Libya, 2009

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

09-52179 16

Council to experts, specialists and interested countries,

which were those countries that had established the

Security Council and had united against Germany.

The Preamble is very appealing, and no one

objects to it, but all the provisions that follow it

completely contradict the Preamble. We reject such

provisions, and we will never uphold them; they ended

with the Second World War. The Preamble says that all

nations, small or large, are equal. Are we equal when it

comes to the permanent seats? No, we are not equal.

The Preamble states in writing that all nations are

equal whether they are small or large. Do we have the

right of veto? Are we equal? The Preamble says that

we have equal rights, whether we are large or small.

That is what is stated and what we agreed in the

Preamble. So the veto contradicts the Charter. The

permanent seats contradict the Charter. We neither

accept nor recognize the veto.

The Preamble of the Charter states that armed

force shall not be used, save in the common interest.

That is the Preamble that we agreed to and signed, and

we joined the United Nations because we wanted the

Charter to reflect that. It says that armed force shall

only be used in the common interest of all nations, but

what has happened since then? Sixty-five wars have

broken out since the establishment of the United

Nations and the Security Council — 65 since their

creation, with millions more victims than in the Second

World War. Are those wars, and the aggression and

force that were used in those 65 wars, in the common

interest of us all? No, they were in the interest of one

or three or four countries, but not of all nations.

We will talk about whether those wars were in the

interest of one country or of all nations. That flagrantly

contradicts the Charter of the United Nations that we

signed, and unless we act in accordance with the

Charter of the United Nations to which we agreed, we

will reject it and not be afraid not to speak

diplomatically to anyone. Now we are talking about the

future of the United Nations. There should be no

hypocrisy or diplomacy because it concerns the

important and vital issue of the future of the world. It

was hypocrisy that brought about the 65 wars since the

establishment of the United Nations.

The Preamble also states that if armed force is

used, it must be a United Nations force — thus,

military intervention by the United Nations, with the

joint agreement of the United Nations, not one or two

or three countries using armed force. The entire United

Nations will decide to go to war to maintain

international peace and security. Since the

establishment of the United Nations in 1945, if there is

an act of aggression by one country against another, the

entire United Nations should deter and stop that act.

If a country, Libya for instance, were to exhibit

aggression against France, then the entire Organization

would respond because France is a sovereign State

Member of the United Nations and we all share the

collective responsibility to protect the sovereignty of

all nations. However, 65 aggressive wars have taken

place without any United Nations action to prevent

them. Eight other massive, fierce wars, whose victims

number some 2 million, have been waged by Member

States that enjoy veto powers. Those countries that

would have us believe they seek to maintain the

sovereignty and independence of peoples actually use

aggressive force against peoples. While we would like

to believe that these countries want to work for peace

and security in the world and protect peoples, they

have instead resorted to aggressive wars and hostile

behaviour. Enjoying the veto they granted themselves

as permanent members of the Security Council, they

have initiated wars that have claimed millions of

victims.

The principle of non-interference in the internal

affairs of States is enshrined in the Charter of the

United Nations. No country, therefore, has the right to

interfere in the affairs of any Government, be it

democratic or dictatorial, socialist or capitalist,

reactionary or progressive. This is the responsibility of

each society; it is an internal matter for the people of

the country concerned. The senators of Rome once

appointed their leader, Julius Caesar, as dictator

because it was good for Rome at that time. No one can

say of Rome at that time that it gave Caesar the veto.

The veto is not mentioned in the Charter.

We joined the United Nations because we thought

we were equals, only to find that one country can

object to all the decisions we make. Who gave the

permanent members their status in the Security

Council? Four of them granted this status to

themselves. The only country that we in this Assembly

elected to permanent member status in the Security

Council is China. This was done democratically, but

the other seats were imposed upon us undemocratically

through a dictatorial procedure carried out against our

will, and we should not accept it.

17 09-52179

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

09-52179 18

speeches and then disappear. This is who you are right

now.

Once the Security Council becomes only an

executive body for resolutions adopted by the General

Assembly, there will be no competition for

membership of the Council. Once the Security Council

becomes a tool to implement General Assembly

resolutions, there will be no need for any competition.

The Security Council should, quite simply, represent

all nations. In accordance with the proposal submitted

to the General Assembly, there would be permanent

seats on the Security Council for all unions and groups

of countries.

The 27 countries of the European Union should

have a permanent seat on the Security Council. The

countries of the African Union should have a

permanent seat on the Security Council. The Latin

American and ASEAN countries should have

permanent seats. The Russian Federation and the

United States of America are already permanent

members of the Security Council. The Southern

African Development Community (SADC), once it is

fully established, should have a permanent seat. The 22

countries of the Arab League should have a permanent

seat. The 57 countries of the Islamic Conference

should have a permanent seat. The 118 countries of the

Non-Aligned Movement should have a permanent seat.

Then there is the G-100; perhaps the small

countries should also have a permanent seat. Countries

not included in the unions that I have mentioned could

perhaps be assigned a permanent seat, to be occupied

by them in rotation every six or twelve months. I am

thinking of countries like Japan and Australia that are

outside such organizations as ASEAN or like the

Russian Federation that is not a member of the

European or Latin American or African unions. This

would be a solution for them if the General Assembly

votes in favour of it.

