It is indeed a great
pleasure for me to extend my warmest congratulations
to Mr. Ali Treki on his election to preside over the
General Assembly at its sixty-fourth session.
 Permit me also to express my appreciation to the
outgoing President for his effective leadership during
the course of the previous session of the General
Assembly.
 We are grateful to our Secretary-General, Mr. Ban
Ki-moon, for the tireless efforts that he exerts to ensure
that the United Nations fulfils its purpose during this
complex and crucial period in our collective history. I
wish to thank him, in particular, for the initiative he
took to convene the special Summit on Climate Change
this past week.
 It has now been 18 years since we, Ethiopians,
managed to remove a military dictatorship of

09-52592 38

unprecedented cruelty. The consequences of lack of
democracy within the context of great diversity are all
too apparent. Ethiopia’s diversity leaves no room for
autocracy, dictatorship, military — of whatever
variety — cannot mix with the sociological make-up of
the country. That was the explanation why Ethiopia
was at the edge of the cliff during the last years of the
military Government.
 The last 18 years have not been easy for
Ethiopians. We had to begin again in every aspect of
our lives, without exception. There was hardly any
economic development throughout the entire 17 years
of military dictatorship. Even prior to military rule,
Ethiopia faced not just the lack of democracy, but also
a stagnant economy and lack of development.
 However, the challenges of the last 18 years have
not been limited to the weight of the past, to our
legacy, in both the political and economic areas. We
also had to face other challenges which have not been
inconsequential in terms of affecting the tempo of our
democratization and development. These challenges,
however daunting they are, do not undermine our
achievements, over the last 18 years, to democratize
our country and lay the basis for rapid economic
development.
 In both areas, the historic trajectory of the
country has shifted. No matter what detractors might
say, Ethiopia is now a country with a future and great
hope. During the entire long history of the country, we
have never witnessed two-digit economic growth, yet
we are slated to register that rate of growth this year.
That would constitute our sixth consecutive year of
such a level of achievement, and it has been attained
despite pressures coming from the global economic
crisis.
 In democratic governance, the new Ethiopia has
irrevocably split from the old Ethiopia in terms of both
individual and group rights. With respect to the latter
category of rights, Ethiopia, as has so emphatically
been asserted in our Constitution, is no longer a prison
of nations and nationalities. In terms of respect for
individual political and human rights, if hard facts —
and not an extraneous political agenda — are the
measure, Ethiopia is now, all things considered, not at
the tail end of countries, but in the vanguard, for its
commitment to this value as well as in practice.
 However, over the last 18 years we have had
many challenges whose negative effects cannot be
overlooked. I would like to say a few words about each
of the challenges that we have had, and continue, to
face.
 The first is in the area of peace and security.
Obviously, Ethiopia is part of the Horn of Africa. As a
neighbour sharing a longer border with Somalia than
any other country and with a large population of
Ethiopian Somalis, we have been affected by what goes
on in that sisterly country; indeed, it would be a
miracle if that were not the case.
 Now, speaking of Somalia, it is time that we
abandon the fiction that the war there is just among
Somalis. It is not. Somalia is being hijacked by foreign
fighters who uninhibitedly proclaim that their agenda
has nothing to do with Somalia. Theirs is an ambition
that goes well beyond Somalia, and they say that loud
and clear. Those who advise them not to be so blunt
have not succeeded.
 The Somali crisis has been with us as long as the
new Ethiopian Government has been around. It is not
just that we lost a partner because of the absence of a
functioning Government in Mogadishu. We have also
been directly affected by the crisis — a crisis, let us
not forget, that is assisted and abetted by others,
including by States whose authorities move with ease
in and rub shoulders with members of civilized circles.
It is not only rogue States, but also States that are
ostensibly decent that continue to fuel extremism in
Somalia and to fund its activities.
 Let us call a spade a spade. Today in Somalia,
there is greater coordination and cooperation among
those who assist the extremists than among those who
profess support for the Transitional Federal
Government (TFG) of Somalia. The consequences are
obvious. As the latest horrific suicide attack on the
African Union Mission in Somalia has shown, those
destroying Somalia are being emboldened and their
supporters rewarded.
 Conversely, the TFG authorities continue to lose
confidence, as pledged support continues to dwindle in
practice. The international community is being stingy
even with the symbolic steps of showing resolve
against extremists and spoilers in Somalia. The
countries of the Intergovernmental Authority on
Development (IGAD) spoke with one voice and
appealed to the United Nations Security Council.
African heads of State and Government endorsed
unanimously the IGAD call for the Security Council to

