Democrats Don't Deliver Healthcare Reform... Again, By Adam Howard, The Nation, September 29, 2009

For weeks now it's seemed more and more evident that instead of significant, meaningful healthcare reform, we are--if we're lucky--going to wind up with something akin to health insurance reform. These reforms will be pretty unassailable (who could oppose making it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against pre-existing conditions, for instance?) but a far cry from what just a couple months ago seemed not just possible but probable--reform that included a robust, affordable public option accessible to all Americans.

Why has the healthcare reform battle disintegrated so rapidly? Certainly the seemingly endless barrage of right wing lies and downright insanity over the summer didn't help. Neither did the White House's lackadaisical approach to countering it. But at the end of the day, real reform--the public option, considered today by the Finance Committee--should have had the votes it needed to pass. Instead it failed by fifteen votes to eight, with five Democrats voting against it.

Four out of five major committees have delivered in one form or another what 65 percent of the American public wants: a government-run public health insurance option. President Obama supports a public option, the majority of medical profession does, and without it there is no way healthcare costs can be brought down in any significant way.

And yet our Democrat-controlled Congress can't get its act together. Today, five Democratic senators rejected the most progressive version of the public option to emerge from the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller's amendment. Remember their names, because they should go down as traitors to what the Democratic party should stand for: Blanche Lincoln, Bill Nelson, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad and Tom Carper.

That's right--we're not talking about thirty to forty Democratic senators gumming up the works, we're talking about a handful of woefully out-of-touch, heartless politicians who aren't clever enough to realize the obvious political upshot of seeing healthcare reform succeed.

This group of senators is not only letting their constituents and the rest of the American people down--they're also setting the stage for the failure of President Obama's top domestic priority and most likely a reversal of fortune in the 2010 midterm elections. What adviser has persuaded them to believe that by slowing down and/or neutering healthcare they will somehow burnish their reputation and improve their electoral position? Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus's name is now the equivalent of a cuss word in most Democratic households and with good reason.

It's times like these that even the most patient progressives find themselves at loss for why they even bother to back the Democratic party. It's no longer the lesser of two evils; in this case it's the equal of the other evil. Certainly the debate is not over and this may not be the public option's last stand--whatever ultimately emerges from the Finance Committee will have to reconciled with the other Senate bills, plus whatever emerges from the House, which Speaker Pelosi has insisted will include a public option. But this is a devastating blow to all of us who have been holding out hope that our elected officials could actually still do their jobs and make positive change happen for ordinary Americans.

Obama, backed by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, threatened tough sanctions against Iran ,Scott Ritter , guardian.co.uk, 25 September 2009

It was very much a moment of high drama. Barack Obama, fresh from his history-making stint hosting the UN security council, took a break from his duties at the G20 economic summit in Pittsburgh to announce the existence of a secret, undeclared nuclear facility in Iran which was inconsistent with a peaceful nuclear programme, underscoring the president's conclusion that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow".

Obama, backed by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, threatened tough sanctions against Iran if it did not fully comply with its obligations concerning the international monitoring of its nuclear programme, which at the present time is being defined by the US, Britain and France as requiring an immediate suspension of all nuclear-enrichment activity.

The facility in question, said to be located on a secret Iranian military installation outside of the holy city of Qom and capable of housing up to 3,000 centrifuges used to enrich uranium, had been monitored by the intelligence services of the US and other nations for some time. But it wasn't until Monday that the IAEA found out about its existence, based not on any intelligence "scoop" provided by the US, but rather Iran's own voluntary declaration. Iran's actions forced the hand of the US, leading to Obama's hurried press conference Friday morning.

Beware politically motivated hype. While on the surface, Obama's dramatic intervention seemed sound, the devil is always in the details. The "rules" Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the "additional protocol") to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.

This agreement was signed by Iran in December 2004. However, since the "additional protocol" has not been ratified by the Iranian parliament, and as such is not legally binding, Iran had viewed its implementation as being voluntary, and as such agreed to comply with these new measures as a confidence building measure more so than a mandated obligation.

In March 2007, Iran suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information. As such, Iran was reverting back to its legally-binding requirements of the original safeguards agreement, which did not require early declaration of nuclear-capable facilities prior to the introduction of nuclear material.

While this action is understandably vexing for the IAEA and those member states who are desirous of full transparency on the part of Iran, one cannot speak in absolute terms about Iran violating its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So when Obama announced that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow", he is technically and legally wrong.

There are many ways to interpret Iran's decision of March 2007, especially in light of today's revelations. It should be underscored that what the Qom facility Obama is referring to is not a nuclear weapons plant, but simply a nuclear enrichment plant similar to that found at the declared (and inspected) facility in Natanz.

The Qom plant, if current descriptions are accurate, cannot manufacture the basic feed-stock (uranium hexaflouride, or UF6) used in the centrifuge-based enrichment process. It is simply another plant in which the UF6 can be enriched.

Why is this distinction important? Because the IAEA has underscored, again and again, that it has a full accounting of Iran's nuclear material stockpile. There has been no diversion of nuclear material to the Qom plant (since it is under construction). The existence of the alleged enrichment plant at Qom in no way changes the nuclear material balance inside Iran today.

Simply put, Iran is no closer to producing a hypothetical nuclear weapon today than it was prior to Obama's announcement concerning the Qom facility.

One could make the argument that the existence of this new plant provides Iran with a "breakout" capability to produce highly-enriched uranium that could be used in the manufacture of a nuclear bomb at some later date. The size of the Qom facility, alleged to be capable of housing 3,000 centrifuges, is not ideal for large-scale enrichment activity needed to produce the significant quantities of low-enriched uranium Iran would need to power its planned nuclear power reactors. As such, one could claim that its only real purpose is to rapidly cycle low-enriched uranium stocks into highly-enriched uranium usable in a nuclear weapon. The fact that the Qom facility is said to be located on an Iranian military installation only reinforces this type of thinking.

But this interpretation would still require the diversion of significant nuclear material away from the oversight of IAEA inspectors, something that would be almost immediately evident. Any meaningful diversion of nuclear material would be an immediate cause for alarm, and would trigger robust international reaction, most probably inclusive of military action against the totality of Iran's known nuclear infrastructure.

Likewise, the 3,000 centrifuges at the Qom facility, even when starting with 5% enriched uranium stocks, would have to operate for months before being able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single nuclear device. Frankly speaking, this does not constitute a viable "breakout" capability.

Iran has, in its declaration of the Qom enrichment facility to the IAEA on 21 September, described it as a "pilot plant". Given that Iran already has a "pilot enrichment plant" in operation at its declared facility in Natanz, this obvious duplication of effort points to either a parallel military-run nuclear enrichment programme intended for more nefarious purposes, or more likely, an attempt on the part of Iran to provide for strategic depth and survivability of its nuclear programme in the face of repeated threats on the part of the US and Israel to bomb its nuclear infrastructure.

Never forget that sports odds makers were laying 2:1 odds that either Israel or the US would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities by March 2007. Since leaving office, former vice-president Dick Cheney has acknowledged that he was pushing heavily for a military attack against Iran during the time of the Bush administration. And the level of rhetoric coming from Israel concerning its plans to launch a pre-emptive military strike against Iran have been alarming.