The issue is a vitally important one. As has

already been mentioned, the General Assembly is the

Congress and Parliament of the world, the leader of the

world. We are the nations, and anyone outside this

General Assembly will not be recognized. The

President of the Assembly, Mr. Ali Abdussalam Treki,

and Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will produce the

legal draft and set up the necessary committees to

submit this proposal to a vote: that from now on, the

Security Council will be made up of unions of nations.

In this way, we will have justice and democracy, and

we will no longer have a Security Council consisting of

countries which have been chosen because they have

nuclear weapons, large economies or advanced

technology. That is terrorism. We cannot allow the

Security Council to be run by super-Powers; that is

terrorism in and of itself.

If we want a world that is united, safe and

peaceful, this is what we should do. If we want to

remain in a world at war, that is up to you. We will

continue to have conflict and to fight until doomsday

or the end of the world. All Security Council members

should have the right to exercise the veto, or else we

should eliminate the whole concept of the veto with

this new formation of the Council. This would be a real

Security Council. According to the new proposals

submitted to the General Assembly, it will be an

executive council under the control of the General

Assembly, which will have the real power and make all

the rules.

In this way, all countries will be on an equal

footing in the Security Council just as they are in the

General Assembly. In the General Assembly we are all

treated equally when it comes to membership and

voting. It should be the same in the Security Council.

Currently, one country has a veto; another country does

not have a veto; one country has a permanent seat;

another country does not have a permanent seat. We

should not accept this, nor should we accept any

resolution adopted by the Security Council in its

current composition. We were under trusteeship; we

were colonized; and now we are independent. We are

here today to decide the future of the world in a

democratic way that will maintain the peace and

security of all nations, large and small, as equals.

Otherwise, it is terrorism, for terrorism is not just

Al-Qaida but can also take other forms.

We should be guided by the majority of the votes

in the General Assembly alone. If the General

Assembly takes a decision by voting, then its wishes

should be obeyed and its decision should be enforced.

No one is above the General Assembly; anyone who

says he is above the Assembly should leave the United

Nations and be on his own. Democracy is not for the

rich or the most powerful or for those who practise

terrorism. All nations should be and should be seen to

be on an equal footing.

19 09-52179

At present, the Security Council is security

feudalism, political feudalism for those with permanent

seats, protected by them and used against us. It should

be called, not the Security Council, but the Terror

Council. In our political life, if they need to use the

Security Council against us, they turn to the Security

Council. If they have no need to use it against us, they

ignore the Security Council. If they have an interest to

promote, an axe to grind, they respect and glorify the

Charter of the United Nations; they turn to Chapter VII

of the Charter and use it against poor nations. If,

however, they wished to violate the Charter, they

would ignore it as if it did not exist at all.

If the veto of the permanent members of the

Security Council is given to those who have the power,

this is injustice and terrorism and should not be

toloerated by us. We should not live in the shadow of

this injustice and terror.

Super-Powers have complicated global interests,

and they use the veto to protect those interests. For

example, in the Security Council, they use the power of

the United Nations to protect their interests and to

terrorize and intimidate the Third World, causing it to

live under the shadow of terror.

From the beginning, since it was established in

1945, the Security Council has failed to provide

security. On the contrary, it has provided terror and

sanctions. It is only used against us. For this reason, we

will no longer be committed to implementing Security

Council resolutions after this speech, which marks the

40th anniversary.

Sixty-five wars have broken out: either fighting

among small countries or wars of aggression waged

against us by super-Powers. The Security Council, in

clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations,

failed to take action to stop these wars or acts of

aggressions against small nations and peoples.

The General Assembly will vote on a number of

historic proposals. Either we act as one or we will

fragment. If each nation were to have its own version

of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the

various instruments and each were to have an equal

footing, the Powers that currently fill the permanent

seats would be confinded to use of their own soverign

bodies, whether there be three or four of them, and

would have to exercise their rights against themselves.

This is of no concern to us.

If they want to keep their permanent seats, that is

fine; permanent seats will be of no concern to us. We

shall never submit to their control or to their exercise

of the veto that was given to them. We are not so

foolish as to give the right of veto to the super-Powers

to use so they can treat us as second-class citizens and

as outcast nations. It is not we who decided that those

countries are the super-Powers and respected nations

with the power to act on behalf of 192 countries.

You should be fully aware that we are ignoring

the Security Council resolutions because those

resolutions are used solely against us and not against

the super-Powers which have the permanent seats and

the right of veto. Those Powers never use any

resolutions against themselves.

They are, however, used against us. Such use has

turned the United Nations into a travesty of itself and

has generated wars and violations of the sovereignty of

independent States. It has led to war crimes and

genocides. All of this is in violation of the Charter of

the United Nations.

Since no one pays attention to the Security

Council of the United Nations, each country and

community has established its own security council,

and the Security Council here has become isolated.

The African Union has already established its

own Peace and Security Council, the European Union

has already established a security council, and Asian

countries have already established their own security

council. Soon, Latin America will have its own

Security Counci,l as will the 120 non-aligned nations.

This means that we have already lost confidence

in the United Nations Security Council, which has not

provided us with security, and that is why we now are

creating new regional security councils.