39 09-52592

stand up and be counted in support of the fight against
extremism in Somalia. However, it appears that the
Council does not consider Somalia to be a priority.
 In the meantime, those supporting extremism
have made Somalia a priority. It is critical that the
international community wake up before the hijacking
of Somalia by extremism is fully consummated. It is
therefore unlikely that the Horn of Africa will soon rid
itself of the crisis in Somalia, and there will be
consequences for the work we have to do in our
country in terms of development, fighting poverty and
speeding up the process of democratization.
 That is why the peace process in the Sudan, and
in particular the effective implementation of the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement, is so critical for us.
The Horn of Africa cannot afford the consequences of
failure in the Sudan peace process. We are very close
to both parties in the Sudan, and that is an asset that we
want to use wisely.
 It would be naïve to believe that the conditions of
peace and stability in our region have no influence over
our domestic agenda. They do. Open societies are
manifestly vulnerable to the kind of situation
prevailing in the Horn of Africa. The mix of extremist
forces and rogue States is not conducive to the growth
of democracy in close proximity.
 We have other challenges as well. One has to do
with climate change. It is gratifying to us Ethiopians
that this challenge is drawing the attention of the world
more than ever before. I wish to reiterate our
appreciation of the effort deployed by the Secretary-
General in this regard. We look forward to the
international community’s taking resolute action in
Copenhagen on the basis of the principle of common
but differentiated responsibilities.
 We in Ethiopia have been affected by climate
change in the most difficult and complex ways. The
effect on our agriculture and on our plan for food
security has been enormous. It is no longer every
decade or so that we face drought, but rather every
three to four years. If not drought, then we face floods.
Either way, the consequences have been enormously
damaging to our plan to ensure food security.
 Let me take this opportunity to thank all those
partners who have stood with us to address and
mitigate the adverse effects of climate change on our
agricultural activities. I wish to thank in particular
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for organizing a
meeting on partnering for food security on this very
day.
 As for the Copenhagen climate change summit, it
is indeed gratifying that we in Africa have decided to
be innovative with respect to our representation and in
connection with our approach to negotiation. Africa
has decided to be represented by a single team of
delegates which will negotiate on the basis of a
common African position. It is an honour for Ethiopia,
in the person of its Prime Minister, to lead the African
negotiating team. We expect much from Copenhagen.
 We have had yet another challenge to our
development and to the effort we have been making to
deepen the progress of democratization in our country
over the past 18 years. This has to do with the less-
than-conducive international economic — and, I might
add, political — environment within which we have to
operate. What we have faced on both scores, economic
and political, has been a lack of tolerance for diversity,
policy-space experimentation and independent
thinking. Unjustified conditionalities have abounded,
both for economic and political reasons — on the one
hand because of strategies derived from market
fundamentalism and on the other because we dared
defend ourselves against unjustified aggression.
Ethiopia’s first real attempt at economic development
coincided with the period when market orthodoxy
made the role of the State anathema. Perhaps times
have changed.
 We could have achieved more over the past
18 years, but what we have indeed achieved in the
democratization of our society and in economic and
social development is not insignificant. In fact, as I
have already stated, what we have witnessed in
Ethiopia over the past decade and a half is no less than
a change in the trajectory of the country’s
development. Moreover, we have also continued to
discharge our multilateral responsibilities in our own
subregion, on our continent as members of the African
Union, and in the world beyond in connection with our
obligations to the United Nations.
 In our own region, along with other members of
the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, we
have done whatever is necessary and within the limits
of our capacity to help Somalia achieve peace and to
shield it from the onslaught of extremist forces. As part
of the African Union, we continue to discharge our

