopté sa mise en place des institutions , lui fournissant les éléments pour le guider dans ses futurs travaux.
Parmi ces éléments, on trouve le nouveau mécanisme d' examen périodique universel qui permettra d'évaluer les situations de droits de l'homme dans chacun des 192 Etats membres de l'ONU.
D'autres dispositifs incluent un nouveau Comité consultatif qui sert de « groupe de réflexion » au Conseil, lui fournissant expertise et conseil sur des questions thématiques des droits de l'homme, ainsi que le mécanisme révisé de procédé de plaintes , qui permet à des individus et à des organismes de porter à connaissance du Conseil des plaintes de violations de droits de l'homme.
Le Conseil de droits de l'homme continue également à travailler étroitement avec les procédures spéciales de l'ONU, établies par l'ancienne Commission des droits de l'homme et assumées par le Conseil.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/ngos/HRS_LibyaAJ.pdf
*
U.N. ELECTS IRAN TO COMMISSION ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS
Joseph Abrams
April 29, 2010
FOXNews.com
NEW YORK
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/29/elects-iran-commission-womens-rights/
(En français) http://sisyphe.org/spip.php?article3591
(En hystérie) http://www.postedeveille.ca/2010/04/onu-liran-%C3%A9lu-membre-de-la-commission-de-la-condition-de-la-femme.html
http://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/international/article/l-iran-pays-feminophobe-elu-a-la-74677
Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged "immodest."
Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council,
it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women,
which is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women,"
according to its website.
Buried 2,000 words deep in a U.N. press release
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ecosoc6419.doc.htm
distributed Wednesday on the filling of "vacancies in subsidiary bodies," was the stark announcement:
Iran, along with representatives from 10 other nations, was "elected by acclamation,"
meaning that no open vote was requested or required by any member states —
including the United States.
FOXNews.com learned of the press release only after being alerted to it by Anne Bayefsky director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.
http://www.touro.edu/ihrh/about_us.asp
The U.S. currently holds one of the 45 seats on the body, a position set to expire in 2012.
The U.S. Mission to the U.N. did not return requests for comment on whether it actively opposed elevating Iran to the women's commission.
Iran's election comes just a week after one of its senior clerics declared that women who wear revealing clothing are to blame for earthquakes,
a statement that created an international uproar — but little affected their bid to become an international arbiter of women's rights.
"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,"
said the respected cleric, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi.
As word of Iran's intention to join the women's commission came out, a group of Iranian activists circulated a petition to the U.N. asking that member states oppose its election.
"Iran's discriminatory laws demonstrate that the Islamic Republic does not believe in gender equality,"
reads the letter, signed by 214 activists and endorsed by over a dozen human rights bodies.
The letter draws a dark picture of the status of women in Iran:
"women lack the ability to choose their husbands, have no independent right to education after marriage, no right to divorce, no right to child custody, have no protection from violent treatment in public spaces, are restricted by quotas for women's admission at universities, and are arrested, beaten, and imprisoned for peacefully seeking change of such laws."
The Commission on the Status of Women is supposed to conduct review of nations that violate women's rights, issue reports detailing their failings, and monitor their success in improving women's equality.
Yet critics of Iran's human rights record say the country has taken "every conceivable step" to deter women's equality.
"In the past year, it has arrested and jailed mothers of peaceful civil rights protesters,"
wrote three prominent democracy and human rights activists in an op-ed published online Tuesday by Foreign Policy Magazine.
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/27/iran_gender_discrimination_and_the_uns_womens_commission
"It has charged women who were seeking equality in the social sphere — as wives, daughters and mothers — with threatening national security, subjecting many to hours of harrowing interrogation. Its prison guards have beaten, tortured, sexually assaulted and raped female and male civil rights protesters."
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/29/anne-bayefsky-iran-united-nations-commission-status-women-congress/
Iran's elevation to the commission comes as a black eye just days after the U.S. helped lead a successful effort to keep Iran off the Human Rights Council, which is already dominated by nations that are judged by human rights advocates as chronic violators of essential freedoms. The current membership of the women's commission is little different.
Though it touts itself as "the principal global policy-making body" on women's rights, the makeup of the commission is mostly determined by geography and its membership is a hodge-podge of some human rights advocates (including the U.S., Japan, and Germany) and other nations with stark histories of rights violations.
The number of seats on the commission is based on the number of countries in a region, no matter how small their populations or how scant their respect for rights.
The commission is currently made up of 13 members from Africa, 11 from Asia, nine from Latin America and the Caribbean, eight from Western Europe and North America, and four from Eastern Europe.
During this round of "elections," which were not competitive and in which no real votes were cast, two seats opened up for the Asian bloc for the 2011-2015 period.
Only two nations put forward candidates to fill empty spots — Iran and Thailand.
As at most such commissions in the U.N., backroom deals determined who would gain new seats at the women's rights body.
The activists' letter sent to the U.N. Tuesday argued that it would be better if the Asian countries proffered only one candidate, instead of elevating Iran to the commission.
"We, a group of gender-equality activists, believe that for the sake of women's rights globally, an empty seat for the Asia group on (the commission) is much preferable to Iran's membership. We are writing to alert you to the highly negative ramifications of Iran’s membership in this international body."
A spokeswoman for the U.N.'s Department of Economic and Social Affairs, which oversees the commission, did not return phone calls or e-mails seeking comment.
When its term begins in 2011, Iran will be joined by 10 other countries: Belgium, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Georgia, Jamaica, Iran, Liberia, the Netherlands, Spain, Thailand and Zimbabwe.
*
ONU
UN
United Nations
Economic and Social Council
2010 Organizational Session
8th & 9th Meetings
28 avril 2010
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ecosoc6419.doc.htm
(...)
The Council elected 11 new members to fill an equal number of vacancies on the Commission on the Status of Women for four-year terms beginning at the first meeting of the Commission’s fifty-sixth session in 2011 and expiring at the close of its fifty-ninth session in 2015.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia and Zimbabwe were elected from the Group of African States; Iran and Thailand were elected from the Group of Asian States; Estonia and Georgia were elected from the Group of Eastern European States; Jamaica was elected from the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States; and Belgium, Netherlands and Spain were elected from the Group of Western European and Other States.
(...)
To fill vacancies on the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, the Council elected 16 new members to four-year terms beginning 1 January 2011: Lesotho, Mauritius, Rwanda, Togo, Tunisia and United Republic of Tanzania from the African States; China, India, Iran and Philippines from the Asian States; Latvia from the Eastern European States; Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Peru from the Latin American and Caribbean States; and the United States from the Western European and Other States group. The Council postponed the election of one member from Asian States, two members from Eastern European States and four members from Western European and Other States.
(...)
To membership in the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), the Council elected the following 15 countries: Algeria, Central African Republic, Gabon, Mali, Mozambique and Nigeria from the African States group; Indonesia, Iran, Japan and Pakistan from the Asian States group; Albania and Russian Federation from the Eastern European States group; Argentina and Venezuela from the Latin American and Caribbean States group; and United States from the Western European and Other States group.
(...)
the Council elected Benin, Djibouti, Slovakia and Belarus as members of the Executive Board of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women
5717. LA LIBYE FUT ÉLUE MEMBRE DU CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME EN 2010
LIBYE
CENTRE D’ACTUALITÉ DE L’ONU
L'ASSEMBLÉE GÉNÉRALE ÉLIT 14 MEMBRES DU CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME
13 mai 2010
http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=21921&Cr=droits&Cr1=&Kw1=Libye&Kw2=&Kw3=
L'Assemblée générale a élu jeudi 14 des 47 membres du Conseil des droits de l'homme.
Ces nouveaux membres siègeront pour un mandat de trois ans, prenant effet le 19 juin 2010, dans cet organe intergouvernemental chargé de renforcer la promotion et la protection des droits de l'homme à travers le monde.
Les 14 pays sont l'Angola, l'Équateur, l'Espagne, le Guatemala, la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne [Libye], la Malaisie, les Maldives, la Mauritanie, l'Ouganda, la Pologne, le Qatar, la République de Moldova, la Suisse et la Thaïlande.
Ils remplacent les États Membres suivants, dont le mandat s'achève le 18 juin 2010 :
Afrique du Sud, Angola, Bolivie, Bosnie-Herzégovine, Égypte, Inde, Indonésie, Italie, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Pays-Bas, Philippines, Qatar et Slovénie.
Parmi eux, seuls l'Afrique du Sud, l'Inde, l'Indonésie, les Pays-Bas et les Philippines, qui ont effectué deux mandats consécutifs, n'étaient pas rééligibles. Ils devront attendre au moins un an avant de pouvoir se représenter.
Le Conseil, qui est renouvelable par tiers tous les ans, a été créé par l'Assemblée générale de l'ONU, le 15 mars 2006, avec le but principal d'examiner des situations de violations des droits de l'homme et de formuler des recommandations à leur encontre.
DÉTAIL DES VOTES CONCERNANT LES ÉLECTIONS AU CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME :
Pour les quatre sièges à pourvoir au sein du Groupe des États d'Afrique, l'Angola (170 voix), la Mauritanie (167 voix), l'Ouganda (164 voix) et la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne (155 voix) ont été élus.
Le nombre des bulletins valides était de 188.
Pour les quatre sièges à pourvoir au sein du Groupe des États d'Asie, les Maldives (185 voix), la Thaïlande (182 voix), la Malaisie (179 voix) et le Qatar (177 voix) ont été élus.
Le nombre des bulletins valides était de 188.
Pour les deux sièges à pourvoir au sein du Groupe des États d'Europe orientale, la République de Moldova (175 voix) et la Pologne (171 voix) ont été élues.
Le nombre des bulletins valides était de 188.
Pour les deux sièges à pourvoir au sein du Groupe des États d'Amérique latine et des Caraïbes, l'Équateur (180 voix) et le Guatemala (180 voix) ont été élus. Le Pérou a recueilli une voix.
Le nombre des bulletins valides était de 188.
Pour les deux sièges à pourvoir au sein du Groupe d'Europe de l'Ouest et autres États, l'Espagne (177 voix) et la Suisse (175 voix) ont été élues.
Le nombre des bulletins valides était de 188.
COMPOSITION DU CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME À COMPTER DU 19 JUIN 2010 :
Angola, Arabie saoudite, Argentine, Bahreïn, Bangladesh, Belgique, Brésil, Burkina Faso, Cameroun, Chili, Chine, Cuba, Djibouti, Équateur, Espagne, États-Unis, Fédération de Russie, France, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Hongrie, Jamahiriya arabe libyenne, Japon, Jordanie, Kirghizistan, Malaisie, Maldives, Maurice, Mauritanie, Mexique, Nigéria, Norvège, Ouganda, Pakistan, Pologne, Qatar, République de Corée, République de Moldova, Royaume-Uni, Sénégal, Slovaquie, Suisse, Thaïlande, Ukraine, Uruguay et Zambie.
CENTRE D’ACTUALITÉ DE L’ONU
L'ASSEMBLÉE GÉNÉRALE ÉLIT 14 MEMBRES DU CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME
13 mai 2010
http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=21921&Cr=droits&Cr1=&Kw1=Libye&Kw2=&Kw3=
L'Assemblée générale a élu jeudi 14 des 47 membres du Conseil des droits de l'homme.
Ces nouveaux membres siègeront pour un mandat de trois ans, prenant effet le 19 juin 2010, dans cet organe intergouvernemental chargé de renforcer la promotion et la protection des droits de l'homme à travers le monde.
Les 14 pays sont l'Angola, l'Équateur, l'Espagne, le Guatemala, la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne [Libye], la Malaisie, les Maldives, la Mauritanie, l'Ouganda, la Pologne, le Qatar, la République de Moldova, la Suisse et la Thaïlande.
Ils remplacent les États Membres suivants, dont le mandat s'achève le 18 juin 2010 :
Afrique du Sud, Angola, Bolivie, Bosnie-Herzégovine, Égypte, Inde, Indonésie, Italie, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Pays-Bas, Philippines, Qatar et Slovénie.
Parmi eux, seuls l'Afrique du Sud, l'Inde, l'Indonésie, les Pays-Bas et les Philippines, qui ont effectué deux mandats consécutifs, n'étaient pas rééligibles. Ils devront attendre au moins un an avant de pouvoir se représenter.
Le Conseil, qui est renouvelable par tiers tous les ans, a été créé par l'Assemblée générale de l'ONU, le 15 mars 2006, avec le but principal d'examiner des situations de violations des droits de l'homme et de formuler des recommandations à leur encontre.
DÉTAIL DES VOTES CONCERNANT LES ÉLECTIONS AU CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME :
Pour les quatre sièges à pourvoir au sein du Groupe des États d'Afrique, l'Angola (170 voix), la Mauritanie (167 voix), l'Ouganda (164 voix) et la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne (155 voix) ont été élus.
Le nombre des bulletins valides était de 188.
Pour les quatre sièges à pourvoir au sein du Groupe des États d'Asie, les Maldives (185 voix), la Thaïlande (182 voix), la Malaisie (179 voix) et le Qatar (177 voix) ont été élus.
Le nombre des bulletins valides était de 188.
Pour les deux sièges à pourvoir au sein du Groupe des États d'Europe orientale, la République de Moldova (175 voix) et la Pologne (171 voix) ont été élues.
Le nombre des bulletins valides était de 188.
Pour les deux sièges à pourvoir au sein du Groupe des États d'Amérique latine et des Caraïbes, l'Équateur (180 voix) et le Guatemala (180 voix) ont été élus. Le Pérou a recueilli une voix.
Le nombre des bulletins valides était de 188.
Pour les deux sièges à pourvoir au sein du Groupe d'Europe de l'Ouest et autres États, l'Espagne (177 voix) et la Suisse (175 voix) ont été élues.
Le nombre des bulletins valides était de 188.
COMPOSITION DU CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME À COMPTER DU 19 JUIN 2010 :
Angola, Arabie saoudite, Argentine, Bahreïn, Bangladesh, Belgique, Brésil, Burkina Faso, Cameroun, Chili, Chine, Cuba, Djibouti, Équateur, Espagne, États-Unis, Fédération de Russie, France, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Hongrie, Jamahiriya arabe libyenne, Japon, Jordanie, Kirghizistan, Malaisie, Maldives, Maurice, Mauritanie, Mexique, Nigéria, Norvège, Ouganda, Pakistan, Pologne, Qatar, République de Corée, République de Moldova, Royaume-Uni, Sénégal, Slovaquie, Suisse, Thaïlande, Ukraine, Uruguay et Zambie.
5716. UN DIPLOMATE DE LA JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNE (LIBYE) FUT ÉLU PRÉSIDENT DU CONSEIL DE SÉCURITÉ POUR LE MOIS DE MARS 2009 À L'ONU. LE TEMPS PASSE
LIBYE
ONU
CONFÉRENCE DE PRESSE D’IBRAHIM DABBASHI, DE LA MISSION DE LA JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNE, PRÉSIDENT DU CONSEIL DE SÉCURITÉ POUR LE MOIS DE MARS
03/03/2009
http://www.un.org/News/fr-press/docs/2009/Conf090303-PST_CS.doc.htm
À la veille de la décision attendue de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI), Ibrahim Dabbashi, le Chargé d’affaires de la Mission permanente de la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne auprès des Nations Unies, qui assure la présidence du Conseil de sécurité pour le mois de mars,
a expliqué, cet après-midi, qu’il n’y avait pas d’accord entre les membres du Conseil pour invoquer l’article 16 du Statut de Rome de la Cour, relatif au sursis à enquêter ou à poursuivre, qui permettrait de suspendre pour un an les poursuites à l’encontre du Président soudanais Omar Hassan Al-Bachir.
Venu présenter le programme de travail mensuel du Conseil de sécurité, M. Dabbashi a expliqué aux journalistes que les membres du Conseil n’avaient pas prévu de séance qui se tiendrait en réaction à la décision de la CPI. Toutefois, les consultations se poursuivent sur la possibilité de recourir à l’article 16 du Statut de Rome, a-t-il précisé, espérant que dans l’intervalle, la situation sur le terrain ne se détériorera pas.
« Il est très important que le Conseil reste saisi de cette question à la lumière de la décision que prendront les organisations régionales, et en particulier l’Union africaine et la Ligue des États arabes »,
a souligné le représentant de la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne.
Le 26 mars, des consultations sont prévues sur le processus de médiation au Darfour, a-t-il précisé.
D’autre part, le 10 mars, le Conseil de sécurité examinera, en consultations à huis clos, le rapport du Comité créé par la résolution 1591 (2005) concernant le Soudan.
Cet organe subsidiaire du Conseil a été établi pour superviser l’application des sanctions pertinentes –embargo sur les armes, interdictions de voyager et gel des avoirs– imposées à un certain nombre d’individus et d’entités non gouvernementales dans ce pays.
Le même jour, les membres du Conseil de sécurité entendront un exposé du Président du Comité créé par la résolution 1737 (2006), chargé de surveiller l’application des mesures imposées à la République islamique d’Iran par le Conseil, ainsi que des sanctions visant des personnes et des entités désignées.
Parmi les autres temps forts des travaux du Conseil au cours de ce mois, M. Dabbashi a mis l’accent sur deux débats publics, dont le format permettra aux délégations qui le souhaitent de faire entendre leurs voix:
le premier de ces débats, prévu le 18 mars, portera sur le rapport de l’Union africaine et de l’Union européenne sur les opérations de maintien de la paix en Afrique, qui sera présenté par Romano Prodi, l’ancien Président du Conseil italien.
Ce débat se tiendra au niveau ministériel, sous la présidence du Ministre libyen des affaires africaines, Ali Triki,
qui est également pressenti pour être élu, en juin prochain, Président de la soixante-quatrième session de l’Assemblée générale,
a indiqué M. Dabbashi.
Le Conseil de sécurité sera en retraite, les 20 et 21 mars, avec le Secrétaire général pour réfléchir à la question des opérations de maintien de la paix.
Le second débat public aura lieu le 25 mars et sera consacré à la situation au Moyen-Orient, y compris la question palestinienne, a annoncé M. Dabbashi.
Trois autres débats, limités aux membres du Conseil de sécurité et aux pays concernés par les questions à l’ordre du jour, se tiendront les 19, 20 et 23 mars, et porteront respectivement sur
la Mission d’assistance des Nations Unies en Afghanistan (MANUA),
sur la situation en Somalie
et sur la Mission d’administration intérimaire des Nations Unies au Kosovo (MINUK).
Le 11 mars, a poursuivi M. Dabbashi, le Conseil de sécurité dépêchera, sous la présidence de l’Ambassadeur du Costa Rica, Jorge Urbina, une délégation en Haïti, qui sera de retour le 14 mars. Un compte rendu de cette mission sera fait en séance publique, le 19 mars.
Interrogé sur la situation au Moyen-Orient, le représentant de la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne a expliqué qu’un exposé de l’Envoyé spécial du Quatuor, l’ancien Premier Ministre britannique Tony Blair, était prévu depuis novembre dernier, mais qu’il n’avait pas été possible de l’organiser jusqu’à présent. M. Dabbashi a dit qu’il attendait la réponse de M. Blair pour ce mois-ci.
Il a cependant tenu à préciser que Tony Blair ne pourrait faire cet exposé qu’en sa qualité personnelle, et non en sa qualité d’Envoyé spécial, car cela nécessiterait qu’il y ait, au préalable à ce sujet, un consensus des membres du Quatuor, qui semble être « difficile à obtenir » en l’état actuel des choses.
Répondant à des questions et remarques des correspondants de presse,
M. Dabbashi a imputé la situation dramatique qui règne dans la bande de Gaza à Israël
et l’a comparée à celle qui prévaut dans « un camp de concentration ».
Par ailleurs, il a estimé que le Darfour n’était pas le théâtre d’un génocide, mais celui d’« un conflit tribal ayant dégénéré en conflit armé ».
Réaffirmant le soutien de son pays au Gouvernement soudanais « légitime », le représentant de la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne a néanmoins reconnu que des erreurs avaient pu être commises dans ce pays, y compris des déplacements de personnes et des actes ayant causé des victimes civiles.
Mais, a-t-il souligné,
« la Force internationale d’assistance à la sécurité déployée en Afghanistan a également fait des centaines de victimes civiles, par erreur ou par manque de précautions »,
alors même qu’elle dispose pour mener ses opérations, de technologies de pointe, ce qui n’est pas le cas des Soudanais.
Il faut regarder les choses de manière impartiale, a estimé M. Dabbashi.
Questionné sur l’absence de la situation dans laquelle se trouve le Sri Lanka à l’ordre du jour du Conseil de sécurité en ce mois de mars,
le représentant de la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne a indiqué que pour qu’une question y figure, l’unanimité des membres du Conseil de sécurité est nécessaire.
Or, en ce qui concerne le cas du Sri Lanka, elle est loin d’exister, a-t-il dit.
S’exprimant à sa qualité de diplomate libyen, M. Dabbashi a précisé « n’avoir aucun commentaire à faire à ce sujet ».
D’une façon générale, il a dit qu’il éprouvait une certaine réticence à envisager toute discussion avec les médias portant sur les activités du Conseil, et en particulier sur celles qui se déroulent en consultations à huis clos.
ONU
CONFÉRENCE DE PRESSE D’IBRAHIM DABBASHI, DE LA MISSION DE LA JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNE, PRÉSIDENT DU CONSEIL DE SÉCURITÉ POUR LE MOIS DE MARS
03/03/2009
http://www.un.org/News/fr-press/docs/2009/Conf090303-PST_CS.doc.htm
À la veille de la décision attendue de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI), Ibrahim Dabbashi, le Chargé d’affaires de la Mission permanente de la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne auprès des Nations Unies, qui assure la présidence du Conseil de sécurité pour le mois de mars,
a expliqué, cet après-midi, qu’il n’y avait pas d’accord entre les membres du Conseil pour invoquer l’article 16 du Statut de Rome de la Cour, relatif au sursis à enquêter ou à poursuivre, qui permettrait de suspendre pour un an les poursuites à l’encontre du Président soudanais Omar Hassan Al-Bachir.
Venu présenter le programme de travail mensuel du Conseil de sécurité, M. Dabbashi a expliqué aux journalistes que les membres du Conseil n’avaient pas prévu de séance qui se tiendrait en réaction à la décision de la CPI. Toutefois, les consultations se poursuivent sur la possibilité de recourir à l’article 16 du Statut de Rome, a-t-il précisé, espérant que dans l’intervalle, la situation sur le terrain ne se détériorera pas.