We are not committed to obeying the rules or the

resolutions of the United Nations Security Council in

its present form because it is undemocratic, dictatorial

and unjust. No one can force us to join the Security

Council or to obey or comply with resolutions or

orders given by the Security Council in its present

composition.

Furthermore, there is no respect for the United

Nations and no regard for the General Assembly, which

is actually the true United Nations, but whose

resolutions are non-binding. The decisions of the

International Court of Justice, the international judicial

09-52179 20

body, take aim only at small countries and Third World

nations. Powerful countries escape the notice of the

Court. Or, if judicial decisions are taken against these

powerful countries, they are not enforced.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

is an important agency within the United Nations.

Powerful countries, however, are not accountable to it

or under its jurisdiction. We have discovered that the

IAEA is used only against us. We are told that it is an

international organization, but, if that is the case, then

all the countries of the world should be under its

jurisdiction. If it is not truly international, then right

after this speech we should no longer accept it and

should close it down.

Mr. Treki, in his capacity as President of the

General Assembly, should talk to the Director General

of the IAEA, Mr. ElBaradei, and should ask him if he

is prepared to verify nuclear energy storage in all

countries and inspect all suspected increases. If he says

yes, then we accept the Agency’s jurisdiction. But if he

says that he cannot go into certain countries that have

nuclear power and that he does not have any

jurisdiction over them, then we should close the

Agency down and not submit to its jurisdiction.

For your information, I called Mr. ElBaradei

when we had the problem of the Libyan nuclear bomb.

I called Mr. ElBaradei and asked him if the agreements

by the super-Powers to reduce nuclear supplies were

subject to Agency control and under inspection, and

whether he was aware of any increases in their activity.

He told me that he was not in a position to ask the

super-Powers to be inspected.

So, is the Agency only inspecting us? If so, it

does not qualify as an international organization since

it is selective, just like the Security Council and the

International Court of Justice. This is not equitable nor

is it the United Nations. We totally reject this situation.

Regarding Africa, Mr. President, whether the

United Nations is reformed or not, and even before a

vote is taken on any proposals of a historic nature,

Africa should be given a permanent seat on the

Security Council now, having already waited too long.

Leaving aside United Nations reform, we can

certainly say that Africa was colonized, isolated and

persecuted and its rights usurped. Its people were

enslaved and treated like animals, and its territory was

colonized and placed under trusteeship. The countries

of the African Union deserve a permanent seat. This is

a debt from the past that has to be paid and has nothing

to do with United Nations reform. It is a priority matter

and is high on the agenda of the General Assembly. No

one can say that the African Union does not deserve a

permanent seat.

Who can argue with this proposal? I challenge

anyone to make a case against it. Where is the proof

that the African Union or the African continent does

not deserve a permanent seat? No one can possibly

deny this.

Another matter that should be voted on in the

General Assembly is that of compensation for countries

that were colonized, so as to prevent the colonization

of a continent, the usurpation of its rights and the

pillaging of its wealth from happening again.

Why are Africans going to Europe? Why are

Asians going to Europe? Why are Latin Americans

going to Europe? It is because Europe colonized those

peoples and stole the material and human resources of

Africa, Asia and Latin America — the oil, minerals,

uranium, gold and diamonds, the fruit, vegetables and

livestock and the people — and used them. Now, new

generations of Asians, Latin Americans and Africans

are seeking to reclaim that stolen wealth, as they have

the right to do.

At the Libyan border, I recently stopped 1,000

African migrants headed for Europe. I asked them why

they were going there. They told me it was to take back

their stolen wealth — that they would not be leaving

otherwise. Who can restore the wealth that was taken

from us? If you decide to restore all of this wealth,

there will be no more immigration from the

Philippines, Latin America, Mauritius and India. Let us

have the wealth that was stolen from us. Africa

deserves $777 trillion in compensation from the

countries that colonized it. Africans will demand that

amount, and if you do not give it to them, they will go

to where you have taken those trillions of dollars. They

have the right to do so. They have to follow that money

and to bring it back.

Why is there no Libyan immigration to Italy,

even though Libya is so close by? Italy owed

compensation to the Libyan people. It accepted that

fact and signed an agreement with Libya, which was

adopted by both the Italian and Libyan Parliaments.

Italy admitted that its colonization of Libya was wrong

and should never be repeated, and it promised not to

21 09-52179

attack the Libyan people by land, air or sea. Italy also

agreed to provide Libya with $250 million a year in

compensation over the next 20 years and to build a

hospital for Libyans maimed as a result of the mines

planted in Libyan territory during the Second World

War. Italy apologized and promised that it would never

again occupy the territory of another country. Italy,

which was a kingdom during the Fascist regime and

has made rich contributions to civilization, should be

commended for this achievement, together with Prime

Minister Berlusconi and his predecessor, who made

their own contributions in that regard.

Why is the Third World demanding

compensation? So that there will be no more

colonization — so that large and powerful countries

will not colonize, knowing that they will have to pay

compensation. Colonization should be punished. The

countries that harmed other peoples during the colonial

era should pay compensation for the damage and

suffering inflicted under their colonial rule.

There is another point that I would like to make.

