Publication schedules

Articles will be published every 2 hours starting at 9am, so publication times are 9,11,13,15,17 and if there is a video release for the day (not always) it will be at 7pm, otherwise a normal article will be published at 7pm.

Contact

Publication-X on Unbound publication, articles come from our partners, primarily only translating texts and other publications into Finnish.

If necessary, the easiest way to contact the editor is by email at [email protected] or Telegram:

https://t.me/konradkurzex

Publication-X also has its own telegram channel, https://t.me/publicationxcom

 

4.7.2024

Publication-X

"Perfecta tempestas medicandi"

His predictions came true: Gaddafi predicted the values of the West and the UN

17 min read
1 month ago Publication-X
His prediction came true: Gaddafi predicted the values of the West and the UN

Quick link to this article: https://publication-x.com/en/1mth

Libya's ruler Muammar al-Gaddafi predicted for Europe exactly what happened a long time ago: A wave of migrants from Africa and a holy war on European soil. And he took on the UN in 2009 with a "scandal speech" that still holds true today. Probably why he had to be removed. A forgotten and secret history that has not only come true, but also defines the present and the bleak future...

Author: Guido Grandt ( gugramediaverlag )

One of the world's greatest and most accomplished commentators was the German-French journalist, non-fiction writer and publicist Peter Scholl-Latour, who died in August 2014. His intellect is missing, especially in these times, overshadowed by international crises, wars and government regulations on citizens. Moreover, he was mostly opposed to mainstream and sometimes destructive Western policies. Therefore, Scholl-Latour's constant search for the truth would again be in order. Fortunately, he left a legacy - in the form of his words, his books, in which he held up a mirror to the faces of the alleged 'good guys' to show that they were nothing but hypocritical masks.

Gaddafi's predictions, which have come true 

In his last work -  The curse of evil deeds  - Scholl-Latour also gives the West's defeated Libyan ruler Muammar al-Gaddafi a say. His almost prophetic statement rings even more true today than ever before.

Faced with the threat of intervention by the Atlantic Alliance, Gaddafi appealed to the Europeans in an interview with a French magazine:

"If you try to disturb me and destabilise me, you will cause confusion,  playing into the hands of al-Qaeda and encouraging armed rebel groups. This is what happens: you are flooded a wave of migration from Africa, spreading from Libya to Europe. No one can stop them. Al-Qaeda is consolidating its position in North Africa as Mullah Omar takes over the fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Al-Qaeda is just around the corner. A political vacuum has been created in Tunisia and Egypt. Islamists can invade you from there today. A holy war is spreading to your immediate neighbourhood in the Mediterranean. Anarchy is spreading from Pakistan and Afghanistan to North Africa ." (cf. Peter Scholl-Latour:  The curse of bad deeds , Berlin 2014, p. 269)

And that's exactly what happened! Everything that Gaddafi predicted in the face of his future fall has come true! In fact, Islamist terror has spread to Europe, as shown by the many devastating assassinations, suicide bombings and knife massacres. There is also pure anarchy in Afghanistan at the moment, again because of the Taliban. Above all, there have been and continue to be waves of migration from Africa, so the EU is desperately seeking a solution.

Failed Libya

Since the fall of Gaddafi in 2011, Libya has been rocked by violent conflict. Today, political instability, the breakdown of law and order and the economy characterise daily life in the North African country. According to the UN, more than 800 000 people are in need of humanitarian aid . half of them are locals, the others refugees and migrants who arrived in Libya as a transit country. The population suffers tremendously from a lack of food and drinking water. The school system and especially the health system are seriously affected. Hospitals and health centres are repeatedly attacked, destroyed and looted. In addition, Libya has become the "main transit country" for African refugees seeking to reach EU countries via the Mediterranean. In addition, thousands of migrants are detained in internment camps; sometimes abused, tortured, raped.

Everything was exactly as Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi had predicted. Libya, once the richest country in Africa on a per capita basis , is now an almost unmanageable heap of rubble. With suffering, hardship and death - also and above all for our own people. 

Gaddafi's secret social achievements

Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa. This allowed six million people to rise from one of the world's least developed countries to the richest country in Africa in a very short time. Libya has been a member of the UN since 1955. 