« Il est très important que le Conseil reste saisi de cette question à la lumière de la décision que prendront les organisations régionales, et en particulier l’Union africaine et la Ligue des États arabes »,
a souligné le représentant de la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne.
Le 26 mars, des consultations sont prévues sur le processus de médiation au Darfour, a-t-il précisé.
D’autre part, le 10 mars, le Conseil de sécurité examinera, en consultations à huis clos, le rapport du Comité créé par la résolution 1591 (2005) concernant le Soudan.
Cet organe subsidiaire du Conseil a été établi pour superviser l’application des sanctions pertinentes –embargo sur les armes, interdictions de voyager et gel des avoirs– imposées à un certain nombre d’individus et d’entités non gouvernementales dans ce pays.
Le même jour, les membres du Conseil de sécurité entendront un exposé du Président du Comité créé par la résolution 1737 (2006), chargé de surveiller l’application des mesures imposées à la République islamique d’Iran par le Conseil, ainsi que des sanctions visant des personnes et des entités désignées.
Parmi les autres temps forts des travaux du Conseil au cours de ce mois, M. Dabbashi a mis l’accent sur deux débats publics, dont le format permettra aux délégations qui le souhaitent de faire entendre leurs voix:
le premier de ces débats, prévu le 18 mars, portera sur le rapport de l’Union africaine et de l’Union européenne sur les opérations de maintien de la paix en Afrique, qui sera présenté par Romano Prodi, l’ancien Président du Conseil italien.
Ce débat se tiendra au niveau ministériel, sous la présidence du Ministre libyen des affaires africaines, Ali Triki,
qui est également pressenti pour être élu, en juin prochain, Président de la soixante-quatrième session de l’Assemblée générale,
a indiqué M. Dabbashi.
Le Conseil de sécurité sera en retraite, les 20 et 21 mars, avec le Secrétaire général pour réfléchir à la question des opérations de maintien de la paix.
Le second débat public aura lieu le 25 mars et sera consacré à la situation au Moyen-Orient, y compris la question palestinienne, a annoncé M. Dabbashi.
Trois autres débats, limités aux membres du Conseil de sécurité et aux pays concernés par les questions à l’ordre du jour, se tiendront les 19, 20 et 23 mars, et porteront respectivement sur
la Mission d’assistance des Nations Unies en Afghanistan (MANUA),
sur la situation en Somalie
et sur la Mission d’administration intérimaire des Nations Unies au Kosovo (MINUK).
Le 11 mars, a poursuivi M. Dabbashi, le Conseil de sécurité dépêchera, sous la présidence de l’Ambassadeur du Costa Rica, Jorge Urbina, une délégation en Haïti, qui sera de retour le 14 mars. Un compte rendu de cette mission sera fait en séance publique, le 19 mars.
Interrogé sur la situation au Moyen-Orient, le représentant de la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne a expliqué qu’un exposé de l’Envoyé spécial du Quatuor, l’ancien Premier Ministre britannique Tony Blair, était prévu depuis novembre dernier, mais qu’il n’avait pas été possible de l’organiser jusqu’à présent. M. Dabbashi a dit qu’il attendait la réponse de M. Blair pour ce mois-ci.
Il a cependant tenu à préciser que Tony Blair ne pourrait faire cet exposé qu’en sa qualité personnelle, et non en sa qualité d’Envoyé spécial, car cela nécessiterait qu’il y ait, au préalable à ce sujet, un consensus des membres du Quatuor, qui semble être « difficile à obtenir » en l’état actuel des choses.
Répondant à des questions et remarques des correspondants de presse,
M. Dabbashi a imputé la situation dramatique qui règne dans la bande de Gaza à Israël
et l’a comparée à celle qui prévaut dans « un camp de concentration ».
Par ailleurs, il a estimé que le Darfour n’était pas le théâtre d’un génocide, mais celui d’« un conflit tribal ayant dégénéré en conflit armé ».
Réaffirmant le soutien de son pays au Gouvernement soudanais « légitime », le représentant de la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne a néanmoins reconnu que des erreurs avaient pu être commises dans ce pays, y compris des déplacements de personnes et des actes ayant causé des victimes civiles.
Mais, a-t-il souligné,
« la Force internationale d’assistance à la sécurité déployée en Afghanistan a également fait des centaines de victimes civiles, par erreur ou par manque de précautions »,
alors même qu’elle dispose pour mener ses opérations, de technologies de pointe, ce qui n’est pas le cas des Soudanais.
Il faut regarder les choses de manière impartiale, a estimé M. Dabbashi.
Questionné sur l’absence de la situation dans laquelle se trouve le Sri Lanka à l’ordre du jour du Conseil de sécurité en ce mois de mars,
le représentant de la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne a indiqué que pour qu’une question y figure, l’unanimité des membres du Conseil de sécurité est nécessaire.
Or, en ce qui concerne le cas du Sri Lanka, elle est loin d’exister, a-t-il dit.
S’exprimant à sa qualité de diplomate libyen, M. Dabbashi a précisé « n’avoir aucun commentaire à faire à ce sujet ».
D’une façon générale, il a dit qu’il éprouvait une certaine réticence à envisager toute discussion avec les médias portant sur les activités du Conseil, et en particulier sur celles qui se déroulent en consultations à huis clos.
mercredi 14 septembre 2011
5715. VROUM MÉDIA VOUS REPRÉSENTE LE MONDE EN 60 SECONDES. KADHAFI ÉTAIT MÉCHANT. LA LIBYE ALLAIT MAL MAIS VA ALLER MIEUX!
http://img.alibaba.com/photo/232517985/TV_Antenna_Outdoor_TV_Antenna_Antenna_.jpgskahjemgard.com
http://skahjemgard.com/realitor-craigslist-houston-motorcycles-cb-antenna/
*
Douteur je doute. On ne doute jamais assez. Tout ce qu'on vous dit est faux. Tout ce que vous savez est faux. Parce que tout ce qu'on vous dit est faux. Mais il se peut qu'une partie de ce que savez soit vraie mais laquelle? Le professeur Bulle a parlé. Ou pensé quelque chose. Ou eut une émotion quelconque. Le professeur Bulle pense quelques fois par année donc il lui arrive d'être. Mais pas souvent!
5713. DES COMDAMNÉS CRÈVENT DE FAIM PENDANT QU'ON LEUR FAIT SENTIR DU JAMBON. CE QUI EST BON POUR LE MORAL.
http://marinni.livejournal.com/tag/%D0%9A%D0%90%D0%97%D0%9D%D0%98%20%D0%98%20%D0%9F%D0%AB%D0%A2%D0%9A%D0%98BLOG. Marinni
Martyrdom-Мученичества святых
[La jolie russe collectionne des peintures de martyres ou d'autres massacrés (politique ou sociaux) particulièrement parlantes. On entend presque les cris, les supplications et les hurlements. On apprend, si on ne le savait déjà, que massacrer son prochain a été depuis toujours une occupation enthousiasmante des autorités qui nous dirigent. Religieuses, politiques, judiciaires, militaires, économiques. Et qu'ils mettent dans la sophistication de la douleur et de la souffrance une imagination qui ne peut que vous couper le souffle d'admiration. Et les artistes ont su représenter la chose d'une façon élégante. Ce que la photo (pas encore inventée - il aura fallu attendre 100,000 ans) n'auraient pas su faire aussi bien. Le cinéma ne viendrait que plus tard. De même que l'enregistrement sonore. Que ne donnerait-on pas pour entendre la voix d'un homme scier en deux (vivant) ou écartelé par 4 chevaux (vivants) (les chevaux ou lui). Ou étripé (vivant). Les anglais aimaient beaucoup ce genre de procédés. Eux pourtant si férus de morale si tant qu'ils en donnent et en distribuent. Sans oublier et de leçon de savoir vivre. Quoi de mieux lorsqu'on vous sort les tripes du ventre et qu'on les enroule sur un treuil. Une quinzaine de pieds de longs. Pendant que le condamné (vivant) regarde ce qu'on lui fait après qu'on lui ait ouvert le vendre. Aujourd'hui, on se contente de griller (vivant) les gens du haut des airs en leur jetant des bombes intelligentes. C'est étrange que l'on s'acharne tant à parler de bombes intelligentes mais si rarement de politiciens intelligents. De militaires intelligents. On parle même de bombardement «scientifique». Ce qui est tout à leur honneur.]
5711. LE FMI. FOND MONÉTAIRE INTERNATIONAL FÉLICITE LA LIBYE POUR SA BONNE GESTION. ET UN MOIS APRÈS UNE ASSOCIATION D'ÉTATS EN FAILLITE L'ATTAQUENT !
IMF
International Monetary Fund
Executive Board Concludes 2010 Article IV Consultation with the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Public Information Notice (PIN) No. 11/23
February 15, 2011
http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2011/pn1123.htm&title=rapport%20du%20FMI
Public Information Notices (PINs) form part of the IMF's efforts to promote transparency of the IMF's views and analysis of economic developments and policies. With the consent of the country (or countries) concerned, PINs are issued after Executive Board discussions of Article IV consultations with member countries, of its surveillance of developments at the regional level, of post-program monitoring, and of ex post assessments of member countries with longer-term program engagements. PINs are also issued after Executive Board discussions of general policy matters, unless otherwise decided by the Executive Board in a particular case.
On February 9, 2011, the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) concluded the Article IV consultation with the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
BACKGROUND
Nonhydrocarbon growth has been solid, against the backdrop of high domestic demand.
It grew by an estimated 6 percent in 2009, mainly driven by investments in construction and in services.
Meanwhile, hydrocarbon output declined significantly due to compliance with the OPEC quota, resulting in a contraction of overall real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by an estimated 1.6 percent.
Overall growth increased markedly by an estimated 10 percent in 2010 reflecting a sharp increase in oil production.
Nonhydrocarbon growth also strengthened (to about 7 percent) as a result of large public expenditures.
However, unemployment has remained high, particularly among the youth.
Inflation is estimated to have picked up to about 4.5 percent in 2010 as higher oil revenue increased domestic liquidity and international commodity prices increased.
After a sharp decline in 2009, the fiscal surplus is estimated to have increased in 2010 mainly owing to the recovery in oil revenue.
The fiscal surplus narrowed substantially to about 7 percent of GDP in 2009 as a result of a sharp decline in oil revenue that more than offset the reduction in public outlays.
The latter reflects the net effect of a large decline in capital spending and a smaller increase in current outlays.
In 2010, current expenditure increased by an estimated 19 percent compared to 2009, largely due to full explicit accounting of energy subsidies and a 15 percent increase in the wage bill.
The ongoing prioritization of investment projects has allowed for an increase in capital expenditure by an estimated 18 percent.
The external current account surplus increased to an estimated 20 percent of GDP in 2010, from 16 percent of GDP in 2009.
Export earnings rebounded in line with the recovery in crude oil output and prices.
Imports, while also picking up due to strong domestic demand, have been steadier and remain about a third lower than exports.
Net foreign assets of the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) and the LIA are estimated to have reached $150 billion at end-2010 (the equivalent of almost 160 percent of GDP).
Broad money is estimated to have grown by about 10 percent in 2010, compared to 11 percent in 2009.
Commercial bank lending to the private sector and nonfinancial public enterprises has been constrained by lack of adequate borrower documentation, tightening of regulation, and high liquidity at public enterprises. The latter’s demand for bank services has been largely limited to letter of credits and guarantees.
Excess liquidity has remained high in the banking system, and financial intermediation is weak compared to neighboring countries.
An ambitious program to privatize banks
[!]
and develop the nascent financial sector is underway.
Banks have been partially privatized, interest rates decontrolled, and competition encouraged.
Ongoing efforts to restructure and modernize the CBL are underway with assistance from the Fund.
Capital and financial markets, however, are still underdeveloped with a very limited role in the economy.
There are no markets for government or private debt and the foreign exchange market is small.
STRUCTURAL REFORMS IN THE OTHER AREAS HAVVE PROGRESSED.
The passing in early 2010 of a number of far- reaching laws bodes well for fostering private sector development and attracting foreign direct investment. The success of the new laws, however, hinges on promoting inter-agency coordination and open consultation with the legal and business communities, and establishing permanent bodies to monitor, assess, and oversee implementation.
A comprehensive civil service reform is needed to facilitate more effective wage and employment policies that would address the needs of a young and growing labor force.
Recent developments in neighboring Egypt and Tunisia have had limited economic impact on Libya so far.
To counter the impact of higher global food prices, the government abolished, on January 16, taxes and custom duties on locally-produced and imported food products.
Later in January, the government also announced the creation of a large multi-billion dollar fund for investment and local development that will focus on providing housing for the growing population.
EXECUTIVE BOARD ASSESSMENT
Executive Directors agreed with the thrust of the staff appraisal.
They welcomed Libya’s strong macroeconomic performance and the progress on enhancing the role of the private sector and supporting growth in the non-oil economy.
The fiscal and external balances remain in substantial surplus
and are expected to strengthen further over the medium term,
and the outlook for Libya’s economy remains favorable.
[Avant qu'on l'a réduise en miette!]
Directors saw as the main challenges the need to provide employment opportunities for a young and growing labor force,
and the steadfast implementation of reforms to diversify the economy and reduce the high dependence on oil revenue.
Directors supported the overall fiscal stance and noted that the increase in capital spending in 2010 will support private sector development.
At the same time, they emphasized the need to contain the increase in current spending and ensure the quality of spending.
Directors also encouraged the authorities to cast fiscal policy in a medium-term framework to minimize the impact of oil price volatility.
Directors commended the efforts to strengthen public financial management, including the new and simplified income tax law and the effective unification of the current and investment budgets.
They encouraged the authorities to carry on with their plans to establish a treasury single account, improve the consistency of budget classification, and streamline procedures to enhance expenditure management. These steps would also facilitate fiscal and monetary policy coordination.
Directors welcomed the introduction by the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) of a new 28-day certificate of deposit and its establishment of an overnight facility as steps to enhance the monetary policy framework.
They noted the importance of addressing the factors behind the large excess liquidity in the banking system ¸
[!]
including by establishing the treasury single account and reforming the specialized credit institutions (SCIs) with a view to reducing their on-lending activities and curtailing budget allocations.
Directors encouraged the authorities to continue to strengthen bank supervision, with a focus on capacity building and enhancing coordination between on-site and off-site supervision units.
Directors agreed that the dinar’s peg to the Special Drawing Rights (SDR) remains appropriate by providing a strong monetary anchor. They noted the staff’s assessment that the dinar’s exchange rate is broadly aligned with fundamentals.
Directors welcomed the passing of the Libyan Investment Authority law, which enhances its regulatory and operational framework.
While recognizing the role that investment funds are playing as part of Libya’s diversification strategy, Directors noted that investment funds outside the budget can complicate public expenditure management. It would also be important to ensure that the CBL’s involvement with these funds does not conflict with monetary policy objectives.
Directors encouraged the authorities to further advance structural reforms to support private sector development.
They commended the authorities for their ambitious reform agenda, and looked forward to the effective implementation of the many important laws passed in the last year, complemented by policies aimed at adapting the labor force to the economic transformation.
Directors encouraged the authorities to continue to improve economic and financial statistics.
International Monetary Fund
Executive Board Concludes 2010 Article IV Consultation with the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Public Information Notice (PIN) No. 11/23
February 15, 2011
http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2011/pn1123.htm&title=rapport%20du%20FMI
Public Information Notices (PINs) form part of the IMF's efforts to promote transparency of the IMF's views and analysis of economic developments and policies. With the consent of the country (or countries) concerned, PINs are issued after Executive Board discussions of Article IV consultations with member countries, of its surveillance of developments at the regional level, of post-program monitoring, and of ex post assessments of member countries with longer-term program engagements. PINs are also issued after Executive Board discussions of general policy matters, unless otherwise decided by the Executive Board in a particular case.
On February 9, 2011, the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) concluded the Article IV consultation with the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
BACKGROUND
Nonhydrocarbon growth has been solid, against the backdrop of high domestic demand.
It grew by an estimated 6 percent in 2009, mainly driven by investments in construction and in services.
Meanwhile, hydrocarbon output declined significantly due to compliance with the OPEC quota, resulting in a contraction of overall real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by an estimated 1.6 percent.
Overall growth increased markedly by an estimated 10 percent in 2010 reflecting a sharp increase in oil production.
Nonhydrocarbon growth also strengthened (to about 7 percent) as a result of large public expenditures.
However, unemployment has remained high, particularly among the youth.
Inflation is estimated to have picked up to about 4.5 percent in 2010 as higher oil revenue increased domestic liquidity and international commodity prices increased.
After a sharp decline in 2009, the fiscal surplus is estimated to have increased in 2010 mainly owing to the recovery in oil revenue.
The fiscal surplus narrowed substantially to about 7 percent of GDP in 2009 as a result of a sharp decline in oil revenue that more than offset the reduction in public outlays.
The latter reflects the net effect of a large decline in capital spending and a smaller increase in current outlays.
In 2010, current expenditure increased by an estimated 19 percent compared to 2009, largely due to full explicit accounting of energy subsidies and a 15 percent increase in the wage bill.
The ongoing prioritization of investment projects has allowed for an increase in capital expenditure by an estimated 18 percent.
The external current account surplus increased to an estimated 20 percent of GDP in 2010, from 16 percent of GDP in 2009.
Export earnings rebounded in line with the recovery in crude oil output and prices.
Imports, while also picking up due to strong domestic demand, have been steadier and remain about a third lower than exports.
Net foreign assets of the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) and the LIA are estimated to have reached $150 billion at end-2010 (the equivalent of almost 160 percent of GDP).
Broad money is estimated to have grown by about 10 percent in 2010, compared to 11 percent in 2009.
Commercial bank lending to the private sector and nonfinancial public enterprises has been constrained by lack of adequate borrower documentation, tightening of regulation, and high liquidity at public enterprises. The latter’s demand for bank services has been largely limited to letter of credits and guarantees.
Excess liquidity has remained high in the banking system, and financial intermediation is weak compared to neighboring countries.
An ambitious program to privatize banks
[!]
and develop the nascent financial sector is underway.
Banks have been partially privatized, interest rates decontrolled, and competition encouraged.
Ongoing efforts to restructure and modernize the CBL are underway with assistance from the Fund.
Capital and financial markets, however, are still underdeveloped with a very limited role in the economy.
There are no markets for government or private debt and the foreign exchange market is small.
STRUCTURAL REFORMS IN THE OTHER AREAS HAVVE PROGRESSED.
The passing in early 2010 of a number of far- reaching laws bodes well for fostering private sector development and attracting foreign direct investment. The success of the new laws, however, hinges on promoting inter-agency coordination and open consultation with the legal and business communities, and establishing permanent bodies to monitor, assess, and oversee implementation.
A comprehensive civil service reform is needed to facilitate more effective wage and employment policies that would address the needs of a young and growing labor force.
Recent developments in neighboring Egypt and Tunisia have had limited economic impact on Libya so far.
To counter the impact of higher global food prices, the government abolished, on January 16, taxes and custom duties on locally-produced and imported food products.
Later in January, the government also announced the creation of a large multi-billion dollar fund for investment and local development that will focus on providing housing for the growing population.
EXECUTIVE BOARD ASSESSMENT
Executive Directors agreed with the thrust of the staff appraisal.
They welcomed Libya’s strong macroeconomic performance and the progress on enhancing the role of the private sector and supporting growth in the non-oil economy.
The fiscal and external balances remain in substantial surplus
and are expected to strengthen further over the medium term,
and the outlook for Libya’s economy remains favorable.
[Avant qu'on l'a réduise en miette!]
Directors saw as the main challenges the need to provide employment opportunities for a young and growing labor force,
and the steadfast implementation of reforms to diversify the economy and reduce the high dependence on oil revenue.
Directors supported the overall fiscal stance and noted that the increase in capital spending in 2010 will support private sector development.
At the same time, they emphasized the need to contain the increase in current spending and ensure the quality of spending.
Directors also encouraged the authorities to cast fiscal policy in a medium-term framework to minimize the impact of oil price volatility.
Directors commended the efforts to strengthen public financial management, including the new and simplified income tax law and the effective unification of the current and investment budgets.
They encouraged the authorities to carry on with their plans to establish a treasury single account, improve the consistency of budget classification, and streamline procedures to enhance expenditure management. These steps would also facilitate fiscal and monetary policy coordination.
Directors welcomed the introduction by the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) of a new 28-day certificate of deposit and its establishment of an overnight facility as steps to enhance the monetary policy framework.
They noted the importance of addressing the factors behind the large excess liquidity in the banking system ¸
[!]
including by establishing the treasury single account and reforming the specialized credit institutions (SCIs) with a view to reducing their on-lending activities and curtailing budget allocations.
Directors encouraged the authorities to continue to strengthen bank supervision, with a focus on capacity building and enhancing coordination between on-site and off-site supervision units.
Directors agreed that the dinar’s peg to the Special Drawing Rights (SDR) remains appropriate by providing a strong monetary anchor. They noted the staff’s assessment that the dinar’s exchange rate is broadly aligned with fundamentals.
Directors welcomed the passing of the Libyan Investment Authority law, which enhances its regulatory and operational framework.
While recognizing the role that investment funds are playing as part of Libya’s diversification strategy, Directors noted that investment funds outside the budget can complicate public expenditure management. It would also be important to ensure that the CBL’s involvement with these funds does not conflict with monetary policy objectives.
Directors encouraged the authorities to further advance structural reforms to support private sector development.
They commended the authorities for their ambitious reform agenda, and looked forward to the effective implementation of the many important laws passed in the last year, complemented by policies aimed at adapting the labor force to the economic transformation.
Directors encouraged the authorities to continue to improve economic and financial statistics.
*
Image. http://malakoffantilberalunitaire.over-blog.org/article-26506525.html
Plomb durci, uranium appauvri et avantages d'armes dites intelligentes
5710. CECI N'EST QU'UNE COÏNCIDENCE.
LA LIBYE DES FAITS
Pierre Jc Allard
24-07-2011
http://nouvellesociete.wordpress.com/
http://allainjules.com/2011/06/16/libye-ou-sont-donc-les-terroristes-de-kadhafi/
On tue des gens en Libye.