09-52592 40

responsibilities to maintain the pan-Africanist
tradition, to contribute to the peace and security of the
continent, and to accelerate the integration process of
the continent brick by brick.
 The United Nations is an Organization which we
cannot live without. We benefit from the Organization
in more ways than one. We also take our obligation to
it very seriously. It is in that spirit that we continue to
strengthen our contribution to the United Nations
peacekeeping efforts. In this we shall continue without
fail. It is for that reason that I wish to conclude by
reiterating Ethiopia’s commitment to the United
Nations and by affirming our commitment to all efforts
at reforming the Organization, including the Security
Council.


We convey our warmest congratulations to the
renowned Libyan diplomat Mr. Ali Treki on his recent
election to preside over the General Assembly at this
sixty-fourth session, as well as for his call for a
dialogue among civilizations, for interreligious
understanding, for the promotion for peace and
security and for closing the divide between rich and
poor.
 Exactly one year ago, when we were taking stock
of progress made towards meeting the Millennium
Development Goals at the midterm point, something
unexpected occurred: the collapse of some of the most
emblematic investment banks, and with that the
worsening of the global financial crisis.
 Before this crisis occurred, however, the world, in
particular the developing countries, was already
affected by the impact of two other crises that had
begun simultaneously: the crisis involving oil prices
and that involving food prices.
 As a result of the first of these crises, that is, the
oil crisis, vigorous and intense social protest broke out
in various parts of the world. Suddenly, all products
became more expensive. Governments were forced to
use their currency reserves to pay their oil bills and
were forced to allocate subsidies for the sake of
maintaining civic peace and democratic governance.
 When it comes to the second crisis, the food
crisis, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations established that as a result of the food
crisis, the number of people suffering from hunger
worldwide rose by 150 million, which meant that for
the first time in human history the total figure
exceeded the number of 1 billion human beings.
 Before these two crises broke out, the World
Bank had already indicated that in order to meet the
Millennium Development Goals in the remaining seven
years — that is, between 2008 and 2015 —
$250 billion were still needed, or $50 billion every
year. Obviously, with the outbreak of these crises,
which gravely affected the economies of developing
countries, the resources needed to meet the objectives
that had been set to cut by half the level of poverty
worldwide would have to be increased significantly
above the projected figures established by the World
Bank.
 As one can see, the situation last year was already
bleak at the time of submitting for analysis and
evaluation the achievements that had been made and
future challenges to meet in order to achieve the
Millennium Development Goals. In spite of the dark
clouds that were gathering on the global economic
horizon, we still felt optimistic; we held the illusion
that we might meet our targets. After all, we had made
continuous progress towards meeting some of the
Goals. But from then on, we witnessed the deluge of
the global financial crisis. Since then, the storm has
been so intense that it has created a widespread state of
anxiety and fear at a global scale the likes of which has
not been seen in many decades.
 According to the Director-General of the World
Health Organization, Dr. Margaret Chan, 400,000 more
children and tens of thousands of women will die every
year as a direct consequence of the global financial
crisis. Today, while the meetings of the General
Assembly of the most important global organization
are being held, 25,000 children will die in various parts
of the world. That is the equivalent of saying that a
child will die every three seconds, or 18 children every
minute.
 By the time I conclude my statement this
afternoon — my 15 minute statement — worldwide
270 children will have died, whose early deaths could
have been avoided. Throughout the course of this year,
9 million children, which is equivalent to the entire
population of my country, the Dominican Republic,
will have lost their lives for no reason or justification.
This represents a human tragedy of epic proportions, a
true catastrophe. It is morally and politically
unacceptable. For that reason, it is important to call
upon the General Assembly to declare a state of
emergency with regard to compliance with the
Millennium Development Goals.
 When facing the challenges to our efforts to meet
the eight goals established in the year 2000 for
improving the human dignity and living conditions of
millions of people worldwide, it is possible to adopt
different attitudes. We might consider that we have
failed and that these goals can never be met; that they
represent a new utopia and therefore the only path