There is no doubt that in the more than forty years that Muammar Gaddafi ruled the country, there have been repeated abuses of power, accusations of terrorism, torture and serious human rights violations. But despite these abuses, he improved the human rights situation through social reforms. For example, women's rights were strengthened - unlike in many other Arab countries. Women in Libya had the right to education, employment, divorce, property and income. The number of women in education increased dramatically. And they did not have to cover themselves up.

Because of the oil wealth, there were virtually no homeless people, but there was housing for the whole population. Social benefits for families were strengthened. Mothers, the "pillars of society", received cash for their children, free nurseries, free health centres and pensions at the age of 55. Libyans enjoyed free health care and education, free electricity and water. Libya had the highest gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and life expectancy in Africa. Fewer people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands, for example, according to Harvard University's Du Bois Institute for African Research explained. And, "Far from being a military dictatorship, Libya was the richest democracy in Africa under Gaddafi."

And journalist Maximilian Forte came to the following conclusion in his book Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO's War on Libya and Africa (s. 73):

"In fact, Gaddafi was a remarkable and unique exception among all modern and Arab leaders: because he persistently practiced national altruism, because he funded development programs in dozens of poor countries, because he supported national liberation movements that had nothing to do with Islam or the Arab world, because he practiced an ideology that was original and not merely the brainchild of inherited traditions or external influences, and because he gave Libya a presence on the world stage disproportionate to the size of its population.  

But Western politicians and Western fake news media have suppressed all these facts. As always, Libya was and is about geopolitics and energy security. In this case, oil. And the "world order" proclaimed by the West - and therefore mainly by the Anglo-Americans - against which nothing must be allowed to go. The extent to which Gaddafi turned against this was demonstrated on 23 September 2009, when he made a speech at the UN General Assembly in which he expressed its objectives  and their assessment. And in which he criticises the UN, in particular the wars and assassinations of heads of state waged by the UN - mostly by Western veto members. 

Gaddafi's speech at the UN General Assembly 23.9.2009

Below are some succinct extracts from Gaddafi's "death speech" :

"The UN was founded by three or four countries to fight the German Empire. These countries allied themselves against the Third Reich in World War II. These countries formed the Security Council and became permanent members with veto power. None of us were there at the time. The UN was set up with these three countries in mind to take action against Germany (...)"

This happened in the absence of 165 countries, a ratio of one to eight, one was present, eight were absent (...)

The presentation is attractive, and no one objects. However, the following articles are fundamentally at odds with the introduction. We reject these articles and will never support them; they ended World War II. The preamble says that all countries, large or small, are equal. Does this equality exist when it comes to permanent seats on the Security Council? No, we are not equal. The preamble literally says that all countries, big or small, are equal. Do we have a veto? Are we equal? The preamble says that we have the same rights, no matter how big or small. That is what the presentation says and that is what was agreed. Therefore, the right of veto and permanent seats are contrary to the spirit of the founding document. We do not accept or recognise the right of veto.

The preamble to the document states that the armed forces must not be used except in the common interest. It says in the preamble that we signed and joined the UN to support it. It says that armed forces must only be used for the common good of all countries. But what has happened since then? Since the creation of the UN and the Security Council, 65 wars have broken out - 65 wars with millions more casualties than in the Second World War. Are these wars in the common interest? No, they were in the interests of a few countries and not in the general interest.

Let's talk about whether these wars were in the interests of one country or all countries. They are in clear contradiction with the UN Charter, to which we are all signatories. - and until action is taken in accordance with the Charter, we will reject them and will not diplomatically announce this. Let us now talk about the future of the UN. Hypocrisy and diplomacy should be left aside, because this is the future of the world. It is precisely this hypocrisy that has enabled 65 wars since the creation of the UN.

The preamble also says that if troops are used, they must be UN troops; therefore a military intervention by the UN with the consent of all UN members and not of a few countries sending their armed forces. It is the UN as a whole that decides whether war is waged to ensure international peace and security. Since the UN was founded in 1945, all members have been obliged to prevent aggression by one country against another.

If a country, Libya for example, were to attack France, the whole UN would respond, because France is a sovereign member of the UN and we all have a duty to protect the sovereignty of states. Yet 65 wars have been fought without any UN action to prevent them. Eight major, bitter wars have been fought by members of the veto court, killing more than 2 million people. These countries would have us believe that they are defending their sovereignty, but in reality they are oppressing their peoples. As much as we would like to believe that these countries are working for peace and world security, they have resorted to warfare and non-peaceful means. Using the veto they granted themselves as permanent members of the Security Council, they have waged wars that have claimed millions of lives.