Que se passe-t-il ?
On parle beaucoup de la Libye, mais en en disant très peu; on se borne à éructer des slogans pour conforter des préjugés.
Comment échapper à l’enfumage constant des médias, ici encore plus grossier qu’a l’ordinaire ?
[Et que dire ce qui vient de se passer le 11 septembre 2011 pour fêter l'annivesaire du 11 septembre 2001 !]
Deux (2) petits trucs.
1. D’abord comprendre que PERSONNE n’a le fin mot de l’affaire. Ni vous ni moi, bien sûr, mais ni Sarkozy ni Obama, ni Kadhafi non plus, car la situation est un enchevêtrement d’interêts nationaux et personnels – ceux-ci d’autant plus signifiants que ceux-la sont mal définis – et qu’il y a donc une infinité de joueurs dont l’importance relative n’est pas uniquement fonction de leur pouvoir… mais aussi de la priorité changeante qu’ils accordent à ce dossier.
On ne sait donc vraiment pas ce qui en sortira.
Il serait intéressant de faire un parallèle avec le nord de l’Italie, début Renaissance. Intrigues,zizanie, des mercenaires… des alliances au jour le jour, déloyauté et duplicité sans fin…
2. Prendre pour acquis qu’il n’y a que des FAITS dont on soit sûr, car toutes les interprétations des uns et des autres sont uniquement en fonction de l’agenda de celui qui interprète.
La vérité n’est pas prise en considération, seulement la vraisemblance… et l’on n’est pas trop exigeant.
Donc, s’en tenir aux faits.
Quels sont les faits concernant la Libye et les événements qui s’y déroulent ?
On peut voir le site Wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libye et le blogueur Loatse m’a fait parvenir des renseignements complémentaires que j’ai ajoutés et dont je n’ai aucune raison de douter de la véracité
D’ABORD, LA LIBYE EST LE PAYS LE PLUS RICHE DE LA RÉGION
trois (3) fois le niveau de vie de l’Égypte ou de la Tunisie ses voisines.
Ca, ce n’est pas du génie; c’est le pétrole…. !
Mais Il y a plus. La Libye, selon le Programme des Nations unies pour le développement, a aussi le meilleur IDH (Indice de développement humain) d’Afrique.
Pour ça, avoir du pétrole ne suffit pas.
Il faut vouloir et pouvoir utiliser les revenus du pétrole pour qu’ils profitent a la population. On le fait en Libye comme nulle part ailleurs.
Il faut le vouloir pour que les services sociaux à la population et les aides à la consommation soient les meilleurs du monde.
En Libye on l’a voulu.
Les soins médicaux sont gratuits, l’éducation secondaire et universitaire sont gratuites.
Le taux d’alphabétisation est supérieur à 90%.
Chaque étudiant libyen qui veut faire ses études à l’étranger reçoit une bourse de 1 627,11 Euros par mois, et tout étudiant diplômé qui ne trouverait pas d’emploi reçoit le salaire moyen de la profession qu’il a choisie.
Ca ne se discute pas: CE SONT LES FAITS.
Et il y a d’autres faits indiscutés.
Les Libyens n’ont pas d’impôt à payer et la TVA n’existe pas en Libye.
La Libye est le pays le moins endetté du monde: la dette publique est à 3,3% du PIB, alors qu’elle est à 84,5% en France et à 88,9% aux USA.
Côté gestion, la Libye est exemplaire.
On donne beaucoup aux Libyens. Le droit au logement, par exemple, est jugé indiscutable et un logement doit appartenir à celui qui l’occupe.
L’Etat paye donc le premier appartement ou maison (150 mètres carrés) de tout nouveau couple qui se marie et tout(e) citoyen(ne) libyen(ne) n’ayant pas de logement peut s’inscrire auprès de l’État pour qu’il lui en soit attribué un.
S’il veut faire des travaux dans sa maison, il peut s’inscrire auprès d’un organisme de l’Etat et ces travaux seront effectués gratuitement par des entreprises de travaux publics choisies par l’État.
Chaque citoyen(ne) libyen(ne) peut s’investir activement dans la vie politique et dans la gestion des affaires publiques, aux niveaux local, régional et national, dans le cadre d’un système de démocratie directe ( “JAMAHIRIYA” ) qui tient compte de la representation des spécificités régionales et tribales.
Cela va des Congrès populaires de base permanents, jusqu’au Congrès général du peuple, le grand congrès national qui se réunit une fois par an.
Sur 3,5 millions d’adultes, 600 000 citoyens participent activement à la vie politique.
LA LIBYE EST LE 7 ième FOND SOUVERAIN FINANCIER DANS LE MONDE
ses réserves fiduciaires sont supérieures à celle de la Russie qui a 25 fois sa population !
La Libye se sert de sa richesse pour ses citoyens, mais aussi, en y investissant des milliards, pour participer activement au développement de l’Afrique et à son indépendance vis-à-vis des Occidentaux.
Qu’est-ce qu’on reproche à la Libye ?
A chacun d’interpréter, mais il y a des FAITs. Indiscutés. Il faut en tenir compte.
Le fait qu’il y avait des rivalités de longue date entre la Cyrénaïque et la Tripolitaine, par exemple, mais que personne n’avait parlé d’une rebellion armée depuis bien longtemps, avant que CNN et la BBC ne le fasse en février 2011.
Le fait que la France, puis les autres pays sous couvert de l’Otan, sont intervenus en Libye sous prétexte de bombardements à Tripoli et de massacres à Benghazi, mais qu’il est maintenant avérés que ces événements n’ont jamais eu lieu.
Le fait que la France l’Angleterre, les USA, puis plus tard l’Otan sont intervenus – en anticipant la demande d’un groupe de rebelles (CNTI) composé d’anciens ministres et alliés renégats de Kadhafi, de militants islamistes de diverses origines et de gens venus directement des USA –
reconnaissant comme le gouvernement légitime de la Libye cet ensemble hétéroclite qui n’a jamais obtenu la moindre reconnaissance de la population.
Le fait que ce gouvernement de rebelles ainsi légitimé a prioritairement veillé au depart des équipes chinoises qui préparait sur place l’exportation prochaine de pétrole vers la Chine.
Le fait que la coalition de l’Otan – qui est intervenue sous prétexte de protéger les civils – bombarde maintenant ces civils comme les forces de Kadhafi ne l’ont jamais fait.
Le fait que des centaines de milliers de Libyens manifestent maintenant à Tripoli et ailleurs pour soutenir Kadhafi… alors que les médias occidentaux peinent à mettre à l’écran quelques douzaines de “rebelles” bigarrés, tirant en l’air comme à la Fantasia..
Le fait, surtout, que les 30 pays coalisés ont saisi USD$ 33 milliards de fonds libyens deposés de bonne foi dans leurs institutions financières par le régime Kadhafi …
ce qui semble bien indélicat.
Un dernier fait, enfin, qui laisse rêveur.
Le 15 fevrier 2011, le Fond monétaire International (FMI), concluant une enquête approfondie d’un an, a félicité le colonel Kadhafi pour sa bonne gestion de la Libye et l’a encouragé à « continuer d’améliorer l’économie », mentionnant son « ambitieux agenda de réformes »
http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2011/pn1123.htm&title=rapport%20du%20FMI
N’est-il pas surprenant que des émeutes éclatent à Benghazi, au moment où le régime libyen reçoit cet aval du FMI contrôlé par les mêmes nations qui vont l’attaquer ?
Le 26 février, Mostafa Mohamad Abdeljalil, ancien ministre libyen de la Justice sous Kadhafi, annonce la formation d’un gouvernement provisoire (CNTI) à Benghazi.
Le 19 mars, en accord avec la résolution 1973 du Conseil de Sécurité des Nations Unies, une intervention militaire aéronavale est déclenchée par la France, suivie par le Royaume-Uni et les États-Unis…
Que diable Kadhafi a-t-il bien pu faire dans ces 32 jours qui séparent les félicitations de l’anathème?
À la lumière de ces faits et de ce changement de cap imprévu, il faudrait bien que ceux qui soutiennent l’intervention en Libye nous expliquent en quoi le régime Khadafi est devenu insupportable en quelques jours de février cette année,
et comment on peut penser que cette intervention ait eu d’autres buts que:
a) d’empêcher la Chine d’avoir accès au pétrole libyen,
et b) de faire main basse sur USD $ 33 milliards des fonds d’un pays souverain.
A défaut d’explications, on ne peut voir dans cette intervention qu’un BRIGANDAGE qui comme Occidentaux nous déshonore.
L’Histoire y verra la même chose.
Pierre JC Allard
COMMENTAIRES
1
Une fois n’est pas coutume, je voudrais vous féliciter pour cet article. Pardonnez-moi toutefois de rester un peu « journaliste de l’âme » : pouvez-vous me donner des sources pour confirmer ce que vous dites sur l’éducation, les bourses d’étude, le logement, les soins médicaux etc, en Lybie.. Ce sont des informations étonnantes à plus d’un titre : d’abord par ce qu’elles révèlent du niveau socio-économique du pays et ernsuite, si elles sont vraies, qu’elles aient été totalement ignorées des populations occidentales, françaises, notamment.
2
Merci. Pour ma part, je suis au contraire généralement d’accord avec vos articles. Tous les renseignements sur les avantages sociaux en Libye sont expliqués sur les documents de l’Unesco, entre autres, et ont justifié la première position en Afrique qu’on lui a accordé à l’Indice de développement humain (IDH).
Des mesures similaires – mais pour des raisons doctrinales, pas toutes – existent aussi dans certaines pétromonarchies du Golfe.
Le fric mène a tout, à condition de le sortir…
La clef, ici, est que Kadhafi a pris le pouvoir un peu par hasard a 27 ans, avec des connaissances sommaires, sans autre maître a penser que Nasser et Allah.
Intelligent, plein de bonnes intentions et sans le goût de lucre de celui dont la grand-pere était riche, il a établi un mode de gouvernance sur mesure pour la Libye (Jamahiriya) dont on voit avec le temps qu’il pourrait aller comme un gant aux société multitribales de la majorité des pays d’Afrique.
Khadafi a eu la chance que le pétrole enrichisse la Libye, et la malédiction d’avoir des principes, ce qui lui a fait soutenir des causes bonnes et mauvaises, mais surtout dénoncer les indélicatesses de l’Occident.
On ne peut le corrompre, on essaie donc de le tuer.
Meme approche qu’avec Castro, Lumumba, Allende et autres et maintenant Chavez.
On n’en sait presque rien en Occident, parce que le contrôle des médias est presque total
et que le Systeme ne veut surtout pas qu’émerge une alternative politique à la gouvernance par copinage… qui est parfaite pour les copains.
Ce que j’appelle une mince pellicule de moisissure à la surface de nos sociétés.
3
« Il me permet une réelle réflexion sur des sujets auxquels je ne penserais pas »
C’est le but ultime, puisqu’une Nouvelle Société se sait et se VEUT une étape dans une évolution en perpétuel changement. « L’État d’une Nouvelle Société remet périodiquement en question toutes ses méthodes comme ses politiques et a un préjugé favorable en faveur du changement. »
http://nouvellesociete.wordpress.com/en-3-minutes/
4
Je pense que certains chiffre sont à vérifier :
L’Organisation mondiale de la santé classe le système de santé libyen au 87ème rang dans le monde, derrière la Tunisie (52ème), le Maroc (29ème) et l’Algérie (81ème). Il se classe devant le système mauritanien, à la 162ème place.
Mais les raisons de cette guerre restent pour moi douteuses.
5
Je remet ici la référence à la classification du Programme des Nations-Unies pour le Développement (PNUD) qui met bien la Libye au premier rang en Afrique, loin devant la Tunisie et l’Egypte, juste derrière le Mexique et Costa Rica – « la vitrine de la démocratie » sur le tableau international.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDI_2008_EN_Tables.pdf
De la même façon que les ténors du FMI peuvent féliciter Kadhafi et l’Otan l’envahir deux semaines plus tard, je ne serais pas surpris que l’indice de la Libye devienne calamiteux
quand l’Otan aura fini d’y bombarder tous les hôpitaux.
Pierre Jc Allard
24-07-2011
http://nouvellesociete.wordpress.com/
http://allainjules.com/2011/06/16/libye-ou-sont-donc-les-terroristes-de-kadhafi/
On tue des gens en Libye.
Que se passe-t-il ?
On parle beaucoup de la Libye, mais en en disant très peu; on se borne à éructer des slogans pour conforter des préjugés.
Comment échapper à l’enfumage constant des médias, ici encore plus grossier qu’a l’ordinaire ?
[Et que dire ce qui vient de se passer le 11 septembre 2011 pour fêter l'annivesaire du 11 septembre 2001 !]
Deux (2) petits trucs.
1. D’abord comprendre que PERSONNE n’a le fin mot de l’affaire. Ni vous ni moi, bien sûr, mais ni Sarkozy ni Obama, ni Kadhafi non plus, car la situation est un enchevêtrement d’interêts nationaux et personnels – ceux-ci d’autant plus signifiants que ceux-la sont mal définis – et qu’il y a donc une infinité de joueurs dont l’importance relative n’est pas uniquement fonction de leur pouvoir… mais aussi de la priorité changeante qu’ils accordent à ce dossier.
On ne sait donc vraiment pas ce qui en sortira.
Il serait intéressant de faire un parallèle avec le nord de l’Italie, début Renaissance. Intrigues,zizanie, des mercenaires… des alliances au jour le jour, déloyauté et duplicité sans fin…
2. Prendre pour acquis qu’il n’y a que des FAITS dont on soit sûr, car toutes les interprétations des uns et des autres sont uniquement en fonction de l’agenda de celui qui interprète.
La vérité n’est pas prise en considération, seulement la vraisemblance… et l’on n’est pas trop exigeant.
Donc, s’en tenir aux faits.
Quels sont les faits concernant la Libye et les événements qui s’y déroulent ?
On peut voir le site Wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libye et le blogueur Loatse m’a fait parvenir des renseignements complémentaires que j’ai ajoutés et dont je n’ai aucune raison de douter de la véracité
D’ABORD, LA LIBYE EST LE PAYS LE PLUS RICHE DE LA RÉGION
trois (3) fois le niveau de vie de l’Égypte ou de la Tunisie ses voisines.
Ca, ce n’est pas du génie; c’est le pétrole…. !
Mais Il y a plus. La Libye, selon le Programme des Nations unies pour le développement, a aussi le meilleur IDH (Indice de développement humain) d’Afrique.
Pour ça, avoir du pétrole ne suffit pas.
Il faut vouloir et pouvoir utiliser les revenus du pétrole pour qu’ils profitent a la population. On le fait en Libye comme nulle part ailleurs.
Il faut le vouloir pour que les services sociaux à la population et les aides à la consommation soient les meilleurs du monde.
En Libye on l’a voulu.
Les soins médicaux sont gratuits, l’éducation secondaire et universitaire sont gratuites.
Le taux d’alphabétisation est supérieur à 90%.
Chaque étudiant libyen qui veut faire ses études à l’étranger reçoit une bourse de 1 627,11 Euros par mois, et tout étudiant diplômé qui ne trouverait pas d’emploi reçoit le salaire moyen de la profession qu’il a choisie.
Ca ne se discute pas: CE SONT LES FAITS.
Et il y a d’autres faits indiscutés.
Les Libyens n’ont pas d’impôt à payer et la TVA n’existe pas en Libye.
La Libye est le pays le moins endetté du monde: la dette publique est à 3,3% du PIB, alors qu’elle est à 84,5% en France et à 88,9% aux USA.
Côté gestion, la Libye est exemplaire.
On donne beaucoup aux Libyens. Le droit au logement, par exemple, est jugé indiscutable et un logement doit appartenir à celui qui l’occupe.
L’Etat paye donc le premier appartement ou maison (150 mètres carrés) de tout nouveau couple qui se marie et tout(e) citoyen(ne) libyen(ne) n’ayant pas de logement peut s’inscrire auprès de l’État pour qu’il lui en soit attribué un.
S’il veut faire des travaux dans sa maison, il peut s’inscrire auprès d’un organisme de l’Etat et ces travaux seront effectués gratuitement par des entreprises de travaux publics choisies par l’État.
Chaque citoyen(ne) libyen(ne) peut s’investir activement dans la vie politique et dans la gestion des affaires publiques, aux niveaux local, régional et national, dans le cadre d’un système de démocratie directe ( “JAMAHIRIYA” ) qui tient compte de la representation des spécificités régionales et tribales.
Cela va des Congrès populaires de base permanents, jusqu’au Congrès général du peuple, le grand congrès national qui se réunit une fois par an.
Sur 3,5 millions d’adultes, 600 000 citoyens participent activement à la vie politique.
LA LIBYE EST LE 7 ième FOND SOUVERAIN FINANCIER DANS LE MONDE
ses réserves fiduciaires sont supérieures à celle de la Russie qui a 25 fois sa population !
La Libye se sert de sa richesse pour ses citoyens, mais aussi, en y investissant des milliards, pour participer activement au développement de l’Afrique et à son indépendance vis-à-vis des Occidentaux.
Qu’est-ce qu’on reproche à la Libye ?
A chacun d’interpréter, mais il y a des FAITs. Indiscutés. Il faut en tenir compte.
Le fait qu’il y avait des rivalités de longue date entre la Cyrénaïque et la Tripolitaine, par exemple, mais que personne n’avait parlé d’une rebellion armée depuis bien longtemps, avant que CNN et la BBC ne le fasse en février 2011.
Le fait que la France, puis les autres pays sous couvert de l’Otan, sont intervenus en Libye sous prétexte de bombardements à Tripoli et de massacres à Benghazi, mais qu’il est maintenant avérés que ces événements n’ont jamais eu lieu.
Le fait que la France l’Angleterre, les USA, puis plus tard l’Otan sont intervenus – en anticipant la demande d’un groupe de rebelles (CNTI) composé d’anciens ministres et alliés renégats de Kadhafi, de militants islamistes de diverses origines et de gens venus directement des USA –
reconnaissant comme le gouvernement légitime de la Libye cet ensemble hétéroclite qui n’a jamais obtenu la moindre reconnaissance de la population.
Le fait que ce gouvernement de rebelles ainsi légitimé a prioritairement veillé au depart des équipes chinoises qui préparait sur place l’exportation prochaine de pétrole vers la Chine.
Le fait que la coalition de l’Otan – qui est intervenue sous prétexte de protéger les civils – bombarde maintenant ces civils comme les forces de Kadhafi ne l’ont jamais fait.
Le fait que des centaines de milliers de Libyens manifestent maintenant à Tripoli et ailleurs pour soutenir Kadhafi… alors que les médias occidentaux peinent à mettre à l’écran quelques douzaines de “rebelles” bigarrés, tirant en l’air comme à la Fantasia..
Le fait, surtout, que les 30 pays coalisés ont saisi USD$ 33 milliards de fonds libyens deposés de bonne foi dans leurs institutions financières par le régime Kadhafi …
ce qui semble bien indélicat.
Un dernier fait, enfin, qui laisse rêveur.
Le 15 fevrier 2011, le Fond monétaire International (FMI), concluant une enquête approfondie d’un an, a félicité le colonel Kadhafi pour sa bonne gestion de la Libye et l’a encouragé à « continuer d’améliorer l’économie », mentionnant son « ambitieux agenda de réformes »
http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2011/pn1123.htm&title=rapport%20du%20FMI
N’est-il pas surprenant que des émeutes éclatent à Benghazi, au moment où le régime libyen reçoit cet aval du FMI contrôlé par les mêmes nations qui vont l’attaquer ?
Le 26 février, Mostafa Mohamad Abdeljalil, ancien ministre libyen de la Justice sous Kadhafi, annonce la formation d’un gouvernement provisoire (CNTI) à Benghazi.
Le 19 mars, en accord avec la résolution 1973 du Conseil de Sécurité des Nations Unies, une intervention militaire aéronavale est déclenchée par la France, suivie par le Royaume-Uni et les États-Unis…
Que diable Kadhafi a-t-il bien pu faire dans ces 32 jours qui séparent les félicitations de l’anathème?
À la lumière de ces faits et de ce changement de cap imprévu, il faudrait bien que ceux qui soutiennent l’intervention en Libye nous expliquent en quoi le régime Khadafi est devenu insupportable en quelques jours de février cette année,
et comment on peut penser que cette intervention ait eu d’autres buts que:
a) d’empêcher la Chine d’avoir accès au pétrole libyen,
et b) de faire main basse sur USD $ 33 milliards des fonds d’un pays souverain.
A défaut d’explications, on ne peut voir dans cette intervention qu’un BRIGANDAGE qui comme Occidentaux nous déshonore.
L’Histoire y verra la même chose.
Pierre JC Allard
COMMENTAIRES
1
Une fois n’est pas coutume, je voudrais vous féliciter pour cet article. Pardonnez-moi toutefois de rester un peu « journaliste de l’âme » : pouvez-vous me donner des sources pour confirmer ce que vous dites sur l’éducation, les bourses d’étude, le logement, les soins médicaux etc, en Lybie.. Ce sont des informations étonnantes à plus d’un titre : d’abord par ce qu’elles révèlent du niveau socio-économique du pays et ernsuite, si elles sont vraies, qu’elles aient été totalement ignorées des populations occidentales, françaises, notamment.
2
Merci. Pour ma part, je suis au contraire généralement d’accord avec vos articles. Tous les renseignements sur les avantages sociaux en Libye sont expliqués sur les documents de l’Unesco, entre autres, et ont justifié la première position en Afrique qu’on lui a accordé à l’Indice de développement humain (IDH).
Des mesures similaires – mais pour des raisons doctrinales, pas toutes – existent aussi dans certaines pétromonarchies du Golfe.
Le fric mène a tout, à condition de le sortir…
La clef, ici, est que Kadhafi a pris le pouvoir un peu par hasard a 27 ans, avec des connaissances sommaires, sans autre maître a penser que Nasser et Allah.
Intelligent, plein de bonnes intentions et sans le goût de lucre de celui dont la grand-pere était riche, il a établi un mode de gouvernance sur mesure pour la Libye (Jamahiriya) dont on voit avec le temps qu’il pourrait aller comme un gant aux société multitribales de la majorité des pays d’Afrique.