31 09-52228

remaining is to abandon any effort to meet those goals.
Clearly that would be a cowardly and irresponsible
attitude — the worst possible decision. It would mean
leaving all those in need of human solidarity and
compassion out in the cold. A second attitude would be
to reconsider the goals and then extend the timetable to
fulfil them; that would seem logical and reasonable.
However, that reasoning encounters one obstacle — the
fact that children, the poor and the women of the world
cannot wait.
 The only real way to ensure fulfilment of the
Millennium Development Goals by the planned 2015
date, is for the General Assembly to work towards
promoting true commitment among nations and
governmental and non-governmental institutions to
urgently assume their task to achieve economic and
social development for all people affected by poverty,
hunger, disease and illiteracy.
 It cannot be argued that the resources available to
address this urgent task are insufficient. We have seen
in the diligent manner used to address the collapse of
the international financial system that — as the saying
goes — where there is the will there is a way.
 Looking ahead, the first thing to be considered is
that with the forecasted end of the global economic
recession and the resulting gradual recovery of
economic growth, we must ensure that we never again
witness such a sudden and abrupt increase in oil and
food prices as a result of excessive speculation and the
transactions of the futures market. We issue this
warning because we have been observing with concern,
an increase in milk prices over the past three weeks on
the international market that have risen by more than
$1,000 per ton without any valid justification.
 We must set aside all individual interests,
resistance and obstacles that stand in the way of the
reform of the global financial system and the stock
markets, in order to establish new mechanisms for
regulation and supervision that will guarantee that no
crisis such as this one will ever occur again.
 Because of the lack of compliance to date by the
majority of developed countries with their
commitments made during the Copenhagen World
Summit for Social Development to contribute to the
development of the poorest and most vulnerable
nations and due to the prevailing situation of the global
recession, we draw the attention of the General
Assembly to the possibility of finding new sources of
financing for the Millennium Development Goals.
 In that regard, we suggest the creation of a
working group to carry out professional, high-quality
research and submit a report containing
recommendations and a plan of action geared towards
establishing a fine to benefit development on capital
deposited in fiscal havens, offshore banks and
international financial centres. Placing financial
resources in such fiscal havens means that every year
we witness tax evasion in a sum equivalent to
$250 billion — a figure — according to the World
Bank — equal to the total sum of external aid
necessary to meet the Millennium Development Goals.
 According to the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), some
$7 trillion is currently deposited in tax havens which
do not contribute one single cent towards fiscal
income. OXFAM has indicated that more than
$50 billion in fiscal income slips through the fingers of
developing countries each year as a result of offshore
banks and tax havens. The organization Christian Aid
has also affirmed bleakly that tax evasion is
responsible for the deaths of more than 5 million
children between the year 2000 and 2015 — the years
we set to meet the Millennium Development Goals.
 There are abundant resources in the world and
what is happening is that they are unfairly and
unequally distributed due, inter alia, to an existing
global financial architecture marked by the lack of
transparency, secrecy, money-laundering, evasion and
fraud. Our only hope of changing the current situation
of economic decline and social deterioration and the
moral crisis that is shaking up the world lies in
adopting brave, wise and timely decisions in this
prestigious global forum.
 The peoples of the world are waiting for these
decisions. They are aware that their right to a dignified,
honourable and happy life depends upon that. We
cannot let them down. We must act with justice
courage, a sense of history and with a vision of the
future.
 I cannot conclude this statement without touching
upon the current prevailing situation in Honduras. The
United Nations passed a resolution condemning the
coup d’état which took place in this Central American
nation in June of this year and called for the return of
democratic order. The same attitude was adopted by the