While Obama may have sent conciliatory signals to Iran concerning the possibility of rapprochement in the aftermath of his election in November 2008, this was not the environment faced by Iran when it made the decision to withdraw from its commitment to declare any new nuclear facility under construction. The need to create a mechanism of economic survival in the face of the real threat of either US or Israeli military action is probably the most likely explanation behind the Qom facility. Iran's declaration of this facility to the IAEA, which predates Obama's announcement by several days, is probably a recognition on the part of Iran that this duplication of effort is no longer representative of sound policy on its part.

In any event, the facility is now out of the shadows, and will soon be subjected to a vast range of IAEA inspections, making any speculation about Iran's nuclear intentions moot. Moreover, Iran, in declaring this facility, has to know that because it has allegedly placed operational centrifuges in the Qom plant (even if no nuclear material has been introduced), there will be a need to provide the IAEA with full access to Iran's centrifuge manufacturing capability, so that a material balance can be acquired for these items as well.

Rather than representing the tip of the iceberg in terms of uncovering a covert nuclear weapons capability, the emergence of the existence of the Qom enrichment facility could very well mark the initiation of a period of even greater transparency on the part of Iran, leading to its full adoption and implementation of the IAEA additional protocol. This, more than anything, should be the desired outcome of the "Qom declaration".

Calls for "crippling" sanctions on Iran by Obama and Brown are certainly not the most productive policy options available to these two world leaders. Both have indicated a desire to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran's action, in declaring the existence of the Qom facility, has created a window of opportunity for doing just that, and should be fully exploited within the framework of IAEA negotiations and inspections, and not more bluster and threats form the leaders of the western world.


* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

ECONOMIC RECOVERY? FOR WHOM? By Sam Hammond, October 1-15, 2009, issue of People's Voice

(The following article is from the October 1-15, 2009, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $30/year, or $15 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $45 US per year; other overseas readers - $45 US or $50 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St., Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

- - - - - - ----- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - -

It used to be in earlier society that a cobbler made shoes. After the rise of capitalism with its class exploitation, relations of production and market competition, the manufacture of shoes occupies thousands of people.

This is because capital, in its drive to cheapen production costs and dominate markets, accelerates a division of labour into smaller and smaller units, each with lesser but more specialized skills. In turn, this accelerates the competition of labour, the competition between workers, especially in an environment where there are large pools of surplus labour (the unemployed) banging at the doors of workplaces and offering cheaper rates than those already inside. It is precisely this phenomenon that drives capital to cheapen labour and create unemployment.

Capitalism, as it develops through its stages, seeks to turn everything into a commodity that can be sold in the marketplace. Thus the market economy. In capitalism, labour power is purchased and traded like any other commodity. Thus the "labour market" - the odious expression for that part of our lives we hand over to gain wages to sustain that other part of our lives.

Karl Marx pointed out that a commodity will always find a price above or below its cost of production, creating profit or loss for the capitalist. If labour power is sold above the cost of its production (the rearing and maintenance of children, education, housing, etc.) workers will live and by proportion purchase small pleasures. If the price of labour power falls below the cost of its production, workers starve, and the horrible spectacle of deprivation, famine and disease are the results.

Historically, it was the social and political intervention in this phenomenon by the working class that created the labour movement. Workers banded together to gain economic benefit, developing institutions with social-political and ideological goals. The two dominant and competing ideological strains, developed within and imported from without, have been reformism and revolution. Each at different times and places has been dominant, but both are always present in the class struggle. So there is a choice: which do we need at the present time? More on this later.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), originating in 1947 to manage the post-war Marshall Plan and make sure Europe was rebuilt along capitalist lines, was an economic parallel with NATO and an instrument in the competition between the capitalist and socialist bloc countries. The original 20 member states have now expanded to 30 and reach into the southern hemisphere (Australia, New Zealand) and Asia (Turkey). All the member states are committed to the so-called free market economy (don't forget the labour market), the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Ironically, the OECD is a great research source for anyone studying economic trends and development; see our page 7 article on the OECD's Employment Outlook 2009, for example. Even more ironically, like most neo-liberal imperialist think tanks, the OECD extols the market economy while also recently preaching necessary regulation and stimulus injection. It points out the dangers of escalating permanent global unemployment that will inevitably produce social resistance ending in....? They won't say the phrase: revolutionary movements. Reformism doesn't directly challenge capital, so it is only dangerous as a spawning ground for revolutionary thought, a rejection of itself.

Like most imperialist word-speaks, the OECD is desperately seeking signs of recovery. If one automobile is sold or one nickel of profit is turned, this is enough to signal a glorious recovery. At the same time, parallel and concurrent, is the prediction of long term permanent unemployment. For Canada, they predict official jobless rates of 10% or more well into 2010 or even 2011.

So at the same time, we have the phenomena of escalating unemployment (read poverty, smashed families, homelessness, cheap desperate labour and general impoverishment) and recovery (read resumed profit, exploitation, wealthy industrialists and bankers).

Which one is correct? Both are, because capitalism is a class society, and the interests of one class are opposed to the interests of the other. The present crisis is the product of capitalism, and also the propellant towards the next more acute crisis, with an exponential increase in human suffering, war and plunder and destruction of environment. Without intervention, the future will be more of the present.

But if capital is market driven, and the market demands consumers, how can there be a recovery with unemployment and cheap labour shrinking the market, increasing the inability of the masses of people to purchase?

This is the fly in the ointment that makes capitalism a social system that has outlived its historical usefulness. It has reached a stage of imperialism, where stagnation is a permanent phenomenon, and economic stimulation can only be regional and procured by the cheapening of labour, the capturing of resources and markets through war.

Some members of the working class think they can survive and prosper as junior partners, an "aristocracy of labour" amongst their own class, living in a sea of cheaper labour, under-employed or unemployed. This can only be transient and temporary, because their acquiescence only helps escalate the objective nature of capital to impoverish labour in general and drive its commodity price down.

In 1847, Karl Marx wrote in Wage-Labour and Capital about the escalating division of labour and the effect of capitalist market competition: "We have hastily sketched in broad outlines the industrial war of capitalists among themselves. This war has the peculiarity that the battles in it are won less by recruiting than by discharging the army of workers. The generals (the capitalists) vie with one another as to who can discharge the greatest number of industrial soldiers."

Downsizing, technology, speed-up, increasing workload, deteriorating work conditions, increased production and cheaper prices with a smaller work force. Is this not Canadian manufacturing, especially auto?

Both the reformist and revolutionary trends in labour have historically grappled with the competition between workers. That is where the word union labour comes from, as opposed to individual labour. That is where collective bargaining seeks to destroy individual contracts. Reformism can be useful in the short term, but soon finds itself shaped and channelled by the "carrot and stick" tactics of capital into counterposing the interests of "members" to those of the class as a whole.

This is not always done intentionally, indeed it is resisted, but is always a pressure from more powerful capital. To move beyond this danger requires a larger outlook, a higher consciousness that embraces and recruits the entire class towards some kind of social solution. That is revolutionary ideology, an ideology that addresses itself to the problem of eradicating the cause as a propellant towards a solution.

As a class, what do we need to resist and maintain ourselves? Competition or co-operation? Cannibalism, raiding and exclusion, or unity and inclusion" That is the question that begs for a debate. What do you think?

(Contact Sam Hammond at newlabourpress@telus.net.)

Op-Ed: Obama and the US far-Right collide : the Class-forces divided over how best to enhance US imperialist power, by Andy Taylor, Sep 29, 09

which Camp will predominate in the US Ruling Class? When will the State unite to assert common imperial interests?