Khadafi a eu la chance que le pétrole enrichisse la Libye, et la malédiction d’avoir des principes, ce qui lui a fait soutenir des causes bonnes et mauvaises, mais surtout dénoncer les indélicatesses de l’Occident.
On ne peut le corrompre, on essaie donc de le tuer.
Meme approche qu’avec Castro, Lumumba, Allende et autres et maintenant Chavez.
On n’en sait presque rien en Occident, parce que le contrôle des médias est presque total
et que le Systeme ne veut surtout pas qu’émerge une alternative politique à la gouvernance par copinage… qui est parfaite pour les copains.
Ce que j’appelle une mince pellicule de moisissure à la surface de nos sociétés.
3
« Il me permet une réelle réflexion sur des sujets auxquels je ne penserais pas »
C’est le but ultime, puisqu’une Nouvelle Société se sait et se VEUT une étape dans une évolution en perpétuel changement. « L’État d’une Nouvelle Société remet périodiquement en question toutes ses méthodes comme ses politiques et a un préjugé favorable en faveur du changement. »
http://nouvellesociete.wordpress.com/en-3-minutes/
4
Je pense que certains chiffre sont à vérifier :
L’Organisation mondiale de la santé classe le système de santé libyen au 87ème rang dans le monde, derrière la Tunisie (52ème), le Maroc (29ème) et l’Algérie (81ème). Il se classe devant le système mauritanien, à la 162ème place.
Mais les raisons de cette guerre restent pour moi douteuses.
5
Je remet ici la référence à la classification du Programme des Nations-Unies pour le Développement (PNUD) qui met bien la Libye au premier rang en Afrique, loin devant la Tunisie et l’Egypte, juste derrière le Mexique et Costa Rica – « la vitrine de la démocratie » sur le tableau international.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDI_2008_EN_Tables.pdf
De la même façon que les ténors du FMI peuvent féliciter Kadhafi et l’Otan l’envahir deux semaines plus tard, je ne serais pas surpris que l’indice de la Libye devienne calamiteux
quand l’Otan aura fini d’y bombarder tous les hôpitaux.
5709
CHRONOLOGIE
LA LIBYE SOUS MOUAMMAR KADHAFI
21.02.2011
(Nouvelobs.com avec AFP)
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualite/monde/20110221.OBS8434/chronologie-la-libye-sous-mouammar-kadhafi.html
DATES-CLÉS DE LA LIBYE DEPUIS L'ARRIVÉE À LA TÊTE DU PAYS DU COLONEL MOUAMMAR KADHAFI EN 1969 :
1er septembre 1969
Le "Mouvement des officiers unionistes libres", dirigé par Mouammar Kadhafi, dépose le roi Idriss et installe un Conseil de commandement de la Révolution.
décembre 1969
Projet d'union avec le Soudan et l'Egypte. Huit projets mort-nés d'union ont été signés en 20 ans avec des pays arabes ou africains.
1973
La Libye occupe la bande d'Aouzou, dans le nord du Tchad, jusqu'en 1994. Entre-temps, les forces libyennes interviennent plusieurs fois dans le conflit tchadien.
septembre 1976
Parution du "Livre vert" du colonel Kadhafi qui rejette marxisme et capitalisme.
mars 1977
Naissance de la "Jamahiriya" arabe populaire libyenne ("Etat des masses"). Instauration du Congrès général du peuple, des comités populaires et des comités révolutionnaires.
8 mai 1984
Fusillade d'opposants contre la caserne Aziziya à Tripoli, revendiquée par le Front national pour le salut de la Libye (FNSL).
8 janvier 1986
Washington met fin aux relations économiques avec la Libye et appelle le monde à traiter Mouammar Kadhafi "comme un paria", accusé d'être "impliqué" dans les attentats de Rome et Vienne (décembre 1985).
15 avril 1986
Raid américain sur les résidences de Kadhafi à Tripoli et Benghazi (44 morts, dont la fille adoptive de Mouammar Kadhafi), en représailles à un attentat à Berlin-ouest.
14 novembre 1991
Deux Libyens sont inculpés de participation à l'attentat contre un Boeing de la PanAm au-dessus de Lockerbie (Ecosse) en décembre 1988 (270 morts). En 2001, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi est condamné à la prison à vie par une cour écossaise aux Pays-Bas, avant d'être libéré en 2009 par l'Ecosse pour raisons médicales.
31 mars 1992
Embargo aérien et militaire de l'ONU, suivi de sanctions économiques. Les dernières sanctions seront levées en 2003 après un accord de dédommagement avec les familles des victimes de Lockerbie.
1995
Expulsion de plus de 300.000 étrangers "en situation irrégulière". Tripoli avait renvoyé en 1985 30.000 travailleurs tunisiens, provoquant la rupture, jusqu'en 1987, des relations diplomatiques avec la Tunisie.
10 mars 1999
La justice française condamne à la prison à vie par contumace six agents libyens accusés d'être les auteurs de l'attentat du DC-10 français d'UTA au Niger (170 morts en 1989).
19 décembre 2003
Tripoli annonce renoncer à développer des armes de destruction massive (ADM).
9 janvier 2004
Accord d'indemnisation des familles des victimes du DC-10 d'UTA.
2005
Plusieurs grandes compagnies pétrolières, notamment américaines, reprennent leurs opérations en Libye, interrompues en 1986.
15 mai 2006
Rétablissement de relations diplomatiques complètes avec Washington. Retrait de la Libye de la liste américaine des Etats soutenant le terrorisme.
24 juillet 2007
Libération après huit ans de prison de cinq infirmières bulgares et d'un médecin palestinien, accusés d'avoir inoculé le sida à des enfants en Libye.
5 septembre 2008
Visite à Tripoli de Condoleezza Rice, la première d'un chef de la diplomatie américaine depuis 55 ans.
2 février 2009
Mouammar Kadhafi, qui entend se faire appeler "roi des rois traditionnels d'Afrique", à la tête de l'Union africaine pour un an.
10 juin 2009
Visite du colonel Kadhafi en Italie après la signature d'un traité réglant le contentieux colonial.
Février 2011
Mouvement de protestation contre le régime Kadhafi.
Lancé le 15 février, il a fait au moins 233 morts, selon l'organisation de défense des droits de l'Homme, Human Rights Watch (HRW).
*
MOUAMMAR KHADAFI OU LE PARADOXE LYBIEN
PiccMi.Com - Source : ARTE - Parismatch.Com
PiccMi.Com - La Rédaction
http://www.piccmi.com/WEB-DOCUMENTAIRE-Mouammar-Khadafi-ou-le-Paradoxe-Lybien_a5773.html
La chute du colonel Kadhafi, qui pourrait intervenir dans les prochaines heures, mettrait fin à un chapitre de 42 années d’histoire de la Libye. Autant d’années au cours desquelles la personnalité controversée du dictateur a rencontré un écho important sur la scène internationale. Retour en quelques dates sur plus de quatre décennies de dictature.
1er septembre 1969
Mouammar Kadhafi prend le pouvoir en Lybie par la «Révolution blanche». Profitant du déplacement du roi Idriss 1er en Turquie pour des raisons de santé, il devient l’homme fort du pays après un coup d’Etat, supporté par des militants révolutionnaires et certains officiers.
Il abolit la monarchie et annonce l’instauration d’une république, jetant le prince héritier Hassan Reda Al-Sanussi en prison.
Le monde découvre alors en images ce jeune leader d’à peine 27 ans, cadet d’une famille de bédouins, diplômé de l’académie militaire de Benghazi, où il avait rassemblé au début des années 60 des militants opposés à la monarchie pro-occidentale.
Alors capitaine, Kadhafi s’autoproclame colonel à sa prise de pouvoir, prône un socialisme d’Etat, et encourage le panarabisme.
Septembre 1970
Un an à peine après son accession au pouvoir, le colonel Kadhafi frappe un grand coup sur la scène internationale, en imposant pour la première fois une augmentation du prix du baril de pétrole aux compagnies implantées dans le pays. Il sera suivi par les autres principaux producteurs mondiaux d’or noir.
1973
Avide de conquêtes, le chef d’Etat libyen annexe unilatéralement la bande d’Aozou, appartenant au Tchad. Un déploiement militaire accueilli très froidement par la communauté internationale, la France en particulier. Le territoire sera reconquis par le Tchad en 1987.
1977
Kadhafi déclare la «révolution du peuple», et le nom officiel du pays change, passant de «République arabe libyenne» à la «Jamahiriya arabe libyenne populaire et socialiste.» En lieu et place des partis politiques, il crée les «comités révolutionnaires».
1978
3000 hommes sont envoyés de Libye pour soutenir le président ougandais Amin Dada, visé par une insurrection, et en guerre avec le voisin tanzanien. Malgré le déploiement ordonné par Mouammar Kadhafi, Amin Dada est vaincu et forcé à l’exil… en Libye.
LES ANNÉES DE MISE AU BAN
Juin 1980
Le leader libyen aurait été la cible d’une tentative d’assassinat, de la part de forces de l’OTAN, qui auraient par erreur [?] abattu un avion de ligne italien, causant la mort de 81 personnes.
[Et on accuse la Libye d’avoir fait pareil encore aujourd’hui. Attentat de Lockerbie. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentat_de_Lockerbie
Mais c’est plus grave, c’est contre des être humains. Des occidentaux.]
C’est en tout cas ce qu’a par la suite affirmé l’ancien Président de la République Italienne Francesco Cossiga.
15 avril 1986
Le président américain Ronald Reagan ordonne l’attaque de la Libye.
Il entend alors faire cesser «l'intensification progressive du terrorisme et les provocations de Kadhafi à l'égard des Etats-Unis.»
Le chef d’Etat libyen est soupçonné d’être le commanditaire d’un attentat commis dans une discothèque de Berlin-Ouest, très prisée des militaires américains.
Après des affrontements maritimes, l’armée américaine bombarde Tripoli et Benghazi, les deux plus grandes villes de Libye. 60 personnes sont tuées dans l’attaque, condamnée par l’ONU.
1980-1994
Soupçonnée par les Etats-Unis d’accueillir sur son sol, et de soutenir des organisations terroristes, la Libye de Kadhafi est mise au ban de la communauté internationale par les principales forces du bloc de l’ouest en particulier. Le pays est visé par des sanctions économiques de la part de l’ONU.
21 décembre 1988
Un avion de la compagnie Pan Am s’écrase sur le village écossais de Lockerbie, faisant 259 victimes. Les enquêteurs finissent par suspecter la Libye de l’avoir commandité, après la découverte dans les décombres de minuteurs ayant été vendus à l’Etat libyen.
1999
Pour appuyer sa volonté de collaborer avec la communauté internationale, le colonel, natif de la ville de Syrte, livre deux agents de ses services secrets à la justice britannique. Faisant l’objet d’un mandat d’arrêt international depuis 1991, ils étaient suspectés d’être les auteurs de l’attentat de Lockerbie. L’ONU décide de suspendre les sanctions économiques contre le régime de Kadhafi.
RETOUR DANS LES AFFAIRES INTERNATIONALES
2003
Mouammar Kadhafi annonce renoncer à son projet d’arme de destruction massive.
24 juillet 2007
La Libye accepte l’extradition vers leur pays d’origine des cinq infirmières bulgares condamnées à mort, puis à la prison à vie. Suspectées d’avoir participé à la contamination de près de 400 enfants par le virus du sida à l’hôpital de Benghazi, elles ont été graciées dès leur arrivée à Sofia. (…)
Décembre 2007
La venue de Kadhafi en visite officielle à Paris provoque la polémique en France. L’accueil du leader de la Libye, où les droits de l’Homme ne sont pas toujours respectés, a causé l’indignation de l’opposition ainsi que d’une partie de la majorité de Nicolas Sarkozy.
17 février 2011
Les insurrections du printemps arabe nées en Tunisie gagnent la Libye.
Le 17 février 2011 est surnommé «journée de la colère» par les opposants au «chef et guide de la révolution».
Cette journée marque le début de la guerre civile libyenne, en passe de prendre fin aujourd’hui.
[À ce moment, l'article était un peu prématuré. ]
LA LIBYE SOUS MOUAMMAR KADHAFI
21.02.2011
(Nouvelobs.com avec AFP)
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualite/monde/20110221.OBS8434/chronologie-la-libye-sous-mouammar-kadhafi.html
DATES-CLÉS DE LA LIBYE DEPUIS L'ARRIVÉE À LA TÊTE DU PAYS DU COLONEL MOUAMMAR KADHAFI EN 1969 :
1er septembre 1969
Le "Mouvement des officiers unionistes libres", dirigé par Mouammar Kadhafi, dépose le roi Idriss et installe un Conseil de commandement de la Révolution.
décembre 1969
Projet d'union avec le Soudan et l'Egypte. Huit projets mort-nés d'union ont été signés en 20 ans avec des pays arabes ou africains.
1973
La Libye occupe la bande d'Aouzou, dans le nord du Tchad, jusqu'en 1994. Entre-temps, les forces libyennes interviennent plusieurs fois dans le conflit tchadien.
septembre 1976
Parution du "Livre vert" du colonel Kadhafi qui rejette marxisme et capitalisme.
mars 1977
Naissance de la "Jamahiriya" arabe populaire libyenne ("Etat des masses"). Instauration du Congrès général du peuple, des comités populaires et des comités révolutionnaires.
8 mai 1984
Fusillade d'opposants contre la caserne Aziziya à Tripoli, revendiquée par le Front national pour le salut de la Libye (FNSL).
8 janvier 1986
Washington met fin aux relations économiques avec la Libye et appelle le monde à traiter Mouammar Kadhafi "comme un paria", accusé d'être "impliqué" dans les attentats de Rome et Vienne (décembre 1985).
15 avril 1986
Raid américain sur les résidences de Kadhafi à Tripoli et Benghazi (44 morts, dont la fille adoptive de Mouammar Kadhafi), en représailles à un attentat à Berlin-ouest.
14 novembre 1991
Deux Libyens sont inculpés de participation à l'attentat contre un Boeing de la PanAm au-dessus de Lockerbie (Ecosse) en décembre 1988 (270 morts). En 2001, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi est condamné à la prison à vie par une cour écossaise aux Pays-Bas, avant d'être libéré en 2009 par l'Ecosse pour raisons médicales.
31 mars 1992
Embargo aérien et militaire de l'ONU, suivi de sanctions économiques. Les dernières sanctions seront levées en 2003 après un accord de dédommagement avec les familles des victimes de Lockerbie.
1995
Expulsion de plus de 300.000 étrangers "en situation irrégulière". Tripoli avait renvoyé en 1985 30.000 travailleurs tunisiens, provoquant la rupture, jusqu'en 1987, des relations diplomatiques avec la Tunisie.
10 mars 1999
La justice française condamne à la prison à vie par contumace six agents libyens accusés d'être les auteurs de l'attentat du DC-10 français d'UTA au Niger (170 morts en 1989).
19 décembre 2003
Tripoli annonce renoncer à développer des armes de destruction massive (ADM).
9 janvier 2004
Accord d'indemnisation des familles des victimes du DC-10 d'UTA.
2005
Plusieurs grandes compagnies pétrolières, notamment américaines, reprennent leurs opérations en Libye, interrompues en 1986.
15 mai 2006
Rétablissement de relations diplomatiques complètes avec Washington. Retrait de la Libye de la liste américaine des Etats soutenant le terrorisme.
24 juillet 2007
Libération après huit ans de prison de cinq infirmières bulgares et d'un médecin palestinien, accusés d'avoir inoculé le sida à des enfants en Libye.
5 septembre 2008
Visite à Tripoli de Condoleezza Rice, la première d'un chef de la diplomatie américaine depuis 55 ans.
2 février 2009
Mouammar Kadhafi, qui entend se faire appeler "roi des rois traditionnels d'Afrique", à la tête de l'Union africaine pour un an.
10 juin 2009
Visite du colonel Kadhafi en Italie après la signature d'un traité réglant le contentieux colonial.
Février 2011
Mouvement de protestation contre le régime Kadhafi.
Lancé le 15 février, il a fait au moins 233 morts, selon l'organisation de défense des droits de l'Homme, Human Rights Watch (HRW).
*
MOUAMMAR KHADAFI OU LE PARADOXE LYBIEN
PiccMi.Com - Source : ARTE - Parismatch.Com
PiccMi.Com - La Rédaction
http://www.piccmi.com/WEB-DOCUMENTAIRE-Mouammar-Khadafi-ou-le-Paradoxe-Lybien_a5773.html
La chute du colonel Kadhafi, qui pourrait intervenir dans les prochaines heures, mettrait fin à un chapitre de 42 années d’histoire de la Libye. Autant d’années au cours desquelles la personnalité controversée du dictateur a rencontré un écho important sur la scène internationale. Retour en quelques dates sur plus de quatre décennies de dictature.
1er septembre 1969
Mouammar Kadhafi prend le pouvoir en Lybie par la «Révolution blanche». Profitant du déplacement du roi Idriss 1er en Turquie pour des raisons de santé, il devient l’homme fort du pays après un coup d’Etat, supporté par des militants révolutionnaires et certains officiers.
Il abolit la monarchie et annonce l’instauration d’une république, jetant le prince héritier Hassan Reda Al-Sanussi en prison.
Le monde découvre alors en images ce jeune leader d’à peine 27 ans, cadet d’une famille de bédouins, diplômé de l’académie militaire de Benghazi, où il avait rassemblé au début des années 60 des militants opposés à la monarchie pro-occidentale.
Alors capitaine, Kadhafi s’autoproclame colonel à sa prise de pouvoir, prône un socialisme d’Etat, et encourage le panarabisme.
Septembre 1970
Un an à peine après son accession au pouvoir, le colonel Kadhafi frappe un grand coup sur la scène internationale, en imposant pour la première fois une augmentation du prix du baril de pétrole aux compagnies implantées dans le pays. Il sera suivi par les autres principaux producteurs mondiaux d’or noir.
1973
Avide de conquêtes, le chef d’Etat libyen annexe unilatéralement la bande d’Aozou, appartenant au Tchad. Un déploiement militaire accueilli très froidement par la communauté internationale, la France en particulier. Le territoire sera reconquis par le Tchad en 1987.
1977
Kadhafi déclare la «révolution du peuple», et le nom officiel du pays change, passant de «République arabe libyenne» à la «Jamahiriya arabe libyenne populaire et socialiste.» En lieu et place des partis politiques, il crée les «comités révolutionnaires».
1978
3000 hommes sont envoyés de Libye pour soutenir le président ougandais Amin Dada, visé par une insurrection, et en guerre avec le voisin tanzanien. Malgré le déploiement ordonné par Mouammar Kadhafi, Amin Dada est vaincu et forcé à l’exil… en Libye.
LES ANNÉES DE MISE AU BAN
Juin 1980
Le leader libyen aurait été la cible d’une tentative d’assassinat, de la part de forces de l’OTAN, qui auraient par erreur [?] abattu un avion de ligne italien, causant la mort de 81 personnes.
[Et on accuse la Libye d’avoir fait pareil encore aujourd’hui. Attentat de Lockerbie. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentat_de_Lockerbie
Mais c’est plus grave, c’est contre des être humains. Des occidentaux.]
C’est en tout cas ce qu’a par la suite affirmé l’ancien Président de la République Italienne Francesco Cossiga.
15 avril 1986
Le président américain Ronald Reagan ordonne l’attaque de la Libye.
Il entend alors faire cesser «l'intensification progressive du terrorisme et les provocations de Kadhafi à l'égard des Etats-Unis.»
Le chef d’Etat libyen est soupçonné d’être le commanditaire d’un attentat commis dans une discothèque de Berlin-Ouest, très prisée des militaires américains.
Après des affrontements maritimes, l’armée américaine bombarde Tripoli et Benghazi, les deux plus grandes villes de Libye. 60 personnes sont tuées dans l’attaque, condamnée par l’ONU.
1980-1994
Soupçonnée par les Etats-Unis d’accueillir sur son sol, et de soutenir des organisations terroristes, la Libye de Kadhafi est mise au ban de la communauté internationale par les principales forces du bloc de l’ouest en particulier. Le pays est visé par des sanctions économiques de la part de l’ONU.
21 décembre 1988
Un avion de la compagnie Pan Am s’écrase sur le village écossais de Lockerbie, faisant 259 victimes. Les enquêteurs finissent par suspecter la Libye de l’avoir commandité, après la découverte dans les décombres de minuteurs ayant été vendus à l’Etat libyen.
1999
Pour appuyer sa volonté de collaborer avec la communauté internationale, le colonel, natif de la ville de Syrte, livre deux agents de ses services secrets à la justice britannique. Faisant l’objet d’un mandat d’arrêt international depuis 1991, ils étaient suspectés d’être les auteurs de l’attentat de Lockerbie. L’ONU décide de suspendre les sanctions économiques contre le régime de Kadhafi.
RETOUR DANS LES AFFAIRES INTERNATIONALES
2003
Mouammar Kadhafi annonce renoncer à son projet d’arme de destruction massive.
24 juillet 2007
La Libye accepte l’extradition vers leur pays d’origine des cinq infirmières bulgares condamnées à mort, puis à la prison à vie. Suspectées d’avoir participé à la contamination de près de 400 enfants par le virus du sida à l’hôpital de Benghazi, elles ont été graciées dès leur arrivée à Sofia. (…)
Décembre 2007
La venue de Kadhafi en visite officielle à Paris provoque la polémique en France. L’accueil du leader de la Libye, où les droits de l’Homme ne sont pas toujours respectés, a causé l’indignation de l’opposition ainsi que d’une partie de la majorité de Nicolas Sarkozy.
17 février 2011
Les insurrections du printemps arabe nées en Tunisie gagnent la Libye.
Le 17 février 2011 est surnommé «journée de la colère» par les opposants au «chef et guide de la révolution».
Cette journée marque le début de la guerre civile libyenne, en passe de prendre fin aujourd’hui.