However, before doing so — and addressing a

somewhat sensitive issue — I should like to make an

aside. We Africans are happy and proud indeed that a

son of Africa is now President of the United States of

America. That is a historic event. Now, in a country

where blacks once could not mingle with whites, in

cafés or restaurants, or sit next to them on a bus, the

American people have elected as their President a

young black man, Mr. Obama, of Kenyan heritage.

That is a wonderful thing, and we are proud. It marks

the beginning of a change. However, as far as I am

concerned, Obama is a temporary relief for the next

four or eight years. I am afraid that we may then go

back to square one. No one can guarantee how America

will be governed after Obama.

We would be content if Obama could remain

President of the United States of America for ever. The

statement that he just made shows that he is completely

different from any American President that we have

seen. American Presidents used to threaten us with all

manner of weapons, saying that they would send us

Desert Storm, Grapes of Wrath, Rolling Thunder and

poisonous roses for Libyan children. That was their

approach. American Presidents used to threaten us with

operations such as Rolling Thunder, sent to Viet Nam;

Desert Storm, sent to Iraq; Musketeer, sent to Egypt in

1956, even though America opposed it; and the

poisonous roses visited upon Libyan children by

Reagan. Can you imagine? One would have thought

that Presidents of a large country with a permanent seat

on the Security Council and the right of veto would

have protected us and sent us peace. And what did we

get instead? Laser-guided bombs carried to us on F-111

aircraft. This was their approach: we will lead the

world, whether you like it or not, and will punish

anyone who opposes us.

What our son Obama said today is completely

different. He made a serious appeal for nuclear

disarmament, which we applaud. He also said that

America alone could not solve the problems facing us

and that the entire world should come together to do

so. He said that we must do more than we are doing

now, which is making speeches. We agree with that and

applaud it. He said that we had come to the United

Nations to talk against one another. It is true that when

we come here, we should communicate with one

another on an equal footing. And he said that

democracy should not be imposed from outside. Until

recently, American Presidents have said that democracy

should be imposed on Iraq and other countries. He said

that this was an internal affair. He spoke truly when he

said that democracy cannot be imposed from outside.

So we have to be cautious. Before I make these

sensitive remarks I note that the whole world has so

many polarities. Listen: should we have a world of so

many polarities? Can we not have nations on an equal

footing? Let us have an answer. Does anyone have an

answer as to whether it is better to have a world of so

many polarities? Why can we not have equal standing?

Should we have patriarchs? Should we have popes?

Should we have gods?

Why should we have a world of so many

polarities? We reject such a world and call for a world

where big and small are equal.

The other sensitive point is the Headquarters of

the United Nations. Can I have your attention, please?

All of you came across the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific

Ocean, crossing the Asian continent or the African

continent to reach this place. Why? Is this Jerusalem?

Is this the Vatican? Is this Mecca? All of you are tired,

have jet lag, have sleepless nights. You are very tired,

very low, physically. Somebody just arrived now,

flying 20 hours. Then we want him to make a speech

and talk about this.

All of you are asleep, all of you are tired. It is

clear that all of you are lacking energy because of

09-52179 22

having to make a long journey. Why do we do that?

Some of our countries are in nighttime and people are

asleep. Now you should be asleep, because your

biological clock, your biological mind is accustomed to

be asleep at this time. I wake up at 4 o’clock New York

time, before dawn, because in Libya it is 11 in the

morning. When I wake up at 11 o’clock it is supposed

to be daytime; at 4 o’clock I am awake.

Why? Think about it. If this was decided in 1945,

should we still retain it? Why can we not think about a

place that is in the middle, that is comfortable?

Another important point is that America, the host

country, bears the expenses and looks after the

Headquarters and diplomatic missions and looks after

the peace and security of the heads of State who come

here. They are very strict; they spend a lot of money,

New York and all of America being very tight.

I want to relieve America of this hardship. We

should thank America; we say to America, thank you

for all the trouble that you have taken on yourself. We

say thank you to America. We want to help reassure

America and New York and keep them calm. They

should not have the responsibility of looking after

security. Perhaps some day a terrorist could cause an

explosion or bomb a president. This place is targeted

by Al-Qaida, this very building. Why was it not hit on

11 September? It was beyond their power. The next

target would be this place. I am not saying this in an

offhand manner. We have tens of members of Al-Qaida

detained in Libyan prisons. Their confessions are very

scary. That makes America live under tension. One

never knows what will happen. Perhaps America or this

place will be targeted again by a rocket. Perhaps tens

of heads of State will die. We want to relieve America

from this worry. We shall take the place to where it is

not targeted.

Now after 50 years United Nations Headquarters

should be taken to another part of the hemisphere.

After 50 years in the western hemisphere, for the next

50 years it should be in the eastern hemisphere or in

the middle hemisphere, by rotation. Now, with 64 years

we have an extra 14 years over the 50 that

Headquarters should have been moved to somewhere

else.

This is not an insult to America; it is a service to

America. We should thank America. This was possible

in 1945, but we should not accept it now. Of course

this should be put to the vote in the General Assembly

— only in the Assembly, because in section 23 of the

Headquarters Agreement it says that the United

Nations Headquarters can be moved to another location

only by a resolution of the General Assembly. If 51 per

cent of the Assembly approve relocation of

Headquarters, then it can be moved.