The US demonstrates its power through various methods but a very important means is its perceived ability to successfully dominate defiant or contested nations.

The Pentagon needs sales promotions, displays and showcases as much as any corporation. The US can not continue to dominate the globe if they are perceived as weak/beatable.This was the great lesson of their Defeat by Vietnam. For a decade after the final Vietnam evacuation in 1975 the US state was restricted in its ability to boldly and brazenly create crises and wars etc. For the Pentagon and US Intelligence The Church Commission investigation of CIA criminality is still considered a humiliating debacle. For the present governing elite, the Watergate Hearings were terrifying. Both US parties know that such lustrations or cleansings of government must be stopped in their tracks.

Worse even than international perception, the US state had a severe outbreak of internal democracy in the late 60s to mid 70s and the powers in DC couldn't lie or cheat with as much impunity for a time thereafter.

Today Mr. Obama has been promoted not just by his impressive electoral victory but by a section of the pragmatic US Ruling Class that saw very clearly that the US was not successfully dominating the world or stabilizing the making of profits by having Bush - Cheney in power (ex. the extraordinary Transnational "liberal", George Soros). The war in Iraq was floundering as the U.S. imperialists watched. The varied political, ethnic and class forces within Iraq were not rallying around the US created government. In a notable piece that appeared in the New York Times"A Timetable for Mr. Bush" the liberal American voice expressed its anguish over the turn of events:

"The ultimate Iraqi nightmare, which continually seems to be drawing closer, is a violent fracturing of the country in which the Kurdish north and Arab Shiite southeast break away, leaving the west, dominated by Arab Sunnis, an impoverished no man’s land and a breeding ground for international terrorism. . .
The consequences of such a breakup would be endless and awful: civil war, the persecution of minority populations in the new states, an alliance between the Shiites and Iran, and a complete breakdown of American moral and military influence in the Middle East. "

'A COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF AMERICAN MORAL AND MILITARY INFLUENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST: ' we hear the nub problem at the heart of the crisis from the mouthpiece at the centre of the US liberal elite. That section of the US elite bet on Obama's charismatic charm to change " the tone" or perception about America. Not that the ruling class pragmatics want to reduce the level of US global domination
or reduce the rate of profit: far from it, they saw Obama as the one who could potentially disarm global opposition to US imperialism and make US dominion less indigestible to the allies.

As Paul L Street writes in his note "The Re-Branding" of Sep 28, 09, the two parties both play an important role for the ruling class in America:

" All things equal, the business class power elite would just assume have the GOP in office. But when the GOP elites screw up, as they ultimately do, it becomes necessary (as the left author Lance Selfa pointed out last year) to pull the Republican brand off the shelf for a while (1977-1981, 1993-2001). Bring in the other Empire and Inequality party - the other wing of the corporate-managed democracy's one-and-a-half party system, aptly described as "History's second-most enthusiastic capitalist party" by the former Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips years ago".

Can Obama fulfill this agenda? The other, openly vitriolic far-right section of the US ruling-class is incensed that any concessions of bravado in bellicose speech and actions has been allowed or indulged in by the new administration. They wish to dominate the globe in the open contempt for the weaker displayed by Bush and Cheney or Mr. McCain.

So what we see in Obama's struggle with the far-right is NOT an anti-imperialist, radical president being bullied by the far-right, but a far-right attack on a judiciously imperialist pragmatist president who wishes to manage and extend the US empire with less needless exasperation of allies and others. But we should not think that the Obama campaign and presidency in its moment was a reactionary force within the ruling class.It has been a disappointment to realize the limited extent of the Obama mandate for change to be sure. It has been a disappointment to see Obama fall into the imperialists morass in Afghanistan. It is a let-down for many progressives to hear that the Democrats in the US Senate seem prepared to dump the public option in the future Healthcare Bill. Obama is a centrist corporate democrat with a fairly limited reform agenda.

And this past week Obama has played his Iran Card. To what degree will his effort to rally the Imperialist nations and China around an economic war on Iran unify the internal US Ruling Class by this fresh display of Euro-American imperial unity and determination? Will Obama justify the hopes of either those who elected him or the pragmatic section of the American Bourgeoisie?

The Hexaemeron: Homily VII, Big Fish Eats the Little Fish, by St. Basil of Caesarea (C.E. 330-379) Andrew Taylor, Sep 28, 09

http://www.fisheaters.com/hexaemeron7.html

PART 3


The food of fish differs according to their species. Some feed on mud; others eat sea weed; others content themselves with the herbs that grow in water.

But the greater part devour each other, and the smaller is food for the larger, and if one which has possessed itself of a fish weaker than itself becomes a prey to another, the conqueror and the conquered are both swallowed up in the belly of the last.

And we mortals, do we act otherwise when we oppress our inferiors?

What difference is there between the last fish and the man who, impelled by devouring greed, swallows the weak in the folds of his insatiable avarice?

See the man who stole the goods of the poor; you caught him and made him a part of your wealth.

You have shown yourself more unjust than the unjust, and more miserly than the miser.

Look to it lest you end like the fish, by hook, by trap, or by net.

Surely we too, when we have done the deeds of the wicked, shall not escape punishment at the last.

An Epistle to For the Rich and The Reds, (Letter of James, Ch 5) Andrew Taylor, Sep 28, 09

Last Judgment, by Raphael Coxcie (1540-1616)












James
Chapter 5

1
1 Come now, you rich, weep and wail over your coming miseries.
2
Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten,
3
your gold and silver have corroded, and that corrosion will be a testimony against you; it will devour your flesh like a fire. You have stored up treasure for the last days.
4
Behold, the wages you defrauded from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.
5
You have lived on earth in luxury and pleasure; you have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter.
6
You have condemned; you have murdered the righteous one; he offers you no resistance.

Honduras restricts liberties, breaks relations with Brazil, By DPA, From Monsters and Critics.com, Sep 28, 2009

Tegucigalpa - Honduras' de facto government overnight announced a decree restricting liberties in response to a call by ousted president Manuel Zelaya, who urged his supporters to march to the capital Tegucigalpa, local media reported Monday.

Zelaya made the call from the Brazilian embassy, where he took refuge on returning secretly to the Central American country a week ago.

Zelaya called on his supporters to stage a 'final offensive' to help him recover power and to march to the capital on Monday. That day marks three months from the June 28 coup that drove Zelaya into exile.

The de facto government headed by former congress speaker Roberto Micheletti said relations with Brazil were 'broken' in reciprocity at Brazil having closed the Honduran embassy there.

De facto Foreign Minister Carlos Lopez Contreras said Honduras was giving Brazil 10 days to hand Zelaya over or to grant him asylum.

The government decree, which was approved Saturday and made public late Sunday in a nationwide broadcast, authorizes police to dissolve non-authorized public meetings and demonstrations.

The government also banned acts against 'peace, public order and offensive to human dignity' and authorized the state telecommunications organ Conatel to suspend radio and television broadcasters.

Media close to Zelaya described the decree, which needs to be approved by parliament, as signalling the 'militarization' of Honduras.

The government wanted to close media supportive of Zelaya, said Esdras Amado Lopez and David Romero, directors of the pro-Zelaya Canal 36 and Radio Globo.

The Organization of American States (OAS) meanwhile protested the barring of its personnel from entering Honduras to prepare a visit of several Latin American foreign ministers and OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza.