[À ce moment, l'article était un peu prématuré. ]
mardi 6 septembre 2011
5706. DISCOURS DE MONSIEUR KADHAFI À L'ONU ALORS QUE TOUT LE MONDE SEMBLAIT L'AIMER. IL AIMAIT AUSSI PARLER EN PHILOSOPHE. COMME LE PROFESSEUR BULLE
ET, COMME LUI, RACONTER DES CHOSES DÉPLAISANTES, PARTICULIÈREMENT DES CHOSES DÉPLAISANTES SI ELLES SONT VRAIMENT DÉPLAISANTES. DES CHOSES QUI FONT DE LA PEINE À JÉSUS ET AUX AUX ÂMES SENSIBLES DES GRANDS DE CE MONDE. ET ON SAIT À QUEL POINT LES GRANDS DE CE MONDE ONT UN COEUR DÉLICAT. COMME ILS SONT SENSIBLES. TOUS CES GENS RESPECTABLES À L'ORGANE POMPEUX FRAGILE ET DOUILLET.
This Assembly is our democratic forum and the Security Council should be responsible before it; we should not accept the current situation.
These are the legislators of the Members of the United Nations, and their resolutions should be binding.
It is said that the General Assembly should do whatever the Security Council recommends.
On the contrary, the Security Council should do whatever the General Assembly decides.
This is the United Nations, the Assembly that includes 192 countries.
It is not the Security Council, which includes only 15 of the Member States.
How can we be happy about global peace and security if the whole world is controlled by only five countries?
We are 192 nations and countries, and we are like Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park.
We just speak and nobody implements our decisions.
We are mere decoration, without any real substance.
We are Speakers’ Corner, no more, no less. We just make speeches and then disappear.
This is who you are right now.
Once the Security Council becomes only an executive body for resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, there will be no competition for membership of the Council.
Once the Security Council becomes a tool to implement General Assembly resolutions, there will be no need for any competition.
The Security Council should, quite simply, represent all nations.
In accordance with the proposal submitted to the General Assembly, there would be permanent seats on the Security Council for all unions and groups of countries.
The 27 countries of the European Union should have a permanent seat on the Security Council.
The countries of the African Union should have a permanent seat on the Security Council.
The Latin American and ASEAN countries should have permanent seats.
The Russian Federation and the United States of America are already permanent members of the Security Council.
The Southern African Development Community (SADC), once it is fully established, should have a permanent seat.
The 22 countries of the Arab League should have a permanent seat.
The 57 countries of the Islamic Conference should have a permanent seat.
The 118 countries of the Non-Aligned Movement should have a permanent seat.
Then there is the G-100;
perhaps the small countries should also have a permanent seat.
Countries not included in the unions that I have mentioned could perhaps be assigned a permanent seat, to be occupied by them in rotation every six or twelve months.
I am thinking of countries like Japan and Australia that are outside such organizations as ASEAN or like the Russian Federation that is not a member of the European or Latin American or African unions.
This would be a solution for them if the General Assembly votes in favor of it.
The issue is a vitally important one.
As has already been mentioned, the General Assembly is the Congress and Parliament of the world,
the leader of the world.
We are the nations, and anyone outside this General Assembly will not be recognized.
The President of the Assembly, Mr. Ali Abdussalam Treki, and Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will produce the legal draft and set up the necessary committees to submit this proposal to a vote: that from now on, the Security Council will be made up of unions of nations.
In this way, we will have justice and democracy,
and we will no longer have a Security Council consisting of countries which have been chosen because they have nuclear weapons, large economies or advanced technology.
That is terrorism.
We cannot allow the Security Council to be run by super-Powers; that is terrorism in and of itself.
If we want a world that is united, safe and peaceful, this is what we should do.
If we want to remain in a world at war, that is up to you.
We will continue to have conflict and to fight until doomsday or the end of the world.
All Security Council members should have the right to exercise the veto, or else we should eliminate the whole concept of the veto with this new formation of the Council.
This would be a real Security Council.
According to the new proposals submitted to the General Assembly, it will be an executive council under the control of the General Assembly, which will have the real power and make all the rules.
In this way, all countries will be on an equal footing in the Security Council just as they are in the General Assembly.
In the General Assembly we are all treated equally when it comes to membership and voting.
It should be the same in the Security Council.
Currently, one country has a veto; another country does not have a veto; one country has a permanent seat; another country does not have a permanent seat.
We should not accept this, nor should we accept any resolution adopted by the Security Council in its current composition.
We were under trusteeship; we were colonized; and now we are independent.
We are here today to decide the future of the world in a democratic way that will maintain the peace and security of all nations, large and small, as equals.
Otherwise, it is terrorism,
for terrorism is not just Al Qaeda but can also take other forms.
We should be guided by the majority of the votes in the General Assembly alone.
If the General Assembly takes a decision by voting, then its wishes should be obeyed and its decision should be enforced.
No one is above the General Assembly;
anyone who says he is above the Assembly should leave the United Nations and be on his own.
Democracy is not for the rich
or the most powerful or for those who practice terrorism.
All nations should be and should be seen to be on an equal footing.
At present, the Security Council is security feudalism,
political feudalism
for those with permanent seats,
protected by them and used against us.
It should be called, not the Security Council, but the Terror Council.
In our political life, if they need to use the Security Council against us, they turn to the Security Council.
If they have no need to use it against us, they ignore the Security Council.
If they have an interest to promote, an axe to grind, they respect and glorify the Charter of the United Nations; they turn to Chapter VII of the Charter and use it against poor nations.
If, however, they wished to violate the Charter, they would ignore it as if it did not exist at all.
If the veto of the permanent members of the Security Council is given to those who have the power, this is injustice and terrorism and should not be tolerated by us.
We should not live in the shadow of this injustice and terror.
Super-Powers have complicated global interests,
and they use the veto to protect those interests.
For example, in the Security Council, they use the power of the United Nations to protect their interests and to terrorize and intimidate the Third World, causing it to live under the shadow of terror.
From the beginning, since it was established in 1945, the Security Council has failed to provide security.
On the contrary, it has provided terror and sanctions.
It is only used against us.
For this reason, we will no longer be committed to implementing Security Council resolutions after this speech, which marks the 40th anniversary.
Sixty-five wars have broken out: either fighting among small countries or wars of aggression waged against us by super-Powers.
The Security Council, in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations, failed to take action to stop these wars or acts of aggressions against small nations and peoples.
The General Assembly will vote on a number of historic proposals.
Either we act as one or we will fragment.
If each nation were to have its own version of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the various instruments and each were to have an equal footing, the Powers that currently fill the permanent seats would be confined to use of their own sovereign bodies, whether there be three or four of them, and would have to exercise their rights against themselves.
This is of no concern to us.
If they want to keep their permanent seats, that is fine; permanent seats will be of no concern to us.
We shall never submit to their control or to their exercise of the veto that was given to them.
We are not so foolish as to give the right of veto to the super-Powers to use so they can treat us as second-class citizens
and as outcast nations.
It is not we who decided that those countries are the super-Powers and respected nations with the power to act on behalf of 192 countries.
You should be fully aware that we are ignoring the Security Council resolutions because those resolutions are used solely against us and not against the super-Powers which have the permanent seats and the right of veto.
Those Powers never use any resolutions against themselves.
They are, however, used against us.
Such use has turned the United Nations into a travesty of itself and has generated wars and violations of the sovereignty of independent States.
It has led to war crimes and genocides.
All of this is in violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
Since no one pays attention to the Security Council of the United Nations, each country and community has established its own security council, and the Security Council here has become isolated.
The African Union has already established its own Peace and Security Council, the European Union has already established a security council, and Asian countries have already established their own security council.
Soon, Latin America will have its own Security Council
as will the 120 non-aligned nations.
This means that we have already lost confidence in the United Nations Security Council, which has not provided us with security, and that is why we now are creating new regional security councils.
We are not committed to obeying the rules or the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council in its present form because it is undemocratic, dictatorial and unjust.
No one can force us to join the Security Council or to obey or comply with resolutions or orders given by the Security Council in its present composition.
Furthermore, there is no respect for the United Nations and no regard for the General Assembly, which is actually the true United Nations, but whose resolutions are non-binding.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Italy, which was a kingdom during the Fascist regime and has made rich contributions to civilization, should be commended for this achievement, together with Prime Minister Berlusconi and his predecessor, who made their own contributions in that regard.
Why is the Third World demanding compensation?
So that there will be no more colonization —
so that large and powerful countries will not colonize,
knowing that they will have to pay compensation.
Colonization should be punished.
The countries that harmed other peoples during the colonial era should pay compensation for the damage and suffering inflicted under their colonial rule.
There is another point that I would like to make.
However, before doing so — and addressing a somewhat sensitive issue — I should like to make an aside.
OBAMA
The other sensitive point is the Headquarters of the United Nations.
Can I have your attention, please?
All of you came across the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, crossing the Asian continent or the African continent to reach this place.
Why?
Is this Jerusalem?
Is this the Vatican?
Is this Mecca?
All of you are tired, have jet lag, and have sleepless nights. You are very tired, very low, physically. Somebody just arrived now, flying 20 hours. Then we want him to make a speech and talk about this.
All of you are asleep, all of you are tired. It is clear that all of you are lacking energy because of having to make a long journey.
Why do we do that?
Some of our countries are in nighttime and people are asleep. Now you should be asleep, because your biological clock, your biological mind is accustomed to be asleep at this time. I wake up at 4 o’clock New York time, before dawn, because in Libya it is 11 in the morning. When I wake up at 11 o’clock it is supposed to be daytime; at 4 o’clock I am awake.
Why?
Think about it.
If this was decided in 1945, should we still retain it?
Why can we not think about a place that is in the middle, that is comfortable?
Another important point is that America, the host country, bears the expenses and looks after the Headquarters and diplomatic missions and looks after the peace and security of the heads of State who come here.
They are very strict; they spend a lot of money, New York and all of America being very tight.
I want to relieve America of this hardship.
We should thank America; we say to America, thank you for all the trouble that you have taken on yourself. We say thank you to America.
We want to help reassure America and New York and keep them calm.
They should not have the responsibility of looking after security.
Perhaps some day a terrorist could cause an explosion or bomb a president.
This place is targeted by Al-Qaeda, this very building.
Why was it not hit on 11 September?
It was beyond their power.
The next target would be this place.
I am not saying this in an offhand manner.
We have tens of members of Al-Qaeda detained in Libyan prisons.
[?]
Their confessions [?] are very scary.
That makes America live under tension.
One never knows what will happen.
Perhaps America or this place will be targeted again by a rocket.
Perhaps tens of heads of State will die.
We want to relieve America from this worry.
We shall take the place to where it is not targeted.
Now after 50 years United Nations Headquarters should be taken to another part of the hemisphere.
After 50 years in the western hemisphere, for the next 50 years it should be in the eastern hemisphere or in the middle hemisphere, by rotation.
Now, with 64 years we have an extra 14 years over the 50 that Headquarters should have been moved to somewhere else.
This is not an insult to America; it is a service to America.
We should thank America.
This was possible in 1945, but we should not accept it now.
Of course this should be put to the vote in the General Assembly — only in the Assembly, because in section 23 of the Headquarters Agreement it says that the United Nations Headquarters can be moved to another location only by a resolution of the General Assembly.
If 51 per cent of the Assembly approves relocation of Headquarters, then it can be moved.
America has the right to make security tight because it is targeted by terrorists and by Al-Qaeda.
America has the right to take all security measures; we are not blaming America for that.
However, we do not tolerate these measures.
We do not have to come to New York and be subjected to all these measures.
One president told me that he was told that his co-pilot should not come to America because there are restrictions.
He asked how he could cross the Atlantic without a co-pilot.
Why?
He does not have to come here.
Another president complained that his honor guard could not come because there was some misunderstanding regarding his name when it came to granting a visa.
Another president said his own doctor could not get a visa and could not come to America.
The security measures are very strict.
If a country has any problem with America, they will set up restrictions on the movements of member delegations,
as if one is in Guantanamo.
Is this a Member State of the United Nations, or is it a prisoner in the Guantanamo camp that cannot be allowed free movement?
This is what is submitted to the General Assembly for a vote — moving the Headquarters.
If 51 per cent agree, then we come to the second vote:
to the middle of the globe, or to the eastern part.
If we say that we must move the Headquarters to the middle of the hemisphere, why do we not move to Sirte or Vienna?
One can come even without a visa.
Once you come as a president, Libya is a secure country.
We are not going to restrict you to 100 or 500 meters.
Libya has no hostile actions against anybody.
I think the same holds true of Vienna.
If the vote says we should move Headquarters to the eastern part, then it will be Delhi or Beijing, the capital of China or the capital of India.
That is logical, my brothers. I do not think there will be any objection to that.
Then you will thank me for this proposal, for eliminating the suffering and the trouble of flying 14, 15 or 20 hours to come here.
No one can blame America or say that America will reduce its contributions to the United Nations.
No one should have that bad thought.
America, I am sure, is committed to its international obligations.
America will not be angry; it will thank you for alleviating its hardship, for taking on all that hardship and all the restrictions, even though this place is targeted by terrorists.
We come now to the issues that will be considered by the General Assembly.
We are about to put the United Nations on trial; the old organization will be finished and a new one will emerge.
This is not a normal gathering.
Even son Obama said that this is not a normal gathering. It is a historic meeting.
The wars that took place after the establishment of the United Nations — why did they occur?
Where was the Security Council, where was the Charter, where was the United Nations?
There should be investigations and judicial intervention.
Why have there been massacres?
In brief, Kashmir should be an independent State, neither Indian nor Pakistani.
We must end that conflict.
Kashmir should be a buffer State between India and Pakistan.
DARFUR
*
Photo. http://www.parismatch.com/Actu-Match/Monde/Photos/Photos-de-Kadhafi-la-face-cachee-du-tyran/Papa-poule-328145/
DANS L'INTIMITÉ D'UN TYRAN: L'ALBUM PHOTO DE KADHAFI
Le Guide en papa poule, avec deux de ses enfants. La petite fille qui essaie les célèbres lunettes de soleil de son père – les rebelles en ont trouvé des centaines de paires à Bab al-Azizia – est probablement Aïcha.
[Une des photos de famille trouvée dans les ruines de sa maison.]
ONU
REMARKS BY MUAMMAR AL-GADDAFI TO THE 64 TH UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Muammar al-Gaddafi
23 September 2009
Voltaire Network
New York (United States)
http://www.voltairenet.org/Remarks-by-Muammar-al-Gaddafi-to
In the name of the African Union, I would like to greet the members of the General Assembly of the United Nations, and I hope that this meeting will be among the most historic in the history of the world.
In the name of the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth session, presided over by Libya, of the African Union, of one thousand traditional African kingdoms and in my own name, I would like to take this opportunity, as President of the African Union, to congratulate our son Obama because he is attending the General Assembly, and we welcome him as his country is hosting this meeting.
This session is taking place in the midst of so many challenges facing us, and the whole world should come together and unite its efforts to defeat the challenges that are our principal common enemy — those of climate change and international crises such as the capitalist economic decline, the food and water crises, desertification, terrorism, immigration, piracy, man-made and natural epidemics and nuclear proliferation.
Perhaps influenza H1N1 was a virus created in a laboratory that got out of control, originally being meant as a military weapon.
Such challenges also include hypocrisy, poverty, fear, materialism and immorality.
As is known, the United Nations was founded by three or four countries against Germany at the time.
The United Nations was formed by the nations that joined together against Germany in the Second World War.
Those countries formed a body called the Security Council,
made its own countries permanent members
and granted them the power of veto.
We were not present at that time.
The United Nations was shaped in line with those three countries and wanted us to step into shoes originally designed against Germany.
That is the real substance of the United Nations when it was founded over 60 years ago.
That happened in the absence of some 165 countries,
at a ratio of one to eight; that is, one was present and eight were absent.
They created the Charter, of which I have a copy.
If one reads the Charter of the United Nations, one finds that the Preamble of the Charter differs from its Articles.
How did it come into existence?
All those who attended the San Francisco Conference in 1945 participated in creating the Preamble, but they left the Articles and internal rules of procedures of the so-called Security Council to experts, specialists and interested countries, which were those countries that had established the Security Council and had united against Germany.
The Preamble is very appealing, and no one objects to it, but all the provisions that follow it completely contradict the Preamble. We reject such provisions, and we will never uphold them; they ended with the Second World War.
The Preamble says that all nations, small or large, are equal.
Are we equal when it comes to the permanent seats?
No, we are not equal.
The Preamble states in writing that all nations are equal whether they are small or large.
Do we have the right of veto?
Are we equal?
The Preamble says that we have equal rights, whether we are large or small. That is what is stated and what we agreed in the Preamble. So the veto contradicts the Charter. The permanent seats contradict the Charter.
We neither accept nor recognize the veto.
The Preamble of the Charter states that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest.
That is the Preamble that we agreed to and signed, and we joined the United Nations because we wanted the Charter to reflect that.
It says that armed force shall only be used in the common interest of all nations, but what has happened since then?
Sixty-five wars have broken out since the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council —
65 since their creation, with millions more victims than in the Second World War.
Are those wars, and the aggression and force that were used in those 65 wars, in the common interest of us all?
No, they were in the interest of one or three or four countries,
REMARKS BY MUAMMAR AL-GADDAFI TO THE 64 TH UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Muammar al-Gaddafi
23 September 2009
Voltaire Network
New York (United States)
http://www.voltairenet.org/Remarks-by-Muammar-al-Gaddafi-to
In the name of the African Union, I would like to greet the members of the General Assembly of the United Nations, and I hope that this meeting will be among the most historic in the history of the world.
In the name of the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth session, presided over by Libya, of the African Union, of one thousand traditional African kingdoms and in my own name, I would like to take this opportunity, as President of the African Union, to congratulate our son Obama because he is attending the General Assembly, and we welcome him as his country is hosting this meeting.
This session is taking place in the midst of so many challenges facing us, and the whole world should come together and unite its efforts to defeat the challenges that are our principal common enemy — those of climate change and international crises such as the capitalist economic decline, the food and water crises, desertification, terrorism, immigration, piracy, man-made and natural epidemics and nuclear proliferation.
Perhaps influenza H1N1 was a virus created in a laboratory that got out of control, originally being meant as a military weapon.
Such challenges also include hypocrisy, poverty, fear, materialism and immorality.
As is known, the United Nations was founded by three or four countries against Germany at the time.
The United Nations was formed by the nations that joined together against Germany in the Second World War.
Those countries formed a body called the Security Council,
made its own countries permanent members
and granted them the power of veto.
We were not present at that time.
The United Nations was shaped in line with those three countries and wanted us to step into shoes originally designed against Germany.
That is the real substance of the United Nations when it was founded over 60 years ago.
That happened in the absence of some 165 countries,
at a ratio of one to eight; that is, one was present and eight were absent.
They created the Charter, of which I have a copy.
If one reads the Charter of the United Nations, one finds that the Preamble of the Charter differs from its Articles.
How did it come into existence?
All those who attended the San Francisco Conference in 1945 participated in creating the Preamble, but they left the Articles and internal rules of procedures of the so-called Security Council to experts, specialists and interested countries, which were those countries that had established the Security Council and had united against Germany.
The Preamble is very appealing, and no one objects to it, but all the provisions that follow it completely contradict the Preamble. We reject such provisions, and we will never uphold them; they ended with the Second World War.
The Preamble says that all nations, small or large, are equal.
Are we equal when it comes to the permanent seats?
No, we are not equal.
The Preamble states in writing that all nations are equal whether they are small or large.
Do we have the right of veto?
Are we equal?
The Preamble says that we have equal rights, whether we are large or small. That is what is stated and what we agreed in the Preamble. So the veto contradicts the Charter. The permanent seats contradict the Charter.
We neither accept nor recognize the veto.
The Preamble of the Charter states that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest.
That is the Preamble that we agreed to and signed, and we joined the United Nations because we wanted the Charter to reflect that.
It says that armed force shall only be used in the common interest of all nations, but what has happened since then?
Sixty-five wars have broken out since the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council —
65 since their creation, with millions more victims than in the Second World War.
Are those wars, and the aggression and force that were used in those 65 wars, in the common interest of us all?
No, they were in the interest of one or three or four countries,
but not of all nations.
We will talk about whether those wars were in the interest of one country or of all nations.
That flagrantly contradicts the Charter of the United Nations that we signed, and unless we act in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to which we agreed, we will reject it and not be afraid not to speak diplomatically to anyone.
Now we are talking about the future of the United Nations.
There should be no hypocrisy or diplomacy because it concerns the important and vital issue of the future of the world.
It was hypocrisy that brought about the 65 wars since the establishment of the United Nations.
We will talk about whether those wars were in the interest of one country or of all nations.
That flagrantly contradicts the Charter of the United Nations that we signed, and unless we act in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to which we agreed, we will reject it and not be afraid not to speak diplomatically to anyone.
Now we are talking about the future of the United Nations.
There should be no hypocrisy or diplomacy because it concerns the important and vital issue of the future of the world.
It was hypocrisy that brought about the 65 wars since the establishment of the United Nations.
The Preamble also states that if armed force is used, it must be a United Nations force — thus, military intervention by the United Nations, with the joint agreement of the United Nations, not one or two or three countries using armed force.
The entire United Nations will decide to go to war to maintain international peace and security.
Since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, if there is an act of aggression by one country against another, the entire United Nations should deter and stop that act.
If a country, Libya for instance, were to exhibit aggression against France, then the entire Organization would respond because France is a sovereign State Member of the United Nations and we all share the collective responsibility to protect the sovereignty of all nations.
However, 65 aggressive wars have taken place without any United Nations action to prevent them.
Eight other massive, fierce wars, whose victims number some 2 million, have been waged by Member States that enjoy veto powers.
Those countries that would have us believe they seek to maintain the sovereignty and independence of peoples actually use aggressive force against peoples.
While we would like to believe that these countries want to work for peace and security in the world and protect peoples, they have instead resorted to aggressive wars and hostile behavior.
Enjoying the veto they granted themselves as permanent members of the Security Council, they have initiated wars that have claimed millions of victims.
The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of States is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
No country, therefore, has the right to interfere in the affairs of any Government, be it democratic or dictatorial, socialist or capitalist, reactionary or progressive.
This is the responsibility of each society; it is an internal matter for the people of the country concerned.
The senators of Rome once appointed their leader, Julius Caesar, as dictator because it was good for Rome at that time.
No one can say of Rome at that time that it gave Caesar the veto.
The veto is not mentioned in the Charter.
We joined the United Nations because we thought we were equals, only to find that one country can object to all the decisions we make.
Who gave the permanent members their status in the Security Council?
Four of them granted this status to themselves.
The only country that we in this Assembly elected to permanent member status in the Security Council is China.