The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states is enshrined in the founding document of the UN. Thus, no country has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of any country, whether democratic, dictatorship, socialist or capitalist, progressive or reactionary. This is the responsibility of each country. It is an internal matter for its inhabitants (...) .

We joined the UN thinking we were equal, but we learned that any single country can override any decision we make. Who gave the Permanent Security Council this privilege? Four countries gave themselves this privilege. The only country that has been given this privilege in the elections to the Security Council General Assembly is China. This was done democratically. However, the other permanent seats were allocated undemocratically, with dictatorial intervention, against our will, and we should not accept them (...)

If we want to reform the UN, more superpowers is not the way. The solution is to cultivate democracy at world level by transferring the powers of the Security Council to the General Assembly. The Security Council will then only implement the decisions of the General Assembly. This would then be a parliament, the world's legislature, so to speak.

(...) How can we be satisfied with world peace and security when the whole world is ruled by 15 countries? We are 192 countries and we are like Speakers' Corner in London's Hyde Park. We just talk and nobody cares what is said. We are pure decoration without substance. We are speakers like in Speaker's Corner, no more, no less. We make speeches and then we disappear. This is who you are at the moment.

(...) From now on, the Security Council should be composed of communities of states. So we enjoy justice and democracy. , and the Security Council no longer consists of countries with nuclear weapons, major economic centres or high-tech industries. This is terrorism. We cannot leave the Security Council to the great powers. That would also be a form of terrorism.

If we want a united, peaceful and secure world, we must act accordingly. Or remain in a world defined by war; it's up to you. We will have conflicts and wars until doomsday or the end of the world. All members of the Security Council should have a veto, otherwise the whole concept of the veto should simply be abolished when the new Council is formed (...)

This means that all countries would be equal in the Security Council, as they are in the General Assembly. In the General Assembly, we all have equal rights to membership and voting rights. This should also apply to the Security Council. At the moment, some countries have a veto, others do not; some have a permanent seat, others do not. We should not accept this or any decision adopted by the current Security Council. We were colonised and now we are independent. We are meeting today to decide democratically on the future of humanity, to ensure peace and security for all countries, large and small. Otherwise, we are vulnerable to terrorism. Because terrorism is not just about Al-Qaeda, it can take different forms.

(...) Democracy is not for the rich, the powerful or the terrorists. All countries must be equal.

At present, the Security Council is organised in a feudalistic way, a political feudalism for those who have a permanent seat. They protect each other and exploit everyone else. It should be called the Terror Council and not the Security Council. In everyday political life, the privileged use the Security Council against us when it benefits them. Otherwise it is ignored. If you want to promote a project or have a personal concern, the UN is respected, praised and Chapter VII is used against poor countries. But if they want to break UN rules, the whole institution is ignored.

Giving veto power to the permanent members of the Security Council, who have the power anyway, is injustice and terrorism, and we should not tolerate it. We should not live in the shadow of such injustices.

The superpowers have complex global interests and use the veto to defend these interests. In the Security Council, for example, they use the power of the UN to intimidate and terrorise the third world and condemn it to the existence of terror.

Since its creation in 1945, the Security Council has failed to ensure security. On the contrary, it has caused terror and sanctions. It is only used against us (...)

65 war; either small countries fighting each other or a great power war against us. In clear violation of the UN mandate, the Security Council has failed to intervene to stop these wars against small countries.

(...) We are not negligent and we are giving a veto to the great powers so that they can treat us as second-class citizens and outsiders. We did not give the great powers their status and the right to rule 192 countries.

We ignore all Security Council resolutions because these resolutions are directed exclusively against us and not against the great powers, which have a permanent seat and a veto. These powers never veto each other.

However, they are using it against us, and this has turned the UN into a sham that advocates wars and the violation of the sovereign rights of sovereign states. It has led to war crimes and genocide. All this is in violation of the UN mandate (...)

We do not feel compelled to comply with the rules and resolutions of the UN Security Council. Its current form is undemocratic, dictatorial and unjust. No one can force us to join the Security Council in its current form or to comply with its decisions.