'We deplore this decisión and regard it as incomprehensible, given that the Honduran de facto government itself had accepted' the two visits, Insulza commented.

The decisión hampered efforts to re-establish calm and to seek solutions to the political conflict in Honduras, Insulza said.

Meanwhile in Madrid, Spanish National Radio said Honduras had refused to allow the Spanish ambassador to return to the country unless Spain recognized the de facto government.



© Copyright 2007 by monstersandcritics.com.
This notice cannot be removed without permission.

White House and Gordon Brown deny special relationship is in trouble, Steve Bell, Manchester Guardian, Sep 27, 09

Jack plays with fire? and we may all get burned, By Volume: 29, Number: 3 By Alice Klein, NOW Magazine, Sep 27, 09

September 15, 2009


Many of us are shaking our heads at the ironies that have boiled up this week in the federal arena.

Tomorrow (September 18), for the sake of the home reno tax credit, the “separatists” will save Harper’s bacon by supporting a budget-related confidence motion. In the following weeks, the “socialist” NDP is signalling it might keep the Tory government on the cooker in exchange for EI changes, after an unbroken string of 79 no-ways in a row. Let’s hope Jack Layton’s jump into the Tory fry-up is just the overheated appetizer before a strong non-confidence main course.

This country urgently needs an election, and despite the pundits who say Canadians don’t want one, there is a truly mammoth base of non-Tories who are in fact anxious to head to the polls before the winter.

Looking at the latest EKOS poll, EKOS prez Frank Graves writes, “Interestingly, there is a substantial number of Canadians – perhaps on the order of 10 million of them – who favour an early election notwithstanding the fact that it may not change much.”

“Not surprisingly,” he goes on, “most of them support one of the opposition parties.”

It’s true we are a minority. But let’s look at those numbers. Who wouldn’t answer “Some later time” if casually popped the election question? Add almost every Conservative-leaning person to the no-thanks ranks and then what’s left?

Take note, opposition parties. We, the 10 million election-seekers, are a significant body of your constituents (38 to 41 per cent).

And considering that in total, under 14 million of our countrymen (and women) voted on election day last year, we are doubly important because we election-lubbers are the ones most likely to haul ourselves out to mark our ballots.

According to Graves, hitting the election on switch is unlikely to cause a push-back from voters in the long run, even though it has cost the Liberals a few popularity percentage points in the short term.

“Voters are genuinely annoyed at the prospect of yet another election. On the other hand, this annoyance will probably not influence the final outcome of the election, since voters eventually turn their focus to the big issues that matter in their lives,” he says.

But if the Liberal penalty for forcing an election will likely evaporate, the price for the NDP of thwarting a fall election opportunity, as Layton currently threatens, could be a political stain that never fades among a large core group of the country’s most politically active progressives.

The climate conference in Copenhagen in December may not be big on John Q. Public’s political radar, but for many of us 10 million politicos on the pro-election watch, the fact that world leaders are gathering there to forge a new global agreement to contain climate-threatening carbon emissions registers big.

This week’s coordinated tar sands protests in Washington and Alberta were geared to send a pre-Copenhagen emission-control message to Obama during Harper’s visit. The actions included a Greenpeace dump-truck occupation that shut down Shell’s Alberta Albian Sands operation on Tuesday, September 15. They are the opening shot of what promises to be a concerted international campaign to raise the meeting’s public profile.

Jack, if you’ve forgotten about it, let me remind you. This gathering will mark a decisive moment in human history. The new Kyoto will have nothing in common with the toothless treaty our government has been flagrantly violating for years. Or, if we fail, we’ll all be sunk in the rising dead-zone ocean waves.

All of us need to do everything we can to keep our boreal-sucking Bush- in-Harper-clothing away from these delicate negotiations. This is a unique moment in time. Billions of people (and other life forms, as well) are counting on us. It just isn’t the time for self-serving strategic gamesmanship.

Perhaps the NDP will lose a seat here or there in a new election, but something larger is at stake. The planet itself is asking for the party’s help. Please give us a last chance to oust the one world leader who earned the Fossil Of The Year Award at the pre-Copenhagen run-ups in both Bali in 2007 and Poznan, Poland, last December.

But there’s so much more. Two issues on the table in Toronto right now exemplify the ongoing economic and social cost of the Harper government.

Just last week the federal infrastructure stimulus spending was announced for the city. I have no quarrel with using public cash for water mains, roads and building fixes. There’s even some money for subway stations. All good. But the whole affair is also a reminder that these federal dollars are flowing in only after the call for Transit City streetcar funding was shot down with expletives by Infrastructure Minister John Baird.

The whole incident is a symbol of the way the Tories have frittered away the opportunity to stimulate in the short term while also setting us up to meet our future need to reduce energy use. This isn’t some kind of marginal issue – our economic competitiveness and security depend on it.

This government’s stupidity is now rolled into deficit numbers that could have been paying energy dividends for years to come.

Instead, the shortfall will become fodder for even worse wrong-minded spending slashes as time rolls on. This country simply cannot afford to go through another budget cycle with the Tories.

On the social end of the spectrum, Industry Minister Tony Clement is still convincing no one with his denial again just this week that he revoked cabinet member Diane Ablonczy’s authority over the Marquee Tourism Events Program because she granted $400,000 to Toronto’s fabulous Gay Pride this summer.

He just can’t fudge the fact that Montreal’s similarly brilliant (though smaller) tourist magnet was cut off for no apparent reason right after the hubbub.

This is the same small-minded, prejudiced thinking that keeps Canadian child soldier Omar Khadr in Guantánamo Bay despite two federal court rulings that he must be repatriated, and that stranded Canadian Suaad Hagi Mohamud in Kenya.

EI is big. But there are many issues. Every day,

this government is following its mini-minded agenda in ways we know and ways we don’t.

The longer Harper is our prime minister, the bigger the price tag for dealing with the problems he ignores or exacerbates.3

alice@nowtoronto.com [alice@nowtoronto.com]

German Elections: The Left Party Advances; the Grand Coalition Ends, mrzine, Sep 27, 2009

On the Web site of Die Linke (The Left):

A Great Success: The Left Is a Social Force -- in the Bundestag, in the State Parliaments, in Society

Die Linke has won double-digit representation in the new Bundestag. For the first time since 1945, a party to the left of the SPD has succeeded. We have made good on the trust of the voters that we received in 2005. Now, we have received greater trust, so that we can systematically address the issues of social justice, labor, health, education, peace, putting them on the political agenda. The voters were of the opinion: The stronger The Left, the more social the country.

Die Linke

Der Spiegel, taking note of the worst showing for the SPD in post-war history (down from 34.2% in the 2005 federal elections), the best showing for the FDP in its history (up from 9.8% in the 2005 elections), and the double-digit results for the Left (up from 8.7% in 2005) and the Greens (up from 8.1% in 2005), observes:

If the predictions based on exit polls are confirmed, the Christian Democratic Union and the Free Democratic Party should together amount to 48.0-48.5%, compared to the 45.5-46.5% share for the SPD, the Left, and the Greens. Chancellor Merkel is expected to have achieved her stated goal of becoming able to enter a coalition with the FDP after four years of the Grand Coalition.