America has the right to make security tight

because it is targeted by terrorists and by Al-Qaida.

America has the right to take all security measures; we

are not blaming America for that. However, we do not

tolerate these measures. We do not have to come to

New York and be subjected to all these measures. One

president told me that he was told that his co-pilot

should not come to America because there are

restrictions. He asked how he could cross the Atlantic

without a co-pilot. Why? He does not have to come

here. Another president complained that his honour

guard could not come because there was some

misunderstanding regarding his name when it came to

granting a visa. Another president said his own doctor

could not get a visa and could not come to America.

The security measures are very strict. If a country

has any problem with America, they will set up

restrictions on the movements of member delegations,

as if one is in Guantanamo. Is this a Member State of

the United Nations, or is it a prisoner in the

Guantanamo camp that cannot be allowed free

movement?

This is what is submitted to the General

Assembly for a vote — moving the Headquarters. If

51 per cent agree, then we come to the second vote: to

the middle of the globe, or to the eastern part. If we say

that we must move the Headquarters to the middle of

the hemisphere, why do we not move to Sirte or

Vienna? One can come even without a visa. Once you

come as a president, Libya is a secure country. We are

not going to restrict you to 100 or 500 metres. Libya

has no hostile actions against anybody. I think the same

holds true of Vienna.

If the vote says we should move Headquarters to

the eastern part, then it will be Delhi or Beijing, the

capital of China or the capital of India.

That is logical, my brothers. I do not think there

will be any objection to that. Then you will thank me

for this proposal, for eliminating the suffering and the

trouble of flying 14, 15 or 20 hours to come here. No

one can blame America or say that America will reduce

its contributions to the United Nations. No one should

23 09-52179

have that bad thought. America, I am sure, is

committed to its international obligations. America will

not be angry; it will thank you for alleviating its

hardship, for taking on all that hardship and all the

restrictions, even though this place is targeted by

terrorists.

We come now to the issues that will be

considered by the General Assembly. We are about to

put the United Nations on trial; the old organization

will be finished and a new one will emerge. This is not

a normal gathering. Even son Obama said that this is

not a normal gathering. It is a historic meeting.

The wars that took place after the establishment

of the United Nations — why did they occur? Where

was the Security Council, where was the Charter,

where was the United Nations? There should be

investigations and judicial intervention. Why have

there been massacres? We can start with the Korean

War because it took place after the establishment of the

United Nations. How did a war break out and cause

millions of victims? Nuclear weapons could have been

used in that war. Those who are responsible for causing

the war should be tried and should pay compensation

and damages.

Then we come to the Suez Canal war of 1956.

That file should be opened wide. Three countries with

permanent seats on the Security Council and with the

right of veto in the Council attacked a member State of

this General Assembly. A country that was a sovereign

State — Egypt — was attacked, its army was

destroyed, thousands of Egyptians were killed and

many Egyptian towns and entities were destroyed, all

because Egypt wanted to nationalize the Suez Canal.

How could such a thing have happened during the era

of the United Nations and its Charter? How is it

possible to guarantee that such a thing will not be

repeated unless we make amends for past wrongs?

Those were dangerous events and the Suez Canal and

Korean war files should be re-opened.

Next we come to the Viet Nam war. There were

3 million victims of that war. During 12 days, more

bombs were dropped than during four years of the

Second World War. It was a fiercer war, and it took

place after the establishment of the United Nations and

after we had decided that there would be no more wars.

The future of humankind is at stake. We cannot

stay silent. How can we feel safe? How can we be

complacent? This is the future of the world, and we

who are in the General Assembly of the United Nations

must make sure that such wars are not repeated in the

future.

Then Panama was attacked, even though it was an

independent member State of the General Assembly.

Four thousand people were killed, and the President of

that country was taken prisoner and put in prison.

Noriega should be released — we should open that file.

How can we entitle a country that is a United Nations

Member State to wage war against another country and

capture its president, treat him as a criminal and put

him in prison? Who would accept that? It could be

repeated. We should not stay quiet. We should have an

investigation. Any one of us Member States could face

the same situation, especially if such aggression is by a

Member State with a permanent seat on the Security

Council and with the responsibility to maintain peace

and security worldwide.

Then there was the war in Grenada. That country

was invaded even though it was a Member State. It was

attacked by 5,000 war ships, 7,000 troops and dozens

of military aircraft, and it is the smallest country in the

world. This occurred after the establishment of the

United Nations and of the Security Council and its

veto. And the President of Grenada, Mr. Maurice

Bishop, was assassinated. How could that have

happened with impunity? It is a tragedy. How can we

guarantee that the United Nations is good or not, that a

certain country is good or not? Can we be safe or

happy about our future or not? Can we trust the

Security Council or not? Can we trust the United

Nations or not?

We must look into and investigate the bombing of

Somalia. Somalia is a United Nations Member State. It

is an independent country under the rule of Aidid. We

want an investigation. Why did that happen? Who

allowed it to happen? Who gave the green light for that

country to be attacked?

Then there is the former Yugoslavia. No country

was as peaceful as Yugoslavia, constructed step by step

and piece by piece after being destroyed by Hitler. We

destroyed it, as if we were doing the same job as Hitler.