09-52228 32

Organization of American States, the European Union,
the African Union and by the League of Arab States.
Despite the entire world’s condemnation of that assault
on democracy, the de facto Government of Honduras
has remained in power, thereby underscoring the
weaknesses of the international community to take
action.
 President José Manuel Zelaya — the sole
legitimate President of Honduras, who was scheduled
as the sixth speaker to take the floor in the General
Assembly this afternoon — has, in a great display of
personal courage and daring, preferred to return to his
country. It is now to be hoped that we the
representatives of the peoples gathered here at this
world forum will be able to act with the same dignity,
sense of responsibility and level of commitment when
it comes to the supremacy of democracy, freedom and
justice.


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.


I am speaking for the first
time as Head of State. However, in 1977 I appeared
with my country’s delegation before the Trusteeship
Council, seeking independence. In 1994, the
trusteeship ended and we took our place as a Member
of the United Nations. Our independence is testament
to the success of the International Trusteeship System,
for which we are grateful. The legacy of our experience
is a Constitution that incorporates the rights and
freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights: freedom, democracy, equal protection
and the rule of law.
 We thank the permanent members of the Security
Council, which recognized our sovereignty: the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the
French Republic, the Russian Federation, the People’s
Republic of China and the United States of America.
The United States was our Administering Authority,
and we express our deep appreciation to it for
becoming our close partner under the Compact of Free
Association, a relationship we cherish and one that we
hope will endure.
 As a new and young Member, Palau has
shouldered its responsibilities in the community of
nations, including the deployment of peacekeepers to
Darfur, Timor-Leste and the Solomon Islands. When
signing international conventions and meeting our
counter-terrorism obligations, as set forth by the
Security Council, we remember and honour the legacy
of the United Nations.
 While our political progress has been satisfactory
since independence, I must report to you that we are
now confronted with several looming threats to our
continued peaceful way of life, and indeed to our very
existence. Climate change, environmental degradation
and the world financial crisis are challenges that we
will only be able to overcome if we work with the
international community.
 We associate ourselves with the statements of
concern on climate change which we heard in this Hall
earlier this week. We applaud the commitments made
and note that we must use our best efforts to stop this
slow-moving tsunami that threatens to engulf us. To
this end, Palau and our neighbours in the Federated
States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall
Islands have adopted a joint policy, known as Green
Energy Micronesia (GEM) to move to renewable
energy as a pillar of our collective energy security.
Furthermore, Palau has signed the Statute of the
International Renewable Energy Agency, and we look
forward to the exciting work that will emanate from the
United Arab Emirates. We are hopeful that the
combined efforts of all our nations will lead to a
fruitful outcome in Copenhagen.
 We note in particular the statement of the new
Prime Minister of Japan, Mr. Yukio Hatoyama. Japan’s
vision and commitment to save our planet are
inspiring. This is one of the many reasons we support a
permanent seat for Japan on the Security Council.
 We reiterate that climate change is indeed a
cross-cutting issue and that all aspects of it, especially
the security impact of climate change, need to be
examined. This is why Palau and the Pacific Small
Island Developing States initiated General Assembly
resolution 63/281, on “Climate change and its possible
security implications”. We look forward to meaningful
action by the Security Council on that resolution.
 Palauans have lived throughout history in
symbiosis with the sea. Now, though, the sea, which
has long been the source of our sustenance, is
simultaneously rising in rage to destroy us and
becoming barren. This fury was caused by abuses by
humankind, and we therefore must take every
necessary action to allow the oceans to heal
themselves. In days gone by, the traditional chiefs of
Palau would declare a bul — a moratorium to protect a
resource that had become scarce. This traditional
concept, now popularly known as conservation, shows
the way for us to move forward. As Mahatma Gandhi
said, “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s
need, but not every man’s greed”.
 This is why the world must declare a bul on
destructive fishing practices like deep-sea bottom
trawling, unsustainable harvesting of shark for their
fins and overexploitation of tuna stocks. The odious
fishing practice of bottom trawling, where a weighted
net is dragged along the sea floor, crushing nearly
everything in its path, is contributing to the rapid loss
of a critical ecosystem, our coral reefs. We have
outlawed deep-sea bottom trawling in Palau, but, no
matter what we do in our own waters, there must be an
international solution. For several years, we, along
with our Pacific neighbours, have advocated a