The CDU/CSU too suffered a slight decline, however, from 35.2% in 2005. According to Der Spiegel, about 62.2 million voters cast their votes. The voter turnout was low. By 2 PM today, only 36.1% of the eligible voters had voted, whereas, by the same time, 41.9% had done so in 2005 (the turnout of the 2005 elections was 77.7%, the lowest in the history of federal elections in the Federal Republic of Germany).
URL: mrzine.monthlyreview.org/germany270909.html
MR

Iranians Favor Diplomatic Relations With US But Have Little Trust in Obama, www.worldpublicopinion.org/, Tues. Sept 22, 2009

Questionnaire with Findings, Methodology

A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of Iranians finds that six in 10 favor restoration of diplomatic relations between their country and the United States, a stance that is directly at odds with the position the Iranian government has held for three decades. A similar number favor direct talks.

However, Iranians do not appear to share the international infatuation with Barack Obama. Only 16 percent say that have confidence in him to do the right thing in world affairs. This is lower than any of the 20 countries polled by WPO on this question in the spring. Despite his recent speech in Cairo, where Obama stressed that he respects Islam, only a quarter of Iranians are convinced he does. And three in four (77%) continue to have an unfavorable view of the United States government.

"While the majority of Iranian people are ready to do business with Obama, they show little trust in him," says Steven Kull, director of WPO.

At the same time, there are some signs of softening. Trust in Obama is three times higher than the 6 percent of Iranians who expressed confidence in George W. Bush in a 2008 WPO poll. Unfavorable views of the United States government are down 8 points from the 85 percent unfavorable views in 2008 (WPO).

On Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the survey finds that eight in 10 Iranians say they consider him to be the country's legitimate president. Ahmedinejad, who will visit the United States on Tuesday and address the UN General Assembly, was the focus of large-scale protests in Tehran after opposition supporters disputed the validity of his reelection in June.

WorldPublicOpinion.org (WPO) conducted the poll of 1,003 Iranians across Iran between Aug. 27 and Sept. 10, 2009. Interviewing was conducted by a professional survey organization located outside Iran which used native Farsi speakers who telephoned into Iran (8 in 10 Iranian households have a telephone line). The margin of error is 3.1 percent. WPO, a collaborative project involving research centers from around the world, is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

The Iranian government has opposed restoration of full diplomatic relations with the United States since 1979, when the Islamic Revolution toppled the US-backed regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and ties were severed over Iran's takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran.

However, WPO finds 63 percent of Iranians polled say they favor restoration of diplomatic ties. Only 27 percent are opposed.

Asked if they favor or oppose full, unconditional negotiations between the governments of the two countries, 60 percent say they do. Thirty percent are opposed.

Obama is not viewed warmly by most Iranians, the poll indicates. Some 71 percent have little or no confidence that Obama will do the right thing regarding world affairs. Many also question his attitude toward Islam, with 59 percent saying he does not respect the religion and just 25 percent saying he does.

Iranians show high levels of mistrust in the United States. Eight in ten say the United States seeks to weaken and divide the Muslim world (unchanged from 2008). Three in four say the United States has the goal of imposing American culture on Muslim society.

But there are also some positive signs. While most Iranians continue to believe that it is not really a goal of the United States to bring about an independent Palestinian state, the number believing that it is a goal has doubled from 12 to 25 percent--suggesting that Obama's efforts to stop Israeli settlements may be having some impact.

Also attitudes toward the American people are largely positive, with 51 percent of those polled expressing favorable feelings toward Americans (13 percent very favorable).
Asked about the prospect of "Iran cooperating with the US to combat the Taliban operating in Afghanistan near Iran's border," a substantial 43 percent favor doing so, while 41 percent are opposed.

While one in four (26%) Iranians say they support attacks on US troops in neighboring Afghanistan (26%) half (49%) are opposed (41% strongly)--perhaps due in part to past friction between Iran and the Taliban.

Most Iranians express acceptance of the outcome of the Presidential election. Eighty-one percent say they consider Ahmadinejad to be Iran's legitimate president, and 62 percent say they have a lot of confidence in the declared election results, while 21 percent say they have some confidence. Just 13 percent say they do not have much confidence or no confidence in the results. In general, eight in 10 (81%) say they are satisfied with the process by which authorities are elected, but only half that number (40%) say they are very satisfied.

Among the 87 percent of respondents who say they voted in the June presidential election, 55 percent say they voted for Ahmadinejad. Only 14 percent say they voted for Mir Hossein Mousavi, the leading opposition candidate, and 26 percent refused to answer. Asked how they would vote if the election were held again, overall 49 percent say they would vote for Ahmadinejad, 8 percent for Mousavi, 13 percent say they would not vote, and 26 percent would not answer.

"The extremely high number of people refusing to answer questions about their voting preference--something not found in response to any other questions--suggests that people have some discomfort with this topic," says WPO's Kull. "Thus these findings on voting preference are not a solid basis for estimating the actual vote."

Eight in 10 say Ahmadinejad is honest but slightly less than half - 48 percent -- say he is very honest. Asked about the institutions that make up the government of the Islamic republic, large majorities express at least some confidence in major institutions. The president is viewed most favorably, with 84 percent of respondents expressing a lot (64%) of or some (20%) confidence.

Overall most Iranians express support for their current system of government. Nine in ten say they are satisfied with Iran's system of government, though only 41 percent say they are very satisfied. Six in ten approve of the system by which a body of religious scholars has the capacity to overturn laws they deem contrary to the Koran, while one in four express opposition. A modest majority (55%) says that the way the Supreme Leader is selected is consistent with the principles of democracy, though three-fifths say they are comfortable with the extent of his power.

Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Calvert Foundation.

Ousted leader calls for final Offensive in Honduras, channelnewsasia.com , 27 September 2009

Manuel Zelaya



TEGUCIGALPA : The stakes rose in Honduras Sunday after ousted leader Manuel Zelaya, holed up at Brazil's embassy in Tegucigalpa, called on his supporters for a final offensive -- and coup leaders respond by giving Brazil a harsh warning.

Zelaya, who has been in the embassy since he made a surprise return almost one week ago, called on his supporters to converge on the capital on Monday, exactly three months after the coup.

"We're making a patriotic ... call to resistance across all national territory," Zelaya said Saturday in a statement handed to an AFP photographer inside the embassy.

He called on his supporters to peacefully march to the capital for a "final offensive against the de facto government."

Shortly after, the regime gave Brazil up to 10 days to define Zelaya's status in a statement read on national television.

It urged "that Mr. Zelaya immediately stop using the protection that Brazil's diplomatic mission gives him to instigate violence in Honduras."

The statement warned that "if that's not done, we'll be forced to take supplementary measures under international law," without elaborating.

The interim government -- which took over after Zelaya was ousted in late June at the height of a dispute over his plans to change the constitution -- promised not to attack the "integrity" of the embassy.

They are seeking to arrest Zelaya for violating the constitution.

The UN Security Council on Friday warned the interim Honduran regime headed by Roberto Micheletti not to harass the embassy, as Brazilian officials complained it was "under siege."

Several thousand Zelaya supporters took to the streets again Saturday, in a march on foot and in scores of cars, waving red flags, honking horns and calling for him to return to office.

Zelaya said Saturday that the regime had not responded to a call for dialogue which he made after returning to the country, but had replied "with more repression against the people."

"It's the only place in the world where there's an embassy under siege," said Francisco Catunda, the Brazilian charge d'affaires.