Tito built that peaceful country step by step and brick

by brick and then we arrived and broke it apart for

imperialistic, personal interests. How can we be

complacent about that? Why can we not be satisfied? If

a peaceful country like Yugoslavia faced such a

tragedy, the General Assembly should have an

09-52179 24

investigation and should decide who should be tried

before the International Criminal Court.

Then we have the war in Iraq — the mother of all

evils. The United Nations should also investigate that.

The General Assembly, presided over by Mr. Treki,

should investigate that. The invasion of Iraq was a

violation of the United Nations Charter. It was done

without any justification by super-Powers with

permanent seats on the Security Council. Iraq is an

independent country and a member State of the General

Assembly. How could those countries attack Iraq? As

provided for in the Charter, the United Nations should

have intervened and stopped the attack.

We spoke in the General Assembly and urged it to

use the Charter to stop that attack. We were against the

invasion of Kuwait, and the Arab countries fought Iraq

alongside foreign countries in the name of the United

Nations Charter.

In the first instance, the Charter was respected,

The second time when we wanted to use the Charter to

stop the war against Iraq, no one used it and that

document was ignored. Why did that occur? Mr. Treki

and the General Assembly should investigate to

determine whether there was any reason at all to invade

Iraq. Because the reasons for that attack remain

mysterious and ambiguous, and we might face the

same destiny.

Why was Iraq invaded? The invasion itself was a

serious violation of the United Nations Charter, and it

was wrong. There was also a total massacre or

genocide. More than 1.5 million Iraqis were killed. We

want to bring the Iraqi file before the International

Criminal Court (ICC), and we want those who

committed mass murder against the Iraqi people to be

tried.

It is easy for Charles Taylor to be tried, or for

Bashir to be tried, or for Noriega to be tried. That is an

easy job. Yes, but what about those who have

committed mass murder against the Iraqis? They

cannot be tried? They cannot go before the ICC? If the

Court is unable to accommodate us, then we should not

accept it. Either it is meant for all of us, large or small,

or we should not accept it and should reject it.

Anyone who commits a war crime can be tried,

but we are not livestock or animals like those that are

slaughtered for the Eid. We have the right to live, and

we are ready to fight and to defend ourselves. We have

the right to live in dignity, under the sun and on earth;

they have already tested us and we have withstood the

test.

There are other things as well. Why is it that Iraqi

prisoners of war can be sentenced to death? When Iraq

was invaded and the President of Iraq was taken he was

a prisoner of war. He should not have been tried; he

should not have been hanged. When the war was over,

he should have been released. We want to know why a

prisoner of war should have been tried. Who sentenced

the President of Iraq to death? Is there an answer to

that question? We know the identity of the judge who

tried him. As to who tied the noose around the

President’s neck on the day of sacrifice and hanged

him, those people wore masks.

How could this have happened in a civilized

world? These were prisoners of war of civilized

countries under international law. How could

Government ministers and a head of State be sentenced

to death and hanged? Were those who tried them

lawyers or members of a judicial system?

Do you know what people are saying? They are

saying that the faces behind the masks were those of

the President of the United States and the Prime

Minister of the United Kingdom and that it was they

who put the President of Iraq to death.

Why do the executioners not unmask their faces?

Why do we not know their ranks? Why do we not

know whether they were officers, judges, soldiers or

doctors? How does it come about that the President of

a State Member of the United Nations was sentenced to

death and killed? We do not know the identity of the

executioners. The United Nations is duty-bound to

answer these questions: who carried out the death

sentence? They must have legal status and official

responsibilities; we should know their identities and we

should know about the presence of a physician and the

nature of all the legal proceedings. That would be true

for an ordinary citizen, let alone for the President of a

State Member of the United Nations who was put to

death in that manner.

My third point on the Iraq war relates to Abu

Ghraib. This was a disgrace to humankind. I know that

the United States authorities will investigate this

scandal, but the United Nations must not ignore it

either. The General Assembly should investigate this

matter. Prisoners of war held in Abu Ghraib prison

were torturers; dogs were set on them; men were raped.

25 09-52179

This is unprecedented in the history of war. It was

sodomy, and it was an unprecedented sin, never before

committed by past aggressors or invaders. Prisoners of

war are soldiers, but these were raped in prison by a

State, a permanent member of the Security Council.

This goes against civilization and humankind. We must

not keep silent; we must know the facts. Even today, a

quarter of a million Iraqi prisoners, men and women

alike, remain in Abu Ghraib. They are being

maltreated, persecuted and raped. There must be an

investigation.

Turning to the war in Afghanistan, this too must

be investigated. Why are we against the Taliban? Why

are we against Afghanistan? Who are the Taliban? If

the Taliban want a religious State, that is fine. Think of

the Vatican. Does the Vatican pose a threat to us? No. It

is a religious, very peaceful State. If the Taliban want

to create an Islamic Amirate, who says that this makes

them an enemy? Is anyone claiming that Bin Laden is

of the Taliban or that he is Afghan? Is Bin Laden of the

Taliban? No; he is not of the Taliban and he is not

Afghan. Were the terrorists who hit New York City of

the Taliban? Were they from Afghanistan? They were

neither Taliban nor Afghan. Then, what was the reason

for the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan?