This was done democratically,
The entire United Nations will decide to go to war to maintain international peace and security.
Since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, if there is an act of aggression by one country against another, the entire United Nations should deter and stop that act.
If a country, Libya for instance, were to exhibit aggression against France, then the entire Organization would respond because France is a sovereign State Member of the United Nations and we all share the collective responsibility to protect the sovereignty of all nations.
However, 65 aggressive wars have taken place without any United Nations action to prevent them.
Eight other massive, fierce wars, whose victims number some 2 million, have been waged by Member States that enjoy veto powers.
Those countries that would have us believe they seek to maintain the sovereignty and independence of peoples actually use aggressive force against peoples.
While we would like to believe that these countries want to work for peace and security in the world and protect peoples, they have instead resorted to aggressive wars and hostile behavior.
Enjoying the veto they granted themselves as permanent members of the Security Council, they have initiated wars that have claimed millions of victims.
The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of States is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
No country, therefore, has the right to interfere in the affairs of any Government, be it democratic or dictatorial, socialist or capitalist, reactionary or progressive.
This is the responsibility of each society; it is an internal matter for the people of the country concerned.
The senators of Rome once appointed their leader, Julius Caesar, as dictator because it was good for Rome at that time.
No one can say of Rome at that time that it gave Caesar the veto.
The veto is not mentioned in the Charter.
We joined the United Nations because we thought we were equals, only to find that one country can object to all the decisions we make.
Who gave the permanent members their status in the Security Council?
Four of them granted this status to themselves.
The only country that we in this Assembly elected to permanent member status in the Security Council is China.
This was done democratically,
but the other seats were imposed upon us undemocratically through a dictatorial procedure carried out against our will, and we should not accept it.
The Security Council reform we need is not an increase in the number of members, which would only make things worse.
To use a common expression, if you add more water, you get more mud.
It would add insult to injury. It would make things worse simply by adding more large countries to those that already enjoy membership of the Council.
It would merely perpetuate the proliferation of super-Powers.
We therefore reject the addition of any more permanent seats.
The solution is not to have more permanent seats, which would be very dangerous.
Adding more super-Powers would crush the peoples of small, vulnerable and third world countries,
which are coming together in what has been called the Group of 100 — 100 small countries banding together in a forum that one member has called the Forum of Small States.
These countries would be crushed by super-Powers were additional large countries to be granted membership in the Security Council.
This door must be closed; we reject it strongly and categorically.
Adding more seats to the Security Council would increase poverty, injustice and tension at the world level, as well as great competition between certain countries such as Italy, Germany, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Japan, Brazil, Nigeria, Argentina, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Africa, Tanzania, Turkey, Iran, Greece and Ukraine.
All these countries would seek a seat on the Security Council, making its membership almost as large as that of the General Assembly and resulting in an impractical competition.
What solution can there be?
The solution is for the General Assembly to adopt a binding resolution under the leadership of Mr. Treki based on the majority will of Assembly members and taking into account the considerations of no other body.
The solution is to close Security Council membership to the admission of further States.
This item is on the agenda of the General Assembly during the present session presided over by Mr. Treki.
Membership through unions and the transference of mandates should supersede other proposals.
We should focus on the achievement of democracy based on the equality of Member States.
There should be equality among Member States and the powers and mandates of the Security Council should be transferred to the General Assembly.
Membership should be for unions, not for States.
Increasing the number of States Members would give the right to all countries to a seat, in accordance with the spirit of the Preamble of the Charter.
No country could deny a seat in the Council to Italy, for instance, if a seat were given to Germany.
For the sake of argument, Italy might say that Germany was an aggressive country and was defeated in the Second World War.
If we gave India a seat, Pakistan would say that it, too, is a nuclear country and deserves a seat, and those two countries are at war.
This would be a dangerous situation.
If we gave a seat to Japan, then we should have to give one to Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world.
Then Turkey, Iran and Ukraine would make the same claim.
What could we say to Argentina or Brazil?
Libya deserves a seat for its efforts in the service of world security by discarding its weapons of mass destruction programme.
Then South Africa, Tanzania and Ukraine would demand the same.
All of these countries are important.
The door to Security Council membership should be closed.
This approach is a falsehood, a trick that has been exposed.
If we want to reform the United Nations, bringing in more super-Powers is not the way.
The solution is to foster democracy at the level of the general congress of the world, the General Assembly, to which the powers of the Security Council should be transferred.
The Security Council would become merely an instrument for implementing the decisions taken by the General Assembly,
The Security Council reform we need is not an increase in the number of members, which would only make things worse.
To use a common expression, if you add more water, you get more mud.
It would add insult to injury. It would make things worse simply by adding more large countries to those that already enjoy membership of the Council.
It would merely perpetuate the proliferation of super-Powers.
We therefore reject the addition of any more permanent seats.
The solution is not to have more permanent seats, which would be very dangerous.
Adding more super-Powers would crush the peoples of small, vulnerable and third world countries,
which are coming together in what has been called the Group of 100 — 100 small countries banding together in a forum that one member has called the Forum of Small States.
These countries would be crushed by super-Powers were additional large countries to be granted membership in the Security Council.
This door must be closed; we reject it strongly and categorically.
Adding more seats to the Security Council would increase poverty, injustice and tension at the world level, as well as great competition between certain countries such as Italy, Germany, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Japan, Brazil, Nigeria, Argentina, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Africa, Tanzania, Turkey, Iran, Greece and Ukraine.
All these countries would seek a seat on the Security Council, making its membership almost as large as that of the General Assembly and resulting in an impractical competition.
What solution can there be?
The solution is for the General Assembly to adopt a binding resolution under the leadership of Mr. Treki based on the majority will of Assembly members and taking into account the considerations of no other body.
The solution is to close Security Council membership to the admission of further States.
This item is on the agenda of the General Assembly during the present session presided over by Mr. Treki.
Membership through unions and the transference of mandates should supersede other proposals.
We should focus on the achievement of democracy based on the equality of Member States.
There should be equality among Member States and the powers and mandates of the Security Council should be transferred to the General Assembly.
Membership should be for unions, not for States.
Increasing the number of States Members would give the right to all countries to a seat, in accordance with the spirit of the Preamble of the Charter.
No country could deny a seat in the Council to Italy, for instance, if a seat were given to Germany.
For the sake of argument, Italy might say that Germany was an aggressive country and was defeated in the Second World War.
If we gave India a seat, Pakistan would say that it, too, is a nuclear country and deserves a seat, and those two countries are at war.
This would be a dangerous situation.
If we gave a seat to Japan, then we should have to give one to Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world.
Then Turkey, Iran and Ukraine would make the same claim.
What could we say to Argentina or Brazil?
Libya deserves a seat for its efforts in the service of world security by discarding its weapons of mass destruction programme.
Then South Africa, Tanzania and Ukraine would demand the same.
All of these countries are important.
The door to Security Council membership should be closed.
This approach is a falsehood, a trick that has been exposed.
If we want to reform the United Nations, bringing in more super-Powers is not the way.
The solution is to foster democracy at the level of the general congress of the world, the General Assembly, to which the powers of the Security Council should be transferred.
The Security Council would become merely an instrument for implementing the decisions taken by the General Assembly,
which would be the parliament, the legislative assembly, of the world.
This Assembly is our democratic forum and the Security Council should be responsible before it; we should not accept the current situation.
These are the legislators of the Members of the United Nations, and their resolutions should be binding.
It is said that the General Assembly should do whatever the Security Council recommends.
On the contrary, the Security Council should do whatever the General Assembly decides.
This is the United Nations, the Assembly that includes 192 countries.
It is not the Security Council, which includes only 15 of the Member States.
How can we be happy about global peace and security if the whole world is controlled by only five countries?
We are 192 nations and countries, and we are like Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park.
We just speak and nobody implements our decisions.
We are mere decoration, without any real substance.
We are Speakers’ Corner, no more, no less. We just make speeches and then disappear.
This is who you are right now.
Once the Security Council becomes only an executive body for resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, there will be no competition for membership of the Council.
Once the Security Council becomes a tool to implement General Assembly resolutions, there will be no need for any competition.
The Security Council should, quite simply, represent all nations.
In accordance with the proposal submitted to the General Assembly, there would be permanent seats on the Security Council for all unions and groups of countries.
The 27 countries of the European Union should have a permanent seat on the Security Council.
The countries of the African Union should have a permanent seat on the Security Council.
The Latin American and ASEAN countries should have permanent seats.
The Russian Federation and the United States of America are already permanent members of the Security Council.
The Southern African Development Community (SADC), once it is fully established, should have a permanent seat.
The 22 countries of the Arab League should have a permanent seat.
The 57 countries of the Islamic Conference should have a permanent seat.
The 118 countries of the Non-Aligned Movement should have a permanent seat.
Then there is the G-100;
perhaps the small countries should also have a permanent seat.
Countries not included in the unions that I have mentioned could perhaps be assigned a permanent seat, to be occupied by them in rotation every six or twelve months.
I am thinking of countries like Japan and Australia that are outside such organizations as ASEAN or like the Russian Federation that is not a member of the European or Latin American or African unions.
This would be a solution for them if the General Assembly votes in favor of it.
The issue is a vitally important one.
As has already been mentioned, the General Assembly is the Congress and Parliament of the world,
the leader of the world.
We are the nations, and anyone outside this General Assembly will not be recognized.
The President of the Assembly, Mr. Ali Abdussalam Treki, and Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will produce the legal draft and set up the necessary committees to submit this proposal to a vote: that from now on, the Security Council will be made up of unions of nations.
In this way, we will have justice and democracy,
and we will no longer have a Security Council consisting of countries which have been chosen because they have nuclear weapons, large economies or advanced technology.
That is terrorism.
We cannot allow the Security Council to be run by super-Powers; that is terrorism in and of itself.
If we want a world that is united, safe and peaceful, this is what we should do.
If we want to remain in a world at war, that is up to you.
We will continue to have conflict and to fight until doomsday or the end of the world.
All Security Council members should have the right to exercise the veto, or else we should eliminate the whole concept of the veto with this new formation of the Council.
This would be a real Security Council.
According to the new proposals submitted to the General Assembly, it will be an executive council under the control of the General Assembly, which will have the real power and make all the rules.
In this way, all countries will be on an equal footing in the Security Council just as they are in the General Assembly.
In the General Assembly we are all treated equally when it comes to membership and voting.
It should be the same in the Security Council.
Currently, one country has a veto; another country does not have a veto; one country has a permanent seat; another country does not have a permanent seat.
We should not accept this, nor should we accept any resolution adopted by the Security Council in its current composition.
We were under trusteeship; we were colonized; and now we are independent.
We are here today to decide the future of the world in a democratic way that will maintain the peace and security of all nations, large and small, as equals.
Otherwise, it is terrorism,
for terrorism is not just Al Qaeda but can also take other forms.
We should be guided by the majority of the votes in the General Assembly alone.
If the General Assembly takes a decision by voting, then its wishes should be obeyed and its decision should be enforced.
No one is above the General Assembly;
anyone who says he is above the Assembly should leave the United Nations and be on his own.
Democracy is not for the rich
or the most powerful or for those who practice terrorism.
All nations should be and should be seen to be on an equal footing.
At present, the Security Council is security feudalism,
political feudalism
for those with permanent seats,
protected by them and used against us.
It should be called, not the Security Council, but the Terror Council.
In our political life, if they need to use the Security Council against us, they turn to the Security Council.
If they have no need to use it against us, they ignore the Security Council.
If they have an interest to promote, an axe to grind, they respect and glorify the Charter of the United Nations; they turn to Chapter VII of the Charter and use it against poor nations.
If, however, they wished to violate the Charter, they would ignore it as if it did not exist at all.
If the veto of the permanent members of the Security Council is given to those who have the power, this is injustice and terrorism and should not be tolerated by us.
We should not live in the shadow of this injustice and terror.
Super-Powers have complicated global interests,
and they use the veto to protect those interests.
For example, in the Security Council, they use the power of the United Nations to protect their interests and to terrorize and intimidate the Third World, causing it to live under the shadow of terror.
From the beginning, since it was established in 1945, the Security Council has failed to provide security.
On the contrary, it has provided terror and sanctions.
It is only used against us.
For this reason, we will no longer be committed to implementing Security Council resolutions after this speech, which marks the 40th anniversary.
Sixty-five wars have broken out: either fighting among small countries or wars of aggression waged against us by super-Powers.
The Security Council, in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations, failed to take action to stop these wars or acts of aggressions against small nations and peoples.
The General Assembly will vote on a number of historic proposals.
Either we act as one or we will fragment.
If each nation were to have its own version of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the various instruments and each were to have an equal footing, the Powers that currently fill the permanent seats would be confined to use of their own sovereign bodies, whether there be three or four of them, and would have to exercise their rights against themselves.
This is of no concern to us.
If they want to keep their permanent seats, that is fine; permanent seats will be of no concern to us.
We shall never submit to their control or to their exercise of the veto that was given to them.
We are not so foolish as to give the right of veto to the super-Powers to use so they can treat us as second-class citizens
and as outcast nations.
It is not we who decided that those countries are the super-Powers and respected nations with the power to act on behalf of 192 countries.
You should be fully aware that we are ignoring the Security Council resolutions because those resolutions are used solely against us and not against the super-Powers which have the permanent seats and the right of veto.
Those Powers never use any resolutions against themselves.
They are, however, used against us.
Such use has turned the United Nations into a travesty of itself and has generated wars and violations of the sovereignty of independent States.
It has led to war crimes and genocides.
All of this is in violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
Since no one pays attention to the Security Council of the United Nations, each country and community has established its own security council, and the Security Council here has become isolated.
The African Union has already established its own Peace and Security Council, the European Union has already established a security council, and Asian countries have already established their own security council.
Soon, Latin America will have its own Security Council
as will the 120 non-aligned nations.
This means that we have already lost confidence in the United Nations Security Council, which has not provided us with security, and that is why we now are creating new regional security councils.
We are not committed to obeying the rules or the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council in its present form because it is undemocratic, dictatorial and unjust.
No one can force us to join the Security Council or to obey or comply with resolutions or orders given by the Security Council in its present composition.
Furthermore, there is no respect for the United Nations and no regard for the General Assembly, which is actually the true United Nations, but whose resolutions are non-binding.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
The decisions of the International Court of Justice, the international judicial body, take aim only at small countries and Third World nations.
Powerful countries escape the notice of the Court.
Or, if judicial decisions are taken against these powerful countries, they are not enforced.
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
Powerful countries escape the notice of the Court.
Or, if judicial decisions are taken against these powerful countries, they are not enforced.
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an important agency within the United Nations.
Powerful countries, however, are not accountable to it or under its jurisdiction.
We have discovered that the IAEA is used only against us.
[Contre l'Iran mais Israël peut faire ce qu'il veut.]
Powerful countries, however, are not accountable to it or under its jurisdiction.
We have discovered that the IAEA is used only against us.
[Contre l'Iran mais Israël peut faire ce qu'il veut.]
We are told that it is an international organization, but, if that is the case, then all the countries of the world should be under its jurisdiction.
If it is not truly international, then right after this speech we should no longer accept it and should close it down.
Mr. Treki, in his capacity as President of the General Assembly, should talk to the Director General of the IAEA, Mr. El Baradei, and should ask him if he is prepared to verify nuclear energy storage in all countries and inspect all suspected increases.
If he says yes, then we accept the Agency’s jurisdiction.
But if he says that he cannot go into certain countries that have nuclear power and that he does not have any jurisdiction over them, then we should close the Agency down and not submit to its jurisdiction.
For your information, I called Mr. ElBaradei when we had the problem of the Libyan nuclear bomb.
[?]
If it is not truly international, then right after this speech we should no longer accept it and should close it down.
Mr. Treki, in his capacity as President of the General Assembly, should talk to the Director General of the IAEA, Mr. El Baradei, and should ask him if he is prepared to verify nuclear energy storage in all countries and inspect all suspected increases.
If he says yes, then we accept the Agency’s jurisdiction.
But if he says that he cannot go into certain countries that have nuclear power and that he does not have any jurisdiction over them, then we should close the Agency down and not submit to its jurisdiction.
For your information, I called Mr. ElBaradei when we had the problem of the Libyan nuclear bomb.
[?]
I called Mr. El Baradei and asked him if the agreements by the super-Powers to reduce nuclear supplies were subject to Agency control and under inspection, and whether he was aware of any increases in their activity.
He told me that he was not in a position to ask the super-Powers to be inspected.
So, is the Agency only inspecting us?
If so, it does not qualify as an international organization since it is selective, just like the Security Council and the International Court of Justice.
This is not equitable nor is it the United Nations.
We totally reject this situation.
Regarding Africa, Mr. President, whether the United Nations is reformed or not, and even before a vote is taken on any proposals of a historic nature, Africa should be given a permanent seat on the Security Council now, having already waited too long.
Leaving aside United Nations reform, we can certainly say that Africa was colonized, isolated and persecuted and its rights usurped.
Its people were enslaved and treated like animals, and its territory was colonized and placed under trusteeship.
The countries of the African Union deserve a permanent seat.
This is a debt from the past that has to be paid and has nothing to do with United Nations reform.
It is a priority matter and is high on the agenda of the General Assembly.
No one can say that the African Union does not deserve a permanent seat.
Who can argue with this proposal?
I challenge anyone to make a case against it.
Where is the proof that the African Union or the African continent does not deserve a permanent seat?
No one can possibly deny this.
Another matter that should be voted on in the General Assembly is that of compensation for countries that were colonized,
so as to prevent the colonization of a continent,
the usurpation of its rights and the pillaging of its wealth from happening again.
Why are Africans going to Europe?
Why are Asians going to Europe?
Why are Latin Americans going to Europe?
It is because Europe colonized those peoples and stole the material and human resources of Africa, Asia and Latin America —
the oil, minerals, uranium, gold and diamonds, the fruit, vegetables and livestock
and the people —
and used them.
Now, new generations of Asians, Latin Americans and Africans are seeking to reclaim that stolen wealth, as they have the right to do.
At the Libyan border, I recently stopped 1,000 African migrants headed for Europe.
I asked them why they were going there.
They told me it was to take back their stolen wealth — that they would not be leaving otherwise.
Who can restore the wealth that was taken from us?
If you decide to restore all of this wealth, there will be no more immigration from the Philippines, Latin America, Mauritius and India.
Let us have the wealth that was stolen from us.
Africa deserves $777 trillion in compensation from the countries that colonized it.
Africans will demand that amount,
and if you do not give it to them, they will go to where you have taken those trillions of dollars.
They have the right to do so.
They have to follow that money and to bring it back.
He told me that he was not in a position to ask the super-Powers to be inspected.
So, is the Agency only inspecting us?
If so, it does not qualify as an international organization since it is selective, just like the Security Council and the International Court of Justice.
This is not equitable nor is it the United Nations.
We totally reject this situation.
Regarding Africa, Mr. President, whether the United Nations is reformed or not, and even before a vote is taken on any proposals of a historic nature, Africa should be given a permanent seat on the Security Council now, having already waited too long.
Leaving aside United Nations reform, we can certainly say that Africa was colonized, isolated and persecuted and its rights usurped.
Its people were enslaved and treated like animals, and its territory was colonized and placed under trusteeship.
The countries of the African Union deserve a permanent seat.
This is a debt from the past that has to be paid and has nothing to do with United Nations reform.
It is a priority matter and is high on the agenda of the General Assembly.
No one can say that the African Union does not deserve a permanent seat.
Who can argue with this proposal?
I challenge anyone to make a case against it.
Where is the proof that the African Union or the African continent does not deserve a permanent seat?
No one can possibly deny this.
Another matter that should be voted on in the General Assembly is that of compensation for countries that were colonized,
so as to prevent the colonization of a continent,
the usurpation of its rights and the pillaging of its wealth from happening again.
Why are Africans going to Europe?
Why are Asians going to Europe?
Why are Latin Americans going to Europe?
It is because Europe colonized those peoples and stole the material and human resources of Africa, Asia and Latin America —
the oil, minerals, uranium, gold and diamonds, the fruit, vegetables and livestock
and the people —
and used them.
Now, new generations of Asians, Latin Americans and Africans are seeking to reclaim that stolen wealth, as they have the right to do.
At the Libyan border, I recently stopped 1,000 African migrants headed for Europe.
I asked them why they were going there.
They told me it was to take back their stolen wealth — that they would not be leaving otherwise.
Who can restore the wealth that was taken from us?
If you decide to restore all of this wealth, there will be no more immigration from the Philippines, Latin America, Mauritius and India.
Let us have the wealth that was stolen from us.
Africa deserves $777 trillion in compensation from the countries that colonized it.
Africans will demand that amount,
and if you do not give it to them, they will go to where you have taken those trillions of dollars.
They have the right to do so.
They have to follow that money and to bring it back.
ITALY
Why is there no Libyan immigration to Italy, even though Libya is so close by?
Italy owed compensation to the Libyan people.
It accepted that fact and signed an agreement with Libya, which was adopted by both the Italian and Libyan Parliaments.
Italy admitted that its colonization of Libya was wrong and should never be repeated,
and it promised not to attack the Libyan people by land, air or sea.
Italy also agreed to provide Libya with $250 million a year in compensation over the next 20 years
and to build a hospital for Libyans maimed as a result of the mines planted in Libyan territory during the Second World War.
Italy apologized and promised that it would never again occupy the territory of another country.
Italy owed compensation to the Libyan people.
It accepted that fact and signed an agreement with Libya, which was adopted by both the Italian and Libyan Parliaments.
Italy admitted that its colonization of Libya was wrong and should never be repeated,
and it promised not to attack the Libyan people by land, air or sea.
Italy also agreed to provide Libya with $250 million a year in compensation over the next 20 years
and to build a hospital for Libyans maimed as a result of the mines planted in Libyan territory during the Second World War.
Italy apologized and promised that it would never again occupy the territory of another country.
[!]
Italy, which was a kingdom during the Fascist regime and has made rich contributions to civilization, should be commended for this achievement, together with Prime Minister Berlusconi and his predecessor, who made their own contributions in that regard.
Why is the Third World demanding compensation?
So that there will be no more colonization —
so that large and powerful countries will not colonize,
knowing that they will have to pay compensation.
Colonization should be punished.
The countries that harmed other peoples during the colonial era should pay compensation for the damage and suffering inflicted under their colonial rule.