Most people inside the embassy were in good health, Catunda said, adding that one Brazilian diplomat told him he had smelled gas the previous day, after Zelaya accused the army of trying to poison him and some 60 people still inside the compound by pumping noxious gases into the building -- a charge roundly denied by Honduran officials.

Demonstrators have come daily to the embassy compound, which is surrounded by anti-riot police and soldiers, to show their support for the embattled head of state.

"Thanks, Brazil, for protecting Mel from this vile regime," one banner read, using Zelaya's popular nickname.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, at a meeting of African and South American leaders in Venezuela, cautioned against "backsliding" on democracy in Honduras and throughout Latin America.

"We fought hard to sweep military dictatorships into the trash can of history, we can not allow these kind of setbacks in our continent," he said.

As efforts to mediate struggled to get off the ground, European Union countries decided to send back their envoys who were withdrawn after the coup, but said that did not mean they recognized the interim regime.

A daytime curfew was lifted Thursday and airports reopened, allowing businesses to resume and providing relief to an increasingly frustrated public. A nighttime curfew remained in place.

The United Nations on Wednesday froze its technical support for a presidential vote scheduled for November.

Regime authorities still wish to carry out the vote, which they say is the best exit to the crisis.

"We're losing guarantees for free elections and in these conditions the people will question and fail to recognize the electoral process and its results," Zelaya said.

A police spokesman told AFP Wednesday that two people had been killed in pro-Zelaya protests since the start of the week, and rights groups have voiced concern about clampdowns on demonstrators and local media.

- AFP/vm

Moammar Gaddafi Lambastes Big Powers at U.N General Assembly Speech, by YASEEN CH, Sep 24, 2009 in Pakistanic,

Moammar Ghaddafi who is gaddafivisiting United States first time in his 40 years of power ,addressed the United Nations general assembly and in over 90 minutes speech lambasted the big powers and said”U.N general assembly should be called Terror assembly“. Here is complete transcript of what he said ,

Distinguished members of the General Assembly of the United Nations, in the name of the African Union, I would like to welcome you. This gathering will be an historic one in the world and the history of the world.

And in the name of the General Assembly that is presided by Libya now, in the name of the African Union, and in the name of 1,000 traditional African kingdoms in your own name, I would like to seize this opportunity to present congratulations to our son, Obama, because this is the first time that he’s attending the General Assembly in this capacity as the president of the United States, and we greet him because it is the hosting country of this gathering.

This meeting comes at the corner at the (inaudible) of so many challenges that face us, and that the whole world should come together and unite and should put all efforts together. Serious efforts should be put together by the world so that the world will defeat these challenges which constitute the main common enemy to all of us — challenges of climate, challenges of international crises, or the economic capitalist deterioration, and the food crisis (inaudible).

Perhaps this swine virus may be one of those viruses that was created in the laboratory and it got out of control because it was meant in the beginning to be used as a military weapon, as well as the military — the nuclear proliferations, as well as the hypocrisy, the deteriorations, and the control of (inaudible).

Dear brothers, as you know, the United Nations was established and founded by countries where — against the Germans at the time. The United Nations that we have today is different today. But the United Nations — it is the countries or the nations that would come together against Germany during the Second World War.

These countries constituted (inaudible) and give members — seats its own members. And granted we were not present at the time. And the United Nations was tailored according to these countries and wanted from us to wear the clothes or the suit that was tailored against Germany. That is the real substance and context of the United Nations as it was founded 40 years — or 60 years ago.

This happened during the absence of over 165 countries where the ratio was one of eight. And one was present and eight were absent.

Those — they created — or they made the charter, and you know — I have the charter, a copy of it. And one should read the charter of the United Nations. The preamble of the United Nations is different from the provisions and the articles. How this came to existence, those who attended in San Francisco in 1945, they all participated in the preamble, but they left articles and the provisions and the procedures the (inaudible). They left it to the job of the experts and the countries who are interested, which are the countries who created the Security Council, which countries came together united against Germany.

The preamble is very tempting, and no one is objecting to the preamble, but everything that came after that is completely in contradiction with the preamble. This is what we have now — this is what we are injecting, and we should never continue.

This came to an end during the Second World War. The preamble says that the nations are equal whether they are small or big.

Are we equal in the permanent seats? No. We are not equals.

And the preamble says that all nations are equal whether they are small nations or whether they are big nations as far as rights.

Do we have rights of a veto? Are we equals? The preamble says that we are equals in our rights whether we are big or small. This is what is stated, and this is what we have agreed in the preamble.

So, the veto is against the charter. The permanent seats are against the charter. We do not accept it and we do not acknowledge it, neither do we recognize it.

The charter states that we — in the preamble, I mean — that we should not resort to military force unless it is a common interest.

This is the preamble which we were happy and we signed, and we joined the United Nations because we wanted the charter to be like that.

It says that the armed forces only use it when it is a common interest to all nations. But after that, what happened? Sixty-five wars broke out after the establishment of the United Nations and after the establishment of the Security Council, and after this establishment. Sixty-five, and the victims are millions more than victims of the Second World War.

Are these wars and the aggressions and the force that was used, and the power (ph) in the 65 wars, in the common interest of all of us? No. It was the interest of one country or three countries or four countries or one country. But it was not in the interest of all the nations.

And we shall come and discuss about the wars, whether these wars broke out was in the interest of one country or were in the whole nations. This is in full contradictions and full intervention of the United Nation charters, and we signed that. And unless we do things in the charter of the United Nations, according to which we agreed, otherwise we don’t speak diplomatically, we are not afraid. We don’t (inaudible), and we were not being nice to anybody.

Now we are talking about the future of (inaudible). There is no hypocrisy, no diplomacy, because it is a decisive and important matter. (inaudible) of understanding and hypocrisy created to 65 wars after the establishment of the United Nations.

The preamble states also that if there is a use of force, then there must be — then it must be the United Nations force, or the United Nations military interventions, according to the joint ventures of the United Nations, not country, or one, two country, or three country, using the force or the military power. The United Nations, all of it, will decide to go to war to maintain peace and world security.

And if there’s any aggression by one country against another after the 45 — after the establishment of this United Nations, if there is any aggression against any country, the United Nations, all together, should deter and stop this aggression, and should check this aggression. I mean, if a country, any country, Libya, for instance, makes an attack or an aggression against France, then the whole United Nations should check the Libyan aggression against France, because France is a member state, an independent state in the United — General Assembly, that is a sovereign country, a member state of the United Nations. And all of us, we have to protect the sovereignty of all nations collectively.

But 65 wars, aggressive wars, took place without any actions from the United Nations to stop and check these wars. And eight fierce, big wars — and victims of these wars among 2 (ph) million — made or initiated by the countries who have member states and veto. Those countries who are believed that they would maintain the sovereignty and independence of the people, these countries actually use aggressive force against people.

We wanted to believe that these countries will make peace and security in the world and protect the people. These countries actually resorted to aggressive wars and (inaudible) wars. And as a matter of fact, they enjoyed the veto that was given to them by themselves and enjoyed the member states of the Security Council. But in the meantime, they actually initiated the war which amounted to millions of victims.

So, in this charter, there is nothing that the United Nations will interfere which will be the pure business of the internal affairs — I mean, the government. It is the internal affairs of a certain government.

No country has the right to interfere in this affair, the sort of government whether it is a socialist, capitalist system, or whether it is a reactionary progressive. This is the responsibility of the society. It is an internal matter of the people concerned of a certain country.