09-52463 8

moratorium on this practice. The sustainable fisheries
resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 2007
(resolution 62/177) urged nations and regional fishery
management organizations to stop trawling in sensitive
areas by 2009. We have waited for compliance, which
has not come, and we now renew our call for a
worldwide moratorium on this practice.
 An equally destructive fishing practice is shark-
finning. We have banned it in Palau and call upon the
world to address this issue in order to save sharks from
extinction. The physical strength and beauty of sharks
are a natural barometer of the health of our oceans.
Therefore, I declare today that Palau will become the
world’s first national shark sanctuary, ending all
commercial shark fishing in our waters and giving a
sanctuary for sharks to live and reproduce unmolested
in our 237,000 square miles of ocean. We call upon all
nations to join us. The need to save sharks and our
environment far outweighs the need to enjoy a bowl of
shark’s fin soup.
 It is anomalous that Palau is experiencing
economic difficulty while it sits in the middle of the
richest fishing grounds in the world, the Pacific Ocean.
We can no longer stand by while foreign vessels
illicitly come to our waters to take our greatest
resource, our tuna stocks, without regard for their
conservation and without regard for adequate
compensation to the island States that own the fishing
grounds and rely on this resource. Palau believes that
the best model for a regional effort to conserve our
tuna resources and maximize the benefits to us is the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
(OPEC). I will therefore work for the establishment of
OTEC, the Organization of Tuna Exporting Countries,
and I now call on our friends in OPEC to come forward
and help us to understand and obtain fair value from
our threatened resource and to make tuna fishing
sustainable.
 I come now to the economic crisis that my
country is facing. As a developing nation, we are
grateful for the grants provided by our allies and
partners to advance our development. They have been
helpful.
 Mr. Martínez Bonilla (El Salvador) Vice-
President, took the Chair.
 But we must acknowledge that outright grants do
not always create meaningful employment. Jobs
created are illusory and temporary. In the absence of a
strong local economy, our children, our most valuable
resource, are leaving our shores for opportunities
elsewhere. The continuing downward cycle created by
their departure must be stopped, or else it will destroy
the very fabric of our society. Our allies and partners
can help us stop this cycle by promoting the
development of private enterprise through investment
in our country. We need capital and entrepreneurial
expertise.
 I implore our allies and partners to consider
providing incentives to their nationals to encourage
them to invest in our islands, to come to our islands
and launch partnerships with our talented people to
create a viable economy. Let us once and for all put
aside the fiction that we need handouts. What we need
are partners and investment to help advance our
economy, put an end to the out-migration of our people
and propel Palau towards economic self-sufficiency.
 We note with satisfaction the decision by the
People’s Republic of China to invite Taiwan to attend
the World Health Assembly. The health and safety of
the world’s peoples are at the heart of the ideals of the
United Nations. In order to further promote those
ideals, we recommend that Taiwan be invited to
participate meaningfully in the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO), the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change coming up
in Copenhagen and other international organizations
and forums.
 We have heard the voices of world leaders from
countries small and large, powerful and vulnerable. We
have heard the voice of science. Let us heed those
voices, fulfil our obligations to our people, now and in
the next generation, and work for a strong economy
and a healthy planet.