Furthermore, there is no respect for the UN and the General Assembly, which is the real UN. The decisions of the International Court of Justice, the international courts, are only directed against small and third world countries. Strong countries are either ignored by the Court or decisions are not respected (...)

(...) Why do we have to have such a polarised world? We reject such a world and are committed to a more equal world (...)

The wars that took place after the creation of the UN, how did they come about? Where was the Security Council, the UN mandate, the UN? There is a need to investigate and there are legal consequences. How did the massacres come about? You could start by on the Korean War , because it happened after the creation of the UN. How could a war break out and claim millions of victims? Nuclear weapons could have been used. Those responsible for this war must be held to account and must pay compensation.

Then came the Suez Canal War in 1956. This file should be reopened. Three countries with permanent seats on the Security Council and veto rights have attacked a UN member state. Independent Egypt was attacked and its army destroyed. Thousands of Egyptians lost their lives and many cities were destroyed. All because Egypt wanted to nationalise the Suez Canal. How can such a thing happen under the UN's nose? How can we assume that this will not happen again if no compensation is demanded? These were dangerous events and the files on the Korean War and the Suez Canal should be reopened.

Then comes the Vietnam War. 3 million people lost their lives. More bombs were dropped in 12 days than in the four years of the Second World War. It was a bitter war, and it happened after the creation of the UN, when it was decided that there would be no more wars.

The future of humanity is at stake. We cannot remain silent. How can we feel safe there? How can we stand by? This is the future of the world, and we in the UN General Assembly must work to ensure that such wars do not happen again.

Then Panama was attacked, even though it was an independent UN state. Four thousand people lost their lives and the President of this country was captured and put in prison. Noriega should be released - this file should be opened. How can we authorise a UN member state to attack another country and capture its president and imprison him as a criminal? Who can accept such a thing? It could repeat itself. We should not be silent. We should initiate proceedings. Any member of the UN could find itself in this situation, especially if the attack comes from a Member State with a permanent seat on the Security Council.

Then came the war against Grenada. The country was occupied, even though it was a member of the UN. It was attacked by 15 warships, 7 000 soldiers and dozens of aircraft, despite being one of the smallest countries in the world. This happened after the establishment of the UN, the Security Council and the veto. The President of Grenada, Maurice Bishop, was assassinated. How can this happen and go unpunished? It is a tragedy. How can we guarantee that the UN is good? Is a particular country good? That we have a secure future? Can we trust the Security Council? Can we trust the UN?

We should investigate the bombings in Somalia. Somalia is a member of the UN. It is an independent country governed by Aidid. We want an investigation. Why did it happen? Who allowed it? Who gave the green light to attack?

Then there was talk of the former Yugoslavia. No one was more peaceful than Yugoslavia, which had rebuilt itself step by step after the fall of Hitler. Tito put this peaceful country together piece by piece, and then we came and tore it apart for imperialist reasons, just like Hitler. How can we not comment on this? Why can we never be satisfied? If a peaceful country like Yugoslavia is the victim of such a tragedy, the General Assembly should open an inquiry to find out who should be brought before the international tribunal.

Then comes the war in Iraq, the biggest disaster. The UN should also investigate this (...) The occupation of Iraq also violated the UN mandate. It was unjustifiably carried out by the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Iraq is an independent country and a member of the UN General Assembly. How could these countries attack Iraq? According to the UN Constitution, the UN members should have intervened to prevent the attack.

At that time we were working to end the war. We opposed the invasion of Kuwait and Arab states fought alongside foreign powers against Iraq on behalf of the UN.

For the first time, the UN mandate was respected. When we tried to use the UN to prevent war in the second Iraq war, it was ignored. Why did this happen? Mr Trek and the General Assembly should examine whether the Iraq invasion was justified at all. Because the reasons for this attack remain mysterious and unclear. The same could happen to us.

Why was Iraq invaded? The invasion was a serious violation of the UN mandate and was fundamentally unjustified. It was mass murder, genocide. More than 1.5 million people died. We are working to bring the case of Iraq to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and we want those responsible for these massacres to be brought to justice.
(...)

As President of the General Assembly, Ali Treki should launch a further investigation into the murders. Who murdered Patrice Lumumba and why? We just want to know the history of Africa for the sake of documenting it. We want to know how an African leader, a liberator was assassinated. Who killed him. We want our sons to be able to read about how Patrice Lumumba, the hero of the Congolese freedom struggle, was murdered. We want to know the facts, even after 50 years. This case should be reopened.