Rome — one day the senators of Rome they gave him (ph) the amendment (ph) to be a dictator, because at the time it was good for Rome. No one can say to Rome at the time that you give Caesar this veto. The veto is not mentioned in the charter.

(inaudible) we joined the United Nations because we thought we are equals. And then there is one country that can object to all of the decisions that we make, and it has a member seat. And who has given this country this member seat?

These four countries, they have given themselves member states. The only country that we have voted in this General Assembly is China. China, we have voted to give China a member state in the Security Council.

This was done democratically, but the other member seats was not Democratic, was imposed upon us. This should not be accepted by us, and it was a dictatorial procedure that was done against our will.

United (ph) reform is not increasing of the member states. It is just making things worse. I don’t know how this will be translated, but if we add more water, it will be more muddy.

This is a typical expression (ph) to add insult to injury. I mean, to make things worse, and to make things even worse by how? Because many big countries will be added further to the former big countries that we already have, and like this it will be (inaudible). So we’ll have more superpowers.

Then from here we reject having any more seats done in this way. The solution is not in having more seats. And the most dangerous one, if we have more superpowers — already, the superpowers that we already have — this will crash down the peoples of all small peoples of third-world countries which now are coming together in what may be called the G-100.

There are 100 small countries coming together in a forum that is called a forum of small states. These countries will be crushed by superpowers, because further superpowers, further big countries will be added to already (inaudible). This door should be closed, and we reject that strongly and categorically.

Then you open the door to have more seats in the Security Council. This will add more poverty, more injustice, more tension at the world level, and more competition and the level of the Security Council. And then we shall have — there will be high competition between certain countries — between Italy, Germany, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Japan, Brazil, Nigeria, Argentina, Brazil, Nigeria, Libya, Egypt, Congo, South Africa, Tanzania, Turkey, Iran, Greece, Ukraine (ph).

All of these countries will ask to have a seat at the Security Council. And like this, we shall have a raise (ph) of competitions, then it will be impractical.

So, what is the solution? The solution is that for the solution presided for the General Assembly by (inaudible), which will be a binding resolution taken by the General Assembly, which will not (inaudible) any other quarter.

The solution is that we shall close the admission of the member states and we don’t have anymore member states. This is an item that is provided for the General Assembly, presided by Dr. Thratcher (ph) right now.

And in place of that will be the achievement of the democracy based on equality between member states. There should be equality between member states and instrumentation of the powers and demanded of the Security Council, the General Assembly. And the membership will be for the associations, not for countries, because if we open the door for more members and more memberships for the countries — because this will give the right to any country to have a member seat in the country. And the preamble allowed that.

No country can say, for instance, you don’t have a seat in the Security Council if a seat is given to Germany. Italy will — Germany, maybe for the argument of Italy, will say it was not — Germany was an aggressive country, was (inaudible), and was defeated in the Second World War. And if we give India a seat, then Pakistan will say we’re a nuclear country and we are at war, and then Pakistan — that would be a danger thing.

If we give it to Japan, then we should give Indonesia, being the biggest Muslim country in the world. And then Turkey or Kenya will have the same rights. What can we say to them? Argentina, Brazil, Libya — Libya, that has discarded the WMD program, because it will deserve a member state because then it then has done service to security by discarded this program. And South Africa will do the same and Tanzania will do the same.

All these countries are important, and (inaudible).

This door should be — this is falsehood, and this is a trick, and if we went to reform the United Nations, and then we bring more superpowers, more countries, and then we add more to the already big superpowers which did quite a lot of suffering to us. And then the solution is to achieve democracy at the level of the general congress of the world, which is the General Assembly, which is transformation of the Security Council power to the General Assembly.

And the Security Council will be just an instrument to implement the decisions taken by the General Assembly. It will be the parliament of the world and the legislative assembly of the world, and this is democracy, and the Security Council should be responsible before the General Assembly, and we should not accept it.

These are the legislators which are the members of the General Assembly and the resolution should be binding. It is said that the General Assembly should do this and this at the recommendation of the Security Council. The Security Council should do this and that according to the rules and the orders of the United Nations.

These are the United Nations, are including all the members of the world, not the Security Council, which include only 10 member states. How can we be happy about the world peace and security if the four countries or 10 countries are controlled by the whole world?

We are 190 nations and countries, and we are like the (inaudible). I mean, we just speak and nobody is implementing our decisions. We are just like decor.

You are made like decor. You are like a Hyde Park. You were — I mean, without any real substance. It’s just according to speaker like the speakers of the Hyde Park corner. No more, no less. You just make a speech and then disappear. This is who you are right now.

The Security Council is an executive body for the resolution taken by the General Assembly only. And in this case, there will be no competition for the Security Council member states, because once the Security Council becomes a tool to implement the resolution taken by the General Assembly, there will be no need for any competition.

The Security Council should just be a representative for all nations, but not by a state — this is what is submitted now to the General Assembly — but a permanent seat for all space, for all union, I mean. Twenty-seven countries for European Union. They should have a permanent seat at the Security Council.

The African Union should have a member seat in the Security Council, 53 countries. And Latin Americans should have a permanent seat and the (inaudible) should have a permanent seat. And the (inaudible), plus two or countries, should have a permanent seat. The Russian federation should have a permanent seat.

The United States of America, which is 50 states, it has already a permanent member seat at the Security Council. (inaudible), once it is established — or is about to be established — should have a member state. (inaudible) should have a member seat, 22 countries.

The Islamic Conference, 45 countries, should have also a member seat. Then (inaudible) should have a permanent member seat in the Security Council.

Then we have the G-100. Then we think about that perhaps all small countries, the forum (ph) of small countries, perhaps they would have a permanent member seat also. If there are countries outside of the (inaudible) that I mentioned, maybe we can assign a permanent seat will be given to them by rotation every six months. Japan, Australia, may be outside any union, or Australia, or in other countries.

Perhaps they would not join the (inaudible) or the Russian Federation, or not a member in the European Union or the Latin American Union, or in the African Union. Perhaps any country will be given — this is the solution, that now this is meant for a vote for the Security Council — for the General Assembly to take a vote.

This is a vital, important issue. And I mentioned, the General Assembly is the congress of the world, the parliament of the world, the master of the world, and no one should object. No one should — we are the nations. Anyone outside this General Assembly we do not recognize.

(inaudible) and Ban Ki-moon, his excellency, the secretary- general of the United Nations, will make the draft, the legal draft, and set up the necessary committees to submit this for voting. The Security Council from now will be made of unions.

This is justice. This is democracy. And then we put an end to the Security Council will be occupied by the countries — which one has nuclear weapons, which one has technology, one has technology.

This is terrorism. We cannot have the Security Council and the countries which have the superpowers. This is terrorism in itself.

If you went a world that lives in peace, united, we should do that. If we want a world, then it’s up to you. Then we have conflict, and then we should continue fighting each other, or conflict until doomsday or until the end of the world.

These members which have a veto or they don’t have a veto. All the Security Council, they should have the right of the veto. All of these unions belonging to the seats. Or we should cancel the whole veto with the new formation.

This is the real Security Council. And anyhow, the new Security Council that is submitted to the new proposals, submitted to the General Assembly for voting, will be an executive council which will be under the control of the General Assembly. The General Assembly, which will have the real power and the real (inaudible), like all countries will be equal in the Security Council in the same way they are equal in the General Assembly.