There is another point that I would like to make.
However, before doing so — and addressing a somewhat sensitive issue — I should like to make an aside.
OBAMA
We Africans are happy and proud indeed that a son of Africa is now President of the United States of America.
That is a historic event.
Now, in a country where blacks once could not mingle with whites, in cafés or restaurants, or sit next to them on a bus, the American people have elected as their President a young black man, Mr. Obama, of Kenyan heritage.
That is a wonderful thing, and we are proud.
It marks the beginning of a change.
However, as far as I am concerned, Obama is a temporary relief for the next four or eight years.
I am afraid that we may then go back to square one.
No one can guarantee how America will be governed after Obama.
We would be content if Obama could remain President of the United States of America for ever.
The statement that he just made shows that he is completely different from any American President that we have seen.
American Presidents used to threaten us with all manner of weapons,
saying that they would send us Desert Storm, Grapes of Wrath, Rolling
Thunder and poisonous roses for Libyan children.
That was their approach. American Presidents used to threaten us with operations such as Rolling Thunder, sent to Viet Nam; Desert Storm, sent to Iraq;
Musketeer, sent to Egypt in 1956, even though America opposed it;
and the poisonous roses visited upon Libyan children by Reagan.
Can you imagine?
One would have thought that Presidents of a large country with a permanent seat on the Security Council and the right of veto would have protected us and sent us peace.
And what did we get instead?
Laser-guided bombs carried to us on F-111 aircraft.
This was their approach: we will lead the world, whether you like it or not, and will punish anyone who opposes us.
What our son Obama said today is completely different.
He made a serious appeal for nuclear disarmament, which we applaud.
He also said that America alone could not solve the problems facing us and that the entire world should come together to do so.
He said that we must do more than we are doing now, which is making speeches.
We agree with that and applaud it.
He said that we had come to the United Nations to talk against one another. It is true that when we come here, we should communicate with one another on an equal footing.
And he said that democracy should not be imposed from outside.
Until recently, American Presidents have said that democracy should be imposed on Iraq and other countries.
He said that this was an internal affair.
He spoke truly when he said that democracy cannot be imposed from outside.
So we have to be cautious.
Before I make these sensitive remarks I note that the whole world has so many polarities. Listen: should we have a world of so many polarities?
Can we not have nations on an equal footing?
Let us have an answer. Does anyone have an answer as to whether it is better to have a world of so many polarities?
Why can we not have equal standing?
Should we have patriarchs?
Should we have popes?
Should we have gods?
Why should we have a world of so many polarities?
We reject such a world and call for a world where big and small are equal.
That is a historic event.
Now, in a country where blacks once could not mingle with whites, in cafés or restaurants, or sit next to them on a bus, the American people have elected as their President a young black man, Mr. Obama, of Kenyan heritage.
That is a wonderful thing, and we are proud.
It marks the beginning of a change.
However, as far as I am concerned, Obama is a temporary relief for the next four or eight years.
I am afraid that we may then go back to square one.
No one can guarantee how America will be governed after Obama.
We would be content if Obama could remain President of the United States of America for ever.
The statement that he just made shows that he is completely different from any American President that we have seen.
American Presidents used to threaten us with all manner of weapons,
saying that they would send us Desert Storm, Grapes of Wrath, Rolling
Thunder and poisonous roses for Libyan children.
That was their approach. American Presidents used to threaten us with operations such as Rolling Thunder, sent to Viet Nam; Desert Storm, sent to Iraq;
Musketeer, sent to Egypt in 1956, even though America opposed it;
and the poisonous roses visited upon Libyan children by Reagan.
Can you imagine?
One would have thought that Presidents of a large country with a permanent seat on the Security Council and the right of veto would have protected us and sent us peace.
And what did we get instead?
Laser-guided bombs carried to us on F-111 aircraft.
This was their approach: we will lead the world, whether you like it or not, and will punish anyone who opposes us.
What our son Obama said today is completely different.
He made a serious appeal for nuclear disarmament, which we applaud.
He also said that America alone could not solve the problems facing us and that the entire world should come together to do so.
He said that we must do more than we are doing now, which is making speeches.
We agree with that and applaud it.
He said that we had come to the United Nations to talk against one another. It is true that when we come here, we should communicate with one another on an equal footing.
And he said that democracy should not be imposed from outside.
Until recently, American Presidents have said that democracy should be imposed on Iraq and other countries.
He said that this was an internal affair.
He spoke truly when he said that democracy cannot be imposed from outside.
So we have to be cautious.
Before I make these sensitive remarks I note that the whole world has so many polarities. Listen: should we have a world of so many polarities?
Can we not have nations on an equal footing?
Let us have an answer. Does anyone have an answer as to whether it is better to have a world of so many polarities?
Why can we not have equal standing?
Should we have patriarchs?
Should we have popes?
Should we have gods?
Why should we have a world of so many polarities?
We reject such a world and call for a world where big and small are equal.
DÉPLACEMENT DU SIÈGE DES NATIONS UNIES
The other sensitive point is the Headquarters of the United Nations.
Can I have your attention, please?
All of you came across the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, crossing the Asian continent or the African continent to reach this place.
Why?
Is this Jerusalem?
Is this the Vatican?
Is this Mecca?
All of you are tired, have jet lag, and have sleepless nights. You are very tired, very low, physically. Somebody just arrived now, flying 20 hours. Then we want him to make a speech and talk about this.
All of you are asleep, all of you are tired. It is clear that all of you are lacking energy because of having to make a long journey.
Why do we do that?
Some of our countries are in nighttime and people are asleep. Now you should be asleep, because your biological clock, your biological mind is accustomed to be asleep at this time. I wake up at 4 o’clock New York time, before dawn, because in Libya it is 11 in the morning. When I wake up at 11 o’clock it is supposed to be daytime; at 4 o’clock I am awake.
Why?
Think about it.
If this was decided in 1945, should we still retain it?
Why can we not think about a place that is in the middle, that is comfortable?
Another important point is that America, the host country, bears the expenses and looks after the Headquarters and diplomatic missions and looks after the peace and security of the heads of State who come here.
They are very strict; they spend a lot of money, New York and all of America being very tight.
I want to relieve America of this hardship.
We should thank America; we say to America, thank you for all the trouble that you have taken on yourself. We say thank you to America.
We want to help reassure America and New York and keep them calm.
They should not have the responsibility of looking after security.
Perhaps some day a terrorist could cause an explosion or bomb a president.
This place is targeted by Al-Qaeda, this very building.
Why was it not hit on 11 September?
It was beyond their power.
The next target would be this place.
I am not saying this in an offhand manner.
We have tens of members of Al-Qaeda detained in Libyan prisons.
[?]
Their confessions [?] are very scary.
That makes America live under tension.
One never knows what will happen.
Perhaps America or this place will be targeted again by a rocket.
Perhaps tens of heads of State will die.
We want to relieve America from this worry.
We shall take the place to where it is not targeted.
Now after 50 years United Nations Headquarters should be taken to another part of the hemisphere.
After 50 years in the western hemisphere, for the next 50 years it should be in the eastern hemisphere or in the middle hemisphere, by rotation.
Now, with 64 years we have an extra 14 years over the 50 that Headquarters should have been moved to somewhere else.
This is not an insult to America; it is a service to America.
We should thank America.
This was possible in 1945, but we should not accept it now.
Of course this should be put to the vote in the General Assembly — only in the Assembly, because in section 23 of the Headquarters Agreement it says that the United Nations Headquarters can be moved to another location only by a resolution of the General Assembly.
If 51 per cent of the Assembly approves relocation of Headquarters, then it can be moved.
America has the right to make security tight because it is targeted by terrorists and by Al-Qaeda.
America has the right to take all security measures; we are not blaming America for that.
However, we do not tolerate these measures.
We do not have to come to New York and be subjected to all these measures.
One president told me that he was told that his co-pilot should not come to America because there are restrictions.
He asked how he could cross the Atlantic without a co-pilot.
Why?
He does not have to come here.
Another president complained that his honor guard could not come because there was some misunderstanding regarding his name when it came to granting a visa.
Another president said his own doctor could not get a visa and could not come to America.
The security measures are very strict.
If a country has any problem with America, they will set up restrictions on the movements of member delegations,
as if one is in Guantanamo.
Is this a Member State of the United Nations, or is it a prisoner in the Guantanamo camp that cannot be allowed free movement?
This is what is submitted to the General Assembly for a vote — moving the Headquarters.
If 51 per cent agree, then we come to the second vote:
to the middle of the globe, or to the eastern part.
If we say that we must move the Headquarters to the middle of the hemisphere, why do we not move to Sirte or Vienna?
One can come even without a visa.
Once you come as a president, Libya is a secure country.
We are not going to restrict you to 100 or 500 meters.
Libya has no hostile actions against anybody.
I think the same holds true of Vienna.
If the vote says we should move Headquarters to the eastern part, then it will be Delhi or Beijing, the capital of China or the capital of India.
That is logical, my brothers. I do not think there will be any objection to that.
Then you will thank me for this proposal, for eliminating the suffering and the trouble of flying 14, 15 or 20 hours to come here.
No one can blame America or say that America will reduce its contributions to the United Nations.
No one should have that bad thought.
America, I am sure, is committed to its international obligations.
America will not be angry; it will thank you for alleviating its hardship, for taking on all that hardship and all the restrictions, even though this place is targeted by terrorists.
We come now to the issues that will be considered by the General Assembly.
We are about to put the United Nations on trial; the old organization will be finished and a new one will emerge.
This is not a normal gathering.
Even son Obama said that this is not a normal gathering. It is a historic meeting.
The wars that took place after the establishment of the United Nations — why did they occur?
Where was the Security Council, where was the Charter, where was the United Nations?
There should be investigations and judicial intervention.
Why have there been massacres?
KOREAN WAR
We can start with the Korean War because it took place after the establishment of the United Nations.
How did a war break out and cause millions of victims?
Nuclear weapons could have been used in that war.
Those who are responsible for causing the war should be tried and should pay compensation and damages.
We can start with the Korean War because it took place after the establishment of the United Nations.
How did a war break out and cause millions of victims?
Nuclear weapons could have been used in that war.
Those who are responsible for causing the war should be tried and should pay compensation and damages.
SUEZ CANAL
Then we come to the Suez Canal war of 1956.
That file should be opened wide.
Three countries with permanent seats on the Security Council and with the right of veto in the Council attacked a member State of this General Assembly.
A country that was a sovereign State — Egypt — was attacked, its army was destroyed, thousands of Egyptians were killed and many Egyptian towns and entities were destroyed, all because Egypt wanted to nationalize the Suez Canal.
How could such a thing have happened during the era of the United Nations and its Charter?
How is it possible to guarantee that such a thing will not be repeated unless we make amends for past wrongs?
Those were dangerous events and the Suez Canal and Korean War files should be re-opened.
VIET NAM
Then we come to the Suez Canal war of 1956.
That file should be opened wide.
Three countries with permanent seats on the Security Council and with the right of veto in the Council attacked a member State of this General Assembly.
A country that was a sovereign State — Egypt — was attacked, its army was destroyed, thousands of Egyptians were killed and many Egyptian towns and entities were destroyed, all because Egypt wanted to nationalize the Suez Canal.
How could such a thing have happened during the era of the United Nations and its Charter?
How is it possible to guarantee that such a thing will not be repeated unless we make amends for past wrongs?
Those were dangerous events and the Suez Canal and Korean War files should be re-opened.
VIET NAM
Next we come to the Viet Nam war.
There were 3 million victims of that war.
During 12 days, more bombs were dropped than during four years of the Second World War.
It was a fiercer war, and it took place after the establishment of the United Nations
and after we had decided that there would be no more wars.
The future of humankind is at stake.
We cannot stay silent.
How can we feel safe?
How can we be complacent?
This is the future of the world, and we who are in the General Assembly of the United Nations must make sure that such wars are not repeated in the future.
PANAMA
There were 3 million victims of that war.
During 12 days, more bombs were dropped than during four years of the Second World War.
It was a fiercer war, and it took place after the establishment of the United Nations
and after we had decided that there would be no more wars.
The future of humankind is at stake.
We cannot stay silent.
How can we feel safe?
How can we be complacent?
This is the future of the world, and we who are in the General Assembly of the United Nations must make sure that such wars are not repeated in the future.
PANAMA
Then Panama was attacked, even though it was an independent member State of the General Assembly.
Four thousand people were killed,
and the President of that country was taken prisoner and put in prison.
Noriega should be released — we should open that file.
How can we entitle a country that is a United Nations Member State [USA] to wage war against another country and capture its president, treat him as a criminal and put him in prison?
Who would accept that?
It could be repeated.
We should not stay quiet.
We should have an investigation.
Any one of us Member States could face the same situation, especially if such aggression is by a Member State with a permanent seat on the Security Council and with the responsibility to maintain peace and security worldwide.
GRENADA
Four thousand people were killed,
and the President of that country was taken prisoner and put in prison.
Noriega should be released — we should open that file.
How can we entitle a country that is a United Nations Member State [USA] to wage war against another country and capture its president, treat him as a criminal and put him in prison?
Who would accept that?
It could be repeated.
We should not stay quiet.
We should have an investigation.
Any one of us Member States could face the same situation, especially if such aggression is by a Member State with a permanent seat on the Security Council and with the responsibility to maintain peace and security worldwide.
GRENADA
Then there was the war in Grenada.
That country was invaded even though it was a Member State.
It was attacked by 5,000 war ships, 7,000 troops and dozens of military aircraft,
and it is the smallest country in the world.
This occurred after the establishment of the United Nations and of the Security Council and its veto.
And the President of Grenada, Mr. Maurice Bishop, was assassinated.
How could that have happened with impunity?
It is a tragedy.
How can we guarantee that the United Nations is good or not, that a certain country is good or not?
Can we be safe or happy about our future or not?
Can we trust the Security Council or not?
Can we trust the United Nations or not?
That country was invaded even though it was a Member State.
It was attacked by 5,000 war ships, 7,000 troops and dozens of military aircraft,
and it is the smallest country in the world.
This occurred after the establishment of the United Nations and of the Security Council and its veto.
And the President of Grenada, Mr. Maurice Bishop, was assassinated.
How could that have happened with impunity?
It is a tragedy.
How can we guarantee that the United Nations is good or not, that a certain country is good or not?
Can we be safe or happy about our future or not?
Can we trust the Security Council or not?
Can we trust the United Nations or not?
SOMALIA
We must look into and investigate the bombing of Somalia.
Somalia is a United Nations Member State.
It is an independent country under the rule of Aidid.
We want an investigation.
Why did that happen?
Who allowed it to happen?
Who gave the green light for that country to be attacked?
We must look into and investigate the bombing of Somalia.
Somalia is a United Nations Member State.
It is an independent country under the rule of Aidid.
We want an investigation.
Why did that happen?
Who allowed it to happen?
Who gave the green light for that country to be attacked?
YOUGOSLAVIA
Then there is the former Yugoslavia.
No country was as peaceful as Yugoslavia,
constructed step by step and piece by piece after being destroyed by Hitler.
We destroyed it, as if we were doing the same job as Hitler.
Tito built that peaceful country step by step and brick by brick and then we arrived and broke it apart for imperialistic, personal interests.
How can we be complacent about that?
Why can we not be satisfied?
If a peaceful country like Yugoslavia faced such a tragedy, the General Assembly should have an investigation and should decide who should be tried before the International Criminal Court.
IRAK INVASION NO. 1. NO. 2
Then there is the former Yugoslavia.
No country was as peaceful as Yugoslavia,
constructed step by step and piece by piece after being destroyed by Hitler.
We destroyed it, as if we were doing the same job as Hitler.
Tito built that peaceful country step by step and brick by brick and then we arrived and broke it apart for imperialistic, personal interests.
How can we be complacent about that?
Why can we not be satisfied?
If a peaceful country like Yugoslavia faced such a tragedy, the General Assembly should have an investigation and should decide who should be tried before the International Criminal Court.
IRAK INVASION NO. 1. NO. 2
Then we have the war in Iraq — the mother of all evils.
The United Nations should also investigate that.
The General Assembly, presided over by Mr. Treki, should investigate that.
The invasion of Iraq was a violation of the United Nations Charter.
It was done without any justification by super-Powers with permanent seats on the Security Council.
Iraq is an independent country and a member State of the General Assembly.
How could those countries attack Iraq?
As provided for in the Charter, the United Nations should have intervened and stopped the attack.
We spoke in the General Assembly and urged it to use the Charter to stop that attack.
We were against the invasion of Kuwait,
and the Arab countries fought Iraq alongside foreign countries in the name of the United Nations Charter.
In the first instance, the Charter was respected.
The second time when we wanted to use the Charter to stop the war against Iraq, no one used it and that document was ignored.
Why did that occur?
Mr. Treki and the General Assembly should investigate to determine whether there was any reason at all to invade Iraq.
Because the reasons for that attack remain mysterious and ambiguous, and we might face the same destiny.
Why was Iraq invaded?
The invasion itself was a serious violation of the United Nations Charter, and it was wrong.
There was also a total massacre or genocide.
More than 1.5 million Iraqis were killed.
We want to bring the Iraqi file before the International Criminal Court (ICC),
and we want those who committed mass murder against the Iraqi people to be tried.
It is easy for Charles Taylor to be tried, or for Bashir to be tried, or for Noriega to be tried.
That is an easy job.
The United Nations should also investigate that.
The General Assembly, presided over by Mr. Treki, should investigate that.
The invasion of Iraq was a violation of the United Nations Charter.
It was done without any justification by super-Powers with permanent seats on the Security Council.
Iraq is an independent country and a member State of the General Assembly.
How could those countries attack Iraq?
As provided for in the Charter, the United Nations should have intervened and stopped the attack.
We spoke in the General Assembly and urged it to use the Charter to stop that attack.
We were against the invasion of Kuwait,
and the Arab countries fought Iraq alongside foreign countries in the name of the United Nations Charter.
In the first instance, the Charter was respected.
The second time when we wanted to use the Charter to stop the war against Iraq, no one used it and that document was ignored.
Why did that occur?
Mr. Treki and the General Assembly should investigate to determine whether there was any reason at all to invade Iraq.
Because the reasons for that attack remain mysterious and ambiguous, and we might face the same destiny.
Why was Iraq invaded?
The invasion itself was a serious violation of the United Nations Charter, and it was wrong.
There was also a total massacre or genocide.
More than 1.5 million Iraqis were killed.
We want to bring the Iraqi file before the International Criminal Court (ICC),
and we want those who committed mass murder against the Iraqi people to be tried.
It is easy for Charles Taylor to be tried, or for Bashir to be tried, or for Noriega to be tried.
That is an easy job.
IRAK
Yes, but what about those who have committed mass murder against the Iraqis?
They cannot be tried?
They cannot go before the ICC?
If the Court is unable to accommodate us, then we should not accept it.
Either it is meant for all of us, large or small, or we should not accept it and should reject it.
Anyone who commits a war crime can be tried,
but we are not livestock or animals like those that are slaughtered for the Eid.
We have the right to live, and we are ready to fight and to defend ourselves.
We have the right to live in dignity, under the sun and on earth; they have already tested us and we have withstood the test.
There are other things as well.
Yes, but what about those who have committed mass murder against the Iraqis?
They cannot be tried?
They cannot go before the ICC?
If the Court is unable to accommodate us, then we should not accept it.
Either it is meant for all of us, large or small, or we should not accept it and should reject it.
Anyone who commits a war crime can be tried,
but we are not livestock or animals like those that are slaughtered for the Eid.
We have the right to live, and we are ready to fight and to defend ourselves.
We have the right to live in dignity, under the sun and on earth; they have already tested us and we have withstood the test.
There are other things as well.
SADDAM HUSSEIN
Why is it that Iraqi prisoners of war can be sentenced to death?
When Iraq was invaded and the President of Iraq was taken he was a prisoner of war.
He should not have been tried;
he should not have been hanged.
When the war was over, he should have been released.
We want to know why a prisoner of war should have been tried.
Who sentenced the President of Iraq to death?
Is there an answer to that question?
We know the identity of the judge who tried him.
As to who tied the noose around the President’s neck on the day of sacrifice and hanged him, those people wore masks.
How could this have happened in a civilized world?
These were prisoners of war of civilized countries under international law.
How could Government ministers and a head of State be sentenced to death and hanged?
Were those who tried them lawyers or members of a judicial system?
Do you know what people are saying?
They are saying that the faces behind the masks were those of the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and that it was they who put the President of Iraq to death.
Why do the executioners not unmask their faces?
Why do we not know their ranks?
Why do we not know whether they were officers, judges, soldiers or doctors?
How does it come about that the President of a State Member of the United Nations was sentenced to death and killed?
We do not know the identity of the executioners.
The United Nations is duty-bound to answer these questions:
who carried out the death sentence?
They must have legal status and official responsibilities; we should know their identities and we should know about the presence of a physician and the nature of all the legal proceedings.
That would be true for an ordinary citizen, let alone for the President of a State Member of the United Nations who was put to death in that manner.
When Iraq was invaded and the President of Iraq was taken he was a prisoner of war.
He should not have been tried;
he should not have been hanged.
When the war was over, he should have been released.
We want to know why a prisoner of war should have been tried.
Who sentenced the President of Iraq to death?
Is there an answer to that question?
We know the identity of the judge who tried him.
As to who tied the noose around the President’s neck on the day of sacrifice and hanged him, those people wore masks.
How could this have happened in a civilized world?
These were prisoners of war of civilized countries under international law.
How could Government ministers and a head of State be sentenced to death and hanged?
Were those who tried them lawyers or members of a judicial system?
Do you know what people are saying?
They are saying that the faces behind the masks were those of the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and that it was they who put the President of Iraq to death.
Why do the executioners not unmask their faces?
Why do we not know their ranks?
Why do we not know whether they were officers, judges, soldiers or doctors?
How does it come about that the President of a State Member of the United Nations was sentenced to death and killed?
We do not know the identity of the executioners.
The United Nations is duty-bound to answer these questions:
who carried out the death sentence?
They must have legal status and official responsibilities; we should know their identities and we should know about the presence of a physician and the nature of all the legal proceedings.
That would be true for an ordinary citizen, let alone for the President of a State Member of the United Nations who was put to death in that manner.