If I truly wanted to deceive my American and

British friends, I would encourage them to send more

troops and I would encourage them to persist in this

bloodbath. But they will never succeed in Iraq or

Afghanistan. Look what happened to them in Iraq,

which is a desert. It is even worse in mountainous

Afghanistan. If I wanted to deceive them I would tell

them to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But

no, I want to save the citizens of the United States, the

United Kingdom and other countries who are fighting

in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I tell them: leave

Afghanistan to the Afghans; leave Iraq to the Iraqis. If

they want to fight each other, they are free to do so.

America had its Civil War, and no one interfered

in it. There were civil wars in Spain, China and

countries all over the world — no place on Earth has

been free of civil wars. Let there be a civil war in Iraq.

If the Iraqis want to have a civil war and fight each

other, that is fine. Who says that if the Taliban form a

Government they would possess intercontinental

missiles or the kind of aeroplanes that hit New York?

Did those aeroplanes take off from Afghanistan or

Iraq? No; they took off from American airports. So

why is Afghanistan being struck? The terrorists were

not Afghans or Taliban or Iraqis.

Why are we silent? We must never be war devils:

anyone who does not speak the truth is a silent devil.

We are committed to international peace and security.

We do not wish to scorn or ridicule humankind. We

want to save humanity.

As President of the General Assembly, Mr. Ali

Treki should open an investigation of the

assassinations file — in addition to the war files. Who

killed Patrice Lumumba, and why? We merely want to

record it in the annals of African history; we want to

know how an African leader, a liberator, came to be

assassinated. Who killed him? We want our sons to be

able to read the history of how Patrice Lumumba, the

hero of Congo’s liberation struggle, was assassinated.

We want to know the facts, even 50 years on. That is

one file that should be reopened.

And who killed Secretary-General Hammarskjöld?

Who fired on his aeroplane in 1961, and why?

Then, there is the assassination of United States

President Kennedy in 1963. We want to know who

killed him and why. There was somebody called

Lee Harvey Oswald, who was then killed by one

Jack Ruby. Why did he kill him? Jack Ruby, an Israeli,

killed Lee Harvey Oswald, who killed Kennedy. Why

did this Israeli kill Kennedy’s killer? Then Jack Ruby,

the killer of the killer of Kennedy, died in mysterious

circumstances before he could be tried. We must open

the files. The whole world knows that Kennedy wanted

to investigate the Israeli Dimona nuclear reactor. This

involves international peace and security and weapons

of mass destrucion. That is why we should open this

file.

Then there is the assassination of Martin Luther

King, the black reverend and human rights activist. His

assassination was a plot, and we should know why he

was killed and who killed him.

Then Khalil Wazir, or Abu Jihad, a Palestinian,

was attacked. He was living peacefully in Tunisia, a

Member State, and that country’s sovereignty was not

respected. We cannot keep silent. Even though

submarines and ships were detected along the coast of

Tunisia, where he was killed, no one was accused or

tried. Abu Iyad was also killed, and we should know

how he was killed. He was killed in ambiguous

circumstances. In Operation Spring of Youth, Kamal

09-52179 26

Nasser, a poet, Kamal Adwan and Abu Youssef

al-Najjar, three Palestinians, were killed in Lebanon, a

country that is a free, sovereign State member of the

General Assembly. They were attacked and killed while

sleeping peacefully. We should know who killed them,

and he should be tried so that those crimes against

humanity are not repeated.

We have already talked about the size of the force

used in the invasion of Grenada — 7,000 troops, 15

battleships and dozens of bombers — and President

Bishop was killed even though Grenada was a Member

State. Those are crimes, and we cannot keep silent.

Otherwise, we will look like sacrificial beasts. We are

not animals. Year after year, we are attacked. We

defend ourselves, our sons and our children, and we are

not afraid. We have the right to live, and the Earth is

not destined for violence, but for us all. We can never

live on this Earth in such humiliation. So those are the

wars.

The last file is that of the massacres. In the Sabra

and Shatila massacre, 3,000 people were killed. That

area, under the protection of the occupying Israeli

army, was the site of a huge and calamitous massacre

in which 3,000 Palestinian men, women and children

were killed. How can we keep quiet? Lebanon is a

sovereign State; a member of the General Assembly

was occupied, Sabra and Shatila were under Israeli

control, and then the massacre took place.

Then there was the 2008 massacre in Gaza. There

were 1,000 women and 2,200 children among the

victims killed in the massacre in Gaza in 2008. Sixty

United Nations facilities and another 30 belonging to

non-governmental organizations were damaged. Fifty

clinics were destroyed. Forty doctors and nurses were

killed while carrying out humanitarian activities. This

took place in Gaza in December 2008.

The perpetrators are still alive, and they should

be tried by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Should we try only the underdogs, the weak and the

poor of third-world countries, and not important and

protected figures? Under international law, they should

all face trial for the consequences of the crimes that

they have committed. Otherwise, the role of the ICC

will never be recognized. If the decisions of the ICC

are not respected or implemented, if the General

Assembly and the Security Council mean nothing, and

if the International Atomic Energy Agency serves only

certain countries and organizations, then what is the

United Nations? It would mean that the United Nations

is nothing and is insignificant. Where is it? There is no

United Nations.