Who killed Secretary General Hammarskjöld? Who shot at his plane in 1961 and why?

Then came the assassination of US President Kennedy in 1963. We want to know who assassinated him and why. There was someone who called himself Lee Harvey Oswald, who was then killed by Jack Ruby. Why did he kill him? Israeli Jack Ruby shot and killed Harvey Oswald, the Kennedy assassin. Why did this Israeli kill Kennedy's assassin? Then Kennedy's killer died in mysterious circumstances before he could be brought to justice. We need to reopen this case. The whole world knows that Kennedy wanted to investigate the Israeli reactor at Dimona. This implicates international peace and security in weapons of mass destruction. That is why we should reopen this case.

Then Martin Luther King, black pastor and human rights activist assassination . His murder was planned and we should know why he was killed and who (...)

The last file deals with massacres. The Sabra and Shatila massacre killed 3 000 people. In this area, under the protection of the Israeli army, a catastrophic massacre took place in which 3 000 Palestinian men, women and children were murdered. How can we remain silent? Lebanon, a sovereign Member State of the UN, was occupied. Sabra and Shatila were under the control of the Israeli army and then the massacre took place.

Then in 2008 there was the Gaza massacre, where 1 000 women and 2 200 children were killed and wounded. 60 UN agencies and 30 NGOs were damaged. 50 clinics were destroyed and 40 doctors and nurses died while carrying out humanitarian work. All this happened in December 2008.

The perpetrators are all still alive and must be brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC). Should we only bring to justice the underprivileged, the weak and the poor in the Third World, not the important, protected people? Under international law, they should all be brought to justice for the atrocities they have committed. Otherwise, the authority of the International Criminal Court (ICC) will never be recognised. If ICC decisions are not applied, the General Assembly and the Security Council mean nothing, and the International Atomic Energy Agency benefits only certain countries and organisations, what is the role of the UN? That would mean that the UN is irrelevant. Where is he? The UN does not exist.

As far as the Palestinian situation is concerned, the two-state solution is impractical and unworkable. At the moment, the states are completely overlapping. The division would be doomed to fail. The two countries are not neighbours, but are geographically and demographically intertwined. A buffer zone cannot be created because half a million Israeli settlers live in the West Bank and a million Palestinian Arabs in so-called Israel.

Therefore, the solution is a democratic state without religious fanaticism and racism. The generation of Sharon and Arafat is over. We need a new generation in which everyone can live in peace. Look at the young people of Israel and Palestine; they all want peace and democracy, they all want to live together in one state. This conflict is poisoning the world.

The smart book contains the solution. As already mentioned here, the solution is: Isratine. Arabs are not hostile to Israelis, we are related and of the same race. We want to live in peace and all refugees should return.

You have turned the Hariri problem into a UN problem. You are the merchants of his body. You just want to go back to Syria. Lebanon is an independent state; it has laws, courts, judges and a police force. At this stage, it is no longer a question of catching the perpetrators to compensate Hariri, but rather of returning to Syria. The cases of Khali al-Wazir, Lumumba, Kennedy and Hammarskjöld should also have been referred to the UN if the Hariri case deserves so much attention.

The General Assembly is now chaired by Libya. That is our right. Libya would like to welcome you all to facilitate the transition from a world of difficulties and tensions to a world of humanity, peace and tolerance. I will personally bring this concern to the attention of the General Assembly, President Trek and the Secretary General. We are not insignificant when it comes to the fate of humanity, the struggle of the Third World and 100 small countries to create a sustainable peaceful existence.

So these are extracts from Muammar al-Gaddafi's speech to the UN General Assembly on 23 September 2009. Like no one else before or since, he discussed how the UN Charter was being trampled on by the major Western powers in particular to further their own interests. No wonder - two years later Gaddafi was ousted with strong Western support and the "rebels" supposedly killed. Thus the UN's biggest critic was eliminated.

Other sources:

His prophecies came true: this is how Gaddafi paraded the West of values and the UN
The Libyan ruler Muammar al-Gaddafi predicted to Europe exactly what has long since come true.
en_USEnglish
fiFinnish en_USEnglish