IRAK
ABU GHRAIB
My third point on the Iraq war relates to Abu Ghraib.
This was a disgrace to humankind.
I know that the United States authorities will investigate this scandal, but the United Nations must not ignore it either.
The General Assembly should investigate this matter.
Prisoners of war held in Abu Ghraib prison were torturers;
dogs were set on them; men were raped.
This is unprecedented in the history of war.
It was sodomy, and it was an unprecedented sin, never before committed by past aggressors or invaders.
Prisoners of war are soldiers, but these were raped in prison by a State, a permanent member of the Security Council.
This goes against civilization and humankind.
We must not keep silent; we must know the facts.
Even today, a quarter of a million Iraqi prisoners, men and women alike, remain in Abu Ghraib.
They are being maltreated, persecuted and raped.
There must be an investigation.
This was a disgrace to humankind.
I know that the United States authorities will investigate this scandal, but the United Nations must not ignore it either.
The General Assembly should investigate this matter.
Prisoners of war held in Abu Ghraib prison were torturers;
dogs were set on them; men were raped.
This is unprecedented in the history of war.
It was sodomy, and it was an unprecedented sin, never before committed by past aggressors or invaders.
Prisoners of war are soldiers, but these were raped in prison by a State, a permanent member of the Security Council.
This goes against civilization and humankind.
We must not keep silent; we must know the facts.
Even today, a quarter of a million Iraqi prisoners, men and women alike, remain in Abu Ghraib.
They are being maltreated, persecuted and raped.
There must be an investigation.
AFGHANISTAN
Turning to the war in Afghanistan, this too must be investigated.
Why are we against the Taliban?
Why are we against Afghanistan?
Who are the Taliban?
If the Taliban want a religious State, that is fine.
Think of the Vatican.
Does the Vatican pose a threat to us?
No. It is a religious, very peaceful State.
If the Taliban want to create an Islamic Emirate, who says that this makes them an enemy?
Is anyone claiming that Bin Laden is of the Taliban or that he is Afghan?
Is Bin Laden of the Taliban?
No; he is not of the Taliban and he is not Afghan.
Were the terrorists who hit New York City of the Taliban?
Were they from Afghanistan?
They were neither Taliban nor Afghan.
Turning to the war in Afghanistan, this too must be investigated.
Why are we against the Taliban?
Why are we against Afghanistan?
Who are the Taliban?
If the Taliban want a religious State, that is fine.
Think of the Vatican.
Does the Vatican pose a threat to us?
No. It is a religious, very peaceful State.
If the Taliban want to create an Islamic Emirate, who says that this makes them an enemy?
Is anyone claiming that Bin Laden is of the Taliban or that he is Afghan?
Is Bin Laden of the Taliban?
No; he is not of the Taliban and he is not Afghan.
Were the terrorists who hit New York City of the Taliban?
Were they from Afghanistan?
They were neither Taliban nor Afghan.
AFGHANISTAN
IRAK
Then, what was the reason for the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan?
If I truly wanted to deceive my American and British friends, I would encourage them to send more troops and I would encourage them to persist in this bloodbath.
But they will never succeed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Look what happened to them in Iraq, which is a desert.
It is even worse in mountainous Afghanistan.
If I wanted to deceive them I would tell them to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But no, I want to save the citizens of the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So I tell them: leave Afghanistan to the Afghans; leave Iraq to the Iraqis.
If they want to fight each other, they are free to do so.
America had its Civil War, and no one interfered in it.
There were civil wars in Spain, China and countries all over the world — no place on Earth has been free of civil wars.
Let there be a civil war in Iraq.
If the Iraqis want to have a civil war and fight each other, that is fine.
AFGHANISTAN
If I truly wanted to deceive my American and British friends, I would encourage them to send more troops and I would encourage them to persist in this bloodbath.
But they will never succeed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Look what happened to them in Iraq, which is a desert.
It is even worse in mountainous Afghanistan.
If I wanted to deceive them I would tell them to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But no, I want to save the citizens of the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So I tell them: leave Afghanistan to the Afghans; leave Iraq to the Iraqis.
If they want to fight each other, they are free to do so.
America had its Civil War, and no one interfered in it.
There were civil wars in Spain, China and countries all over the world — no place on Earth has been free of civil wars.
Let there be a civil war in Iraq.
If the Iraqis want to have a civil war and fight each other, that is fine.
AFGHANISTAN
11 SEPTEMBRE 2011
Who says that if the Taliban form a Government they would possess intercontinental missiles or the kind of airplanes that hit New York?
Did those airplanes take off from Afghanistan or Iraq?
No; they took off from American airports.
So why is Afghanistan being struck?
The terrorists were not Afghans or Taliban or Iraqis.
Why are we silent?
We must never be war devils: anyone who does not speak the truth is a silent devil.
We are committed to international peace and security.
We do not wish to scorn or ridicule humankind.
We want to save humanity.
As President of the General Assembly, Mr. Ali Treki should open an investigation of the assassinations file — in addition to the war files.
Did those airplanes take off from Afghanistan or Iraq?
No; they took off from American airports.
So why is Afghanistan being struck?
The terrorists were not Afghans or Taliban or Iraqis.
Why are we silent?
We must never be war devils: anyone who does not speak the truth is a silent devil.
We are committed to international peace and security.
We do not wish to scorn or ridicule humankind.
We want to save humanity.
As President of the General Assembly, Mr. Ali Treki should open an investigation of the assassinations file — in addition to the war files.
LUMUMBA
Who killed Patrice Lumumba, and why?
We merely want to record it in the annals of African history; we want to know how an African leader, a liberator, came to be assassinated.
Who killed him?
We want our sons to be able to read the history of how Patrice Lumumba, the hero of Congo’s liberation struggle, was assassinated.
We want to know the facts, even 50 years on.
That is one file that should be reopened.
We merely want to record it in the annals of African history; we want to know how an African leader, a liberator, came to be assassinated.
Who killed him?
We want our sons to be able to read the history of how Patrice Lumumba, the hero of Congo’s liberation struggle, was assassinated.
We want to know the facts, even 50 years on.
That is one file that should be reopened.
HAMMARSKJÖLD
And who killed Secretary-General Hammarskjöld?
Who fired on his aero plane in 1961, and why?
And who killed Secretary-General Hammarskjöld?
Who fired on his aero plane in 1961, and why?
KENNEDY
Then, there is the assassination of United States President Kennedy in 1963.
We want to know who killed him and why.
There was somebody called Lee Harvey Oswald, who was then killed by one Jack Ruby.
Why did he kill him?
Jack Ruby, an Israeli, killed Lee Harvey Oswald, who killed Kennedy.
Why did this Israeli kill Kennedy’s killer?
Then Jack Ruby, the killer of the killer of Kennedy, died in mysterious circumstances before he could be tried.
We must open the files.
The whole world knows that Kennedy wanted to investigate the Israeli Dimona nuclear reactor.
This involves international peace and security and weapons of mass destruction.
That is why we should open this file.
MARTIN LUTHER KING
Then, there is the assassination of United States President Kennedy in 1963.
We want to know who killed him and why.
There was somebody called Lee Harvey Oswald, who was then killed by one Jack Ruby.
Why did he kill him?
Jack Ruby, an Israeli, killed Lee Harvey Oswald, who killed Kennedy.
Why did this Israeli kill Kennedy’s killer?
Then Jack Ruby, the killer of the killer of Kennedy, died in mysterious circumstances before he could be tried.
We must open the files.
The whole world knows that Kennedy wanted to investigate the Israeli Dimona nuclear reactor.
This involves international peace and security and weapons of mass destruction.
That is why we should open this file.
MARTIN LUTHER KING
Then there is the assassination of Martin Luther King, the black reverend and human rights activist. His assassination was a plot, and we should know why he was killed and who killed him.
KAHIL WAZIR
KAHIL WAZIR
ABU JIHAD
Then Khalil Wazir, or Abu Jihad, a Palestinian, was attacked.
He was living peacefully in Tunisia, a Member State, and that country’s sovereignty was not respected.
We cannot keep silent.
Even though submarines and ships were detected along the coast of Tunisia, where he was killed, no one was accused or tried.
Abu Iyad was also killed, and we should know how he was killed.
He was killed in ambiguous circumstances.
In Operation Spring of Youth, Kamal Nasser, a poet, Kamal Adwan and Abu Youssef al Najjar, three Palestinians, were killed in Lebanon, a country that is a free, sovereign State member of the General Assembly.
They were attacked and killed while sleeping peacefully.
We should know who killed them, and he should be tried so that those crimes against humanity are not repeated.
He was living peacefully in Tunisia, a Member State, and that country’s sovereignty was not respected.
We cannot keep silent.
Even though submarines and ships were detected along the coast of Tunisia, where he was killed, no one was accused or tried.
Abu Iyad was also killed, and we should know how he was killed.
He was killed in ambiguous circumstances.
In Operation Spring of Youth, Kamal Nasser, a poet, Kamal Adwan and Abu Youssef al Najjar, three Palestinians, were killed in Lebanon, a country that is a free, sovereign State member of the General Assembly.
They were attacked and killed while sleeping peacefully.
We should know who killed them, and he should be tried so that those crimes against humanity are not repeated.
GRENADA
We have already talked about the size of the force used in the invasion of Grenada — 7,000 troops, 15 battleships and dozens of bombers — and President Bishop was killed even though Grenada was a Member State.
Those are crimes, and we cannot keep silent.
Otherwise, we will look like sacrificial beasts.
We are not animals.
Year after year, we are attacked.
We defend ourselves, our sons and our children, and we are not afraid.
We have the right to live, and the Earth is not destined for violence, but for us all.
We can never live on this Earth in such humiliation.
So those are the wars.
The last file is that of the massacres.
Those are crimes, and we cannot keep silent.
Otherwise, we will look like sacrificial beasts.
We are not animals.
Year after year, we are attacked.
We defend ourselves, our sons and our children, and we are not afraid.
We have the right to live, and the Earth is not destined for violence, but for us all.
We can never live on this Earth in such humiliation.
So those are the wars.
The last file is that of the massacres.
LIBAN
SABRA. SHATILA
In the Sabra and Shatila massacre, 3,000 people were killed.
That area, under the protection of the occupying Israeli army, was the site of a huge and calamitous massacre in which 3,000 Palestinian men, women and children were killed.
How can we keep quiet?
Lebanon is a sovereign State [envahi 2 fois par Israël] ; a member of the General Assembly was occupied, Sabra and Shatila were under Israeli control, and then the massacre took place.
GAZA
That area, under the protection of the occupying Israeli army, was the site of a huge and calamitous massacre in which 3,000 Palestinian men, women and children were killed.
How can we keep quiet?
Lebanon is a sovereign State [envahi 2 fois par Israël] ; a member of the General Assembly was occupied, Sabra and Shatila were under Israeli control, and then the massacre took place.
GAZA
Then there was the 2008 massacre in Gaza.
There were 1,000 women and 2,200 children among the victims killed in the massacre in Gaza in 2008.
Sixty United Nations facilities and another 30 belonging to non-governmental organizations were damaged.
Fifty clinics were destroyed. Forty doctors and nurses were killed while carrying out humanitarian activities.
This took place in Gaza in December 2008.
The perpetrators [Armée Israélienne] are still alive, and they should be tried by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Should we try only the underdogs, the weak and the poor of third-world countries, and not important and protected figures?
Under international law, they should all face trial for the consequences of the crimes that they have committed.
Otherwise, the role of the ICC will never be recognized.
If the decisions of the ICC are not respected or implemented, if the General Assembly and the Security Council mean nothing, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency serves only certain countries and organizations, then what is the United Nations?
It would mean that the United Nations is nothing and is insignificant.
Where is it?
There is no United Nations.
There were 1,000 women and 2,200 children among the victims killed in the massacre in Gaza in 2008.
Sixty United Nations facilities and another 30 belonging to non-governmental organizations were damaged.
Fifty clinics were destroyed. Forty doctors and nurses were killed while carrying out humanitarian activities.
This took place in Gaza in December 2008.
The perpetrators [Armée Israélienne] are still alive, and they should be tried by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Should we try only the underdogs, the weak and the poor of third-world countries, and not important and protected figures?
Under international law, they should all face trial for the consequences of the crimes that they have committed.
Otherwise, the role of the ICC will never be recognized.
If the decisions of the ICC are not respected or implemented, if the General Assembly and the Security Council mean nothing, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency serves only certain countries and organizations, then what is the United Nations?
It would mean that the United Nations is nothing and is insignificant.
Where is it?
There is no United Nations.
SOMALIA
Then, while piracy may be a phenomenon of the high seas, a form of terrorism, we talk about the piracy in Somalia.
Somalis are not pirates.
We are the pirates.
We went there and usurped their economic zones, their fish and their wealth.
Libya, India, Japan and America — any country in the world — we are all pirates.
We all entered the territorial waters and economic zones of Somalia and stole.
The Somalis are protecting their own fish, their sustenance.
They have become pirates because they are defending their children’s food.
Now, we seek to address that matter in the wrong way.
Should we send warships to Somalia?
We should send warships to the pirates who have attacked and seized the economic zones and wealth of the Somalis and the food of their children.
Somalis are not pirates.
We are the pirates.
We went there and usurped their economic zones, their fish and their wealth.
Libya, India, Japan and America — any country in the world — we are all pirates.
We all entered the territorial waters and economic zones of Somalia and stole.
The Somalis are protecting their own fish, their sustenance.
They have become pirates because they are defending their children’s food.
Now, we seek to address that matter in the wrong way.
Should we send warships to Somalia?
We should send warships to the pirates who have attacked and seized the economic zones and wealth of the Somalis and the food of their children.
I met the pirates, and I told them that I would negotiate an agreement between them and the international community that respects the 200-mile exclusive economic zone under the law of the sea, that protects all marine resources belonging to the Somali people,
and that stops all countries from disposing of toxic waste along the Somali coast.
[?]
In return, the Somalis would no longer attack ships.
We will propose and draft such an international treaty and submit it to the General Assembly.
That is the solution.
The solution does not lie in sending more military ships to fight the Somalis. That is not the solution.
We are addressing the phenomena of piracy and terrorism in the wrong way.
and that stops all countries from disposing of toxic waste along the Somali coast.
[?]
In return, the Somalis would no longer attack ships.
We will propose and draft such an international treaty and submit it to the General Assembly.
That is the solution.
The solution does not lie in sending more military ships to fight the Somalis. That is not the solution.
We are addressing the phenomena of piracy and terrorism in the wrong way.
VIRUS
Today there is swine flu.
Perhaps tomorrow there will be fish flu, because sometimes we produce viruses by controlling them.
It is a commercial business.
Capitalist companies produce viruses so that they can generate and sell vaccinations.
[?]
Today there is swine flu.
Perhaps tomorrow there will be fish flu, because sometimes we produce viruses by controlling them.
It is a commercial business.
Capitalist companies produce viruses so that they can generate and sell vaccinations.
[?]
That is very shameful and poor ethics.
Vaccinations and medicine should not be sold.
Vaccinations and medicine should not be sold.
In The Green Book, I maintain that medicines should not be sold or subject to commercialization. Medicines should be free of charge and vaccinations given free to children, but capitalist companies produce the viruses and vaccinations and want to make a profit. Why are they not free of charge? We should give them free of charge, and not sell them.
The entire world should strive to protect our people, create and manufacture vaccinations and give them free to children and women, and not profit by them.
All those items are on the agenda of the General Assembly, which has only to exercise that duty.
The entire world should strive to protect our people, create and manufacture vaccinations and give them free to children and women, and not profit by them.
All those items are on the agenda of the General Assembly, which has only to exercise that duty.
LANDMINE
The Ottawa Convention on Landmines forbids the production of landmines.
That is wrong.
Landmines are defensive weapons.
[?]
If I place them along the border of my country and someone wants to invade me, they may be killed.
That is all right, because they are invading me.
The Convention should be reconsidered.
I am not taking that defensive weapon to another country.
The enemy is coming to me.
On the Al-Qadhafi website, I call for that treaty to be modified or annulled.
This treaty should be modified or annulled.
I want to use anti-personnel mines to defend my home against invasion.
Eliminate weapons of mass destruction, not landmines, which are defensive weapons.
The Ottawa Convention on Landmines forbids the production of landmines.
That is wrong.
Landmines are defensive weapons.
[?]
If I place them along the border of my country and someone wants to invade me, they may be killed.
That is all right, because they are invading me.
The Convention should be reconsidered.
I am not taking that defensive weapon to another country.
The enemy is coming to me.
On the Al-Qadhafi website, I call for that treaty to be modified or annulled.
This treaty should be modified or annulled.
I want to use anti-personnel mines to defend my home against invasion.
Eliminate weapons of mass destruction, not landmines, which are defensive weapons.
ISRAËL
With regard to the Palestinian situation, the two-State solution is impossible;
it is not practical.
Currently, these two States completely overlap.
Partition is doomed to failure.
These two States are not neighbors; they are coextensive, in terms of both population and geography.
A buffer zone cannot be created between the two States because there are half a million Israeli settlers in the West Bank and a million Arab Palestinians in the territory known as Israel.
The solution is therefore a democratic State without religious fanaticism or ethnicity.
The generation of Sharon and Arafat is over.
We need a new generation, in which everyone can live in peace.
Look at Palestinian and Israeli youth; they both want peace and democracy, and they want to live under one State.
This conflict poisons the world.
The White Book actually has the solution; I hold it here.
The solution is Isratine.
[?]
Arabs have no hostility or animosity towards Israel.
We are cousins and of the same race.
We want to live in peace.
The refugees should go back.
it is not practical.
Currently, these two States completely overlap.
Partition is doomed to failure.
These two States are not neighbors; they are coextensive, in terms of both population and geography.
A buffer zone cannot be created between the two States because there are half a million Israeli settlers in the West Bank and a million Arab Palestinians in the territory known as Israel.
The solution is therefore a democratic State without religious fanaticism or ethnicity.
The generation of Sharon and Arafat is over.
We need a new generation, in which everyone can live in peace.
Look at Palestinian and Israeli youth; they both want peace and democracy, and they want to live under one State.
This conflict poisons the world.
The White Book actually has the solution; I hold it here.
The solution is Isratine.
[?]
Arabs have no hostility or animosity towards Israel.
We are cousins and of the same race.
We want to live in peace.
The refugees should go back.
JEW
You are the ones who brought the Holocaust upon the Jews.
You, not we, are the ones who burned them.
We gave them refuge.
We gave them safe haven during the Roman era and the Arab reign in Andalusia and during the rule of Hitler.
You are the ones who poisoned them; you are the ones who annihilated them.
We provided them with protection.
You expelled them.
Let us see the truth. We are not hostile; we are not enemies of the Jews. And one day the Jews will need the Arabs. At that point, Arabs will be the ones to give them protection, to save them, as we have done in the past. Look at what everybody else did to the Jews. Hitler is an example.
You are the ones who hate the Jews, not us.
You, not we, are the ones who burned them.
We gave them refuge.
We gave them safe haven during the Roman era and the Arab reign in Andalusia and during the rule of Hitler.
You are the ones who poisoned them; you are the ones who annihilated them.
We provided them with protection.
You expelled them.
Let us see the truth. We are not hostile; we are not enemies of the Jews. And one day the Jews will need the Arabs. At that point, Arabs will be the ones to give them protection, to save them, as we have done in the past. Look at what everybody else did to the Jews. Hitler is an example.
You are the ones who hate the Jews, not us.
KASHMIR
In brief, Kashmir should be an independent State, neither Indian nor Pakistani.
We must end that conflict.
Kashmir should be a buffer State between India and Pakistan.
DARFUR
With regard to Darfur, I truly hope that the assistance provided by international organizations can be used for development projects, for agriculture, for industry and for irrigation.
You are the ones who made it a crisis; you put it on the altar; you wanted to sacrifice Darfur so that you could interfere in its internal affairs.
LIBAN
You are the ones who made it a crisis; you put it on the altar; you wanted to sacrifice Darfur so that you could interfere in its internal affairs.
LIBAN
HARARI
You have turned the Hariri problem into a United Nations problem.
You are selling Hariri’s corpse.
You just want to settle scores with Syria.
Lebanon is an independent State; it has laws, courts, a judiciary and police.
At this stage, it is no longer the perpetrators that are being sought; the real wish is to settle scores with Syria, not ensure justice for Hariri.
The cases of Khalil al-Wazir, Lumumba, Kennedy, and Hammarskjöld should also have been turned over to the United Nations,
You are selling Hariri’s corpse.
You just want to settle scores with Syria.
Lebanon is an independent State; it has laws, courts, a judiciary and police.
At this stage, it is no longer the perpetrators that are being sought; the real wish is to settle scores with Syria, not ensure justice for Hariri.
The cases of Khalil al-Wazir, Lumumba, Kennedy, and Hammarskjöld should also have been turned over to the United Nations,
if the Hariri case merits such attention.
The General Assembly is now under the presidency of Libya.
This is our right.
Libya hopes that you will assist in making the transition from a world fraught with crises and tension to a world in which humanity, peace and tolerance prevail.
I will personally follow up on this issue with the General Assembly, President Treki and the Secretary-General.
It is not our habit to compromise when it comes to the destiny of humanity and the struggles of the third world and the 100 small nations, which should live in peace always.
Muammar al-Gaddafi
The General Assembly is now under the presidency of Libya.
This is our right.
Libya hopes that you will assist in making the transition from a world fraught with crises and tension to a world in which humanity, peace and tolerance prevail.
I will personally follow up on this issue with the General Assembly, President Treki and the Secretary-General.
It is not our habit to compromise when it comes to the destiny of humanity and the struggles of the third world and the 100 small nations, which should live in peace always.
Muammar al-Gaddafi
*
Photo. http://www.parismatch.com/Actu-Match/Monde/Photos/Photos-de-Kadhafi-la-face-cachee-du-tyran/Papa-poule-328145/
DANS L'INTIMITÉ D'UN TYRAN: L'ALBUM PHOTO DE KADHAFI
Le Guide en papa poule, avec deux de ses enfants. La petite fille qui essaie les célèbres lunettes de soleil de son père – les rebelles en ont trouvé des centaines de paires à Bab al-Azizia – est probablement Aïcha.
[Une des photos de famille trouvée dans les ruines de sa maison.]
S'abonner à :
Messages (Atom)