Then, while piracy may be a phenomenon of the

high seas, a form of terrorism, we talk about the piracy

in Somalia. Somalis are not pirates. We are the pirates.

We went there and usurped their economic zones, their

fish and their wealth. Libya, India, Japan and

America — any country in the world — we are all

pirates. We all entered the territorial waters and

economic zones of Somalia and stole. The Somalis are

protecting their own fish, their sustenance. They have

become pirates because they are defending their

children’s food. Now, we seek to address that matter in

the wrong way. Should we send warships to Somalia?

We should send warships to the pirates who have

attacked and seized the economic zones and wealth of

the Somalis and the food of their children.

I met the pirates, and I told them that I would

negotiate an agreement between them and the

international community that respects the 200-mile

exclusive economic zone under the law of the sea, that

protects all marine resources belonging to the Somali

people, and that stops all countries from disposing of

toxic waste along the Somali coast. In return, the

Somalis would no longer attack ships. We will propose

and draft such an international treaty and submit it to

the General Assembly. That is the solution. The

solution does not lie in sending more military ships to

fight the Somalis. That is not the solution.

We are addressing the phenomena of piracy and

terrorism in the wrong way. Today there is swine flu.

Perhaps tomorrow there will be fish flu, because

sometimes we produce viruses by controlling them. It

is a commercial business. Capitalist companies

produce viruses so that they can generate and sell

vaccinations. That is very shameful and poor ethics.

Vaccinations and medicine should not be sold. In The

Green Book, I maintain that medicines should not be

sold or subject to commercialization. Medicines should

be free of charge and vaccinations given free to

children, but capitalist companies produce the viruses

and vaccinations and want to make a profit. Why are

they not free of charge? We should give them free of

charge, and not sell them. The entire world should

strive to protect our people, create and manufacture

vaccinations and give them free to children and

women, and not profit by them. All those items are on

27 09-52179

the agenda of the General Assembly, which has only to

exercise that duty.

The Ottawa Convention on Landmines forbids the

production of landmines. That is wrong. Landmines are

defensive weapons. If I place them along the border of

my country and someone wants to invade me, they may

be killed. That is all right, because they are invading

me. The Convention should be reconsidered. I am not

taking that defensive weapon to another country. The

enemy is coming to me. On the Al-Qadhafi website, I

call for that treaty to be modified or annulled. This

treaty should be modified or annulled. I want to use

anti-personnel mines to defend my home against

invasion. Eliminate weapons of mass destruction, not

landmines, which are defensive weapons.

With regard to the Palestinian situation, the 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

neighbours; they are coextensive, in terms of both

population and geography. A buffer zone cannot be

created between the two States because there are half a

million Israeli settlers in the West Bank and a million

Arab Palestinians in the territory known as Israel.

The solution is therefore a democratic State

without religious fanaticism or ethnicity. The

generation of Sharon and Arafat is over. We need a new

generation, in which everyone can live in peace. Look

at Palestinian and Israeli youth; they both want peace

and democracy, and they want to live under one State.

This conflict poisons the world.

The White Book actually has the solution; I hold it

here. The solution is Isratine. Arabs have no hostility

or animosity towards Israel. We are cousins and of the

same race. We want to live in peace. The refugees

should go back.

You are the ones who brought the Holocaust upon

the Jews. You, not we, are the ones who burned them.

We gave them refuge. We gave them safe haven during

the Roman era and the Arab reign in Andalusia and

during the rule of Hitler. You are the ones who

poisoned them; you are the ones who annihilated them.

We provided them with protection. You expelled them.

Let us see the truth. We are not hostile; we are not

enemies of the Jews. And one day the Jews will need

the Arabs. At that point, Arabs will be the ones to give

them protection, to save them, as we have done in the

past. Look at what everybody else did to the Jews.

Hitler is an example. You are the ones who hate the

Jews, not us.

In brief, Kashmir should be an independent State,

neither Indian nor Pakistani. We must end that conflict.

Kashmir should be a buffer State between India and

Pakistan.

With regard to Darfur, I truly hope that the

assistance provided by international organizations can

be used for development projects, for agriculture, for

industry and for irrigation. You are the ones who made

it a crisis; you put it on the altar; you wanted to

sacrifice Darfur so that you could interfere in its

internal affairs.

You have turned the Hariri problem into a United

Nations problem. You are selling Hariri’s corpse. You

just want to settle scores with Syria. Lebanon is an

independent State; it has laws, courts, a judiciary and

police. At this stage, it is no longer the perpetrators that

are being sought; the real wish is to settle scores with

Syria, not ensure justice for Hariri. The cases of Khalil

al-Wazir, Lumumba, Kennedy, and Hammarskjöld

should also have been turned over to the United

Nations, if the Hariri case merits such attention.

The General Assembly is now under the

presidency of Libya. This is our right. Libya hopes that

you will assist in making the transition from a world

fraught with crises and tension to a world in which

humanity, peace and tolerance prevail. I will personally

follow up on this issue with the General Assembly,

President Treki and the Secretary-General. It is not our

habit to compromise when it comes to the destiny of

humanity and the struggles of the third world and the

100 small nations, which should live in peace always.