We are in the General Assembly. We have equal votes. We should also be equals next door, which is the Security Council.

A country has a veto, a country doesn’t have a veto, a country has a member seat, and then a country should not have a member seat, we should not accept it and it should be a mandate (ph) from now. And we should not be subjected to it, and we should not accept any resolution taken by the Security Council according to the composition right now.

We were (inaudible). We are independent. And now we are here to decide the future of the world in a democratic way that will maintain world and peace security. All people, small and big, are equals.

This is terrorism, like the terrorism of the Al Qaida. This is terrorism. Terrorism is not just Al Qaida, but it can be also in other forms.

We should resort to the maturity of the votes of the General Assembly alone, and we should not vote (ph). If the General Assembly takes a vote, then it should be implemented and should be taken, and taken into decision. And it should be enforced.

And no one should say I am above and higher than the General Assembly. Anyone who says that I’m higher than or above the General Assembly should leave the United Nations and be alone.

Democracy is not for the rich or for the — for the rich or for the one who terrorizes. So, for the one who is more powerful than us, (inaudible) democracy? No.

The higher (inaudible) should be their own nations at equal footing. Now the Security Council is security feudalism, political feudalism for those who have permanent seats protected by them. And they are used against us.

It should not be called the Security Council. It should be called the “Terror Council.”

You see, my brothers, that in our life, in our political life, that if the Security Council is used against us, then they go to the Security Council, they resort to the Security Council. If they have no need to use it against us, then they ignore the Security Council.

If the charter — they have interests, an ax to grind to use against us, they respect the charter. They look for the seven chapters of the Security — charter (inaudible). But if they want to violate the charter, they would ignore the charter as if it doesn’t exist at all.

If the veto on the permanent seat is given to the one who has the power is injustice and terrorism that will not be accepted by us, and we should not live under the shadow of this injustice and this terror. Superpowers have interests, complicating (ph) interests, and they use the interests, they use the (inaudible), they use the power of the United Nations to protect their interests. And these terrorized and intimidated the Third World. The Third World is terrified and being terrorized and living under the fear of terror.

The Security Council ever since it was established in ‘49 did not provide us with security, but provided us, on the contrary, terror and sanctions. It is used against us only. For this reason, we are not committed to adhere to the Security Council resolutions after this speech of the fortieth anniversary.

Sixty-four wars took place — broke out against the war (ph) — against the world, against small (inaudible). That it is fighting between small countries or aggression in wars against — by superpowers against countries, big countries against us. And United Nations or the Security Council did not take any actions to stop these wars and aggressions in violation of the charter of the United Nations against small nations and small peoples. And the General Assembly will vote for these historic resolutions.

Either we continue together in one nations or we go into — break into two equal nations, have its own general assembly, its own security council belonging to it, where they have equal footing, standing on equal footing or — and the big countries who have the permanent seats, who have their rights, will stay in their own councils, whether there are four or three, as they wish (inaudible).

And they should exercise veto against themselves, and this is not of our interest.

And if they want to stay in permanent seats, OK, that’s OK, but permanent is a threat for (inaudible) but we shall never stay under the supervision or the control of the veto and the right of veto to given countries. We are not (inaudible) to give — we are not fool to give the right of a veto to big powers to use us, and we are treated like second class and like despised nations. We have not decided that these are big nations, (inaudible) nations, respected nations. These are the nations of the world which represent 190 countries.

We know that now ignoring the resolutions of the Security Council is now — though it is unjust, and it is only used against us. It is not used against the big countries who have the permanent seats or those countries who have the right of veto. They never use any resolution against them. In the country, it is used against us.

So, any resolutions taken against us, it has become a travesty of the United Nations, and it has become wars and violations of independent states authorities (ph) and committing war crimes and genocides. And these are all in violation of the Security Council, even though there is a Security Council, and nobody cares about the Security Council and even though now each now, each country has — each (inaudible) community have become security councils, establishing its own security councils and with the security councils in its own formation.

Now it has — the Security Council (inaudible) has become isolated. The African Union has already established MASS (ph), which is the peace and security for Africa, and the European Union has already established the security council. The (inaudible) already establishing its own security councils. America will have its own concerns, non-alignment (ph). One hundred twenty countries will have its own peace and security council.

This means that we have already lost the trust in the Security Council, which have not provided us with security. And now that’s why we are creating regional peace securities or regional security councils. We are not committed to obey the rules or the resolutions of the security councils in this formation because it is undemocratic, unjust, and no one can force us to be a member of the security councils and to obey or adhere to resolutions or all of this given by Security Council in its composition as it is right now.

Now, brothers, there is no respect to the United Nations. No regard to the General Assembly, which constitutes (ph) actually the real substantive (inaudible), and which — it has no decisions that is abiding. The International Court of Justice, it is a judicial international body, and resolutions only implemented against the small countries, the small nations. And big countries are rejected to be implemented against the big countries. There are resolutions or court orders taken against these big countries, but they have been refused to be implemented against them.

The International — the IAEA (ph), an important one in the United Nations, are not — big countries are not responsible for it, or are not under control. And we have discovered that this is only used against us. It is a (inaudible) against us. You told us, this is an international one, so if it is an international one, then all the countries of the world should be under jurisdictions of this one. If it’s not international, then we close the door and arrive from this now, from this speech, we shall close the door, and we should not accept it.

And adopt a (inaudible) president of the General Assembly. He will talk to the director of the — Baradei (ph) or the (inaudible). They will ask him, do you inspect the nuclear supplies of all? Do you supervise the increase of this nuclear storage? Then if he says, yes, then OK, then we accept that we’ll be under control. But if he says that we cannot go to these countries who have the nuclear powers, and I cannot have any jurisdiction, then we should close the door, and we not accept it to be under its control.

For your information, I told Baradei when we had the problem (inaudible) nuclear bomb, and predecessor, I called them and I told them, Mr. Baradei, the agreements to increase — to decrease the nuclear supplies between the superpowers, is it under control? Is there any provisions that if it’s in a country increased its nuclear heads, are you aware of that? He said to me, no. These big powers I cannot go so close to it. I cannot ask them. I cannot — so, you’re only coming to us.

I said that this is not an international organization. So, it is meant only for us. Security Council’s against us. International — IAEA against us. International Court of Justice against us. And they are free. This is not injustice — this is not justice. This is not United Nations. This is rejected totally.

As regards Africa, Dr. (inaudible), if you want to reform — whether they reform the United Nations or not, and even before you take any historic decisions or vote against Africa, a need is now for now a permanent member seat in the Security Council because this is (inaudible). Even if we are not talking about the United Nations reform, Africa was colonized, was isolated, was persecuted, was usurped (ph), was treated like animals, was treated like slaves, was treated colonies, was colonized, was put under the trusteeship.

These countries, the African Union deserves a permanent seat for the past. It’s an outstanding bill to be paid, like (inaudible). And it has nothing to do with the United Nation reforms. This is a priority and high on the agenda for the General Assembly, and no one can say that the African Union does not deserve a permanent seat.

Who has the argument? Anyone can talk to me even right now or argue with me. Any proof that the African Union does not deserve a permanent seat or that the African continent does not deserve a permanent seat. No one can argue, or no one can refute what I am saying.

It is also for voting for the General Assembly for compensation to countries who were colonized. And why? So that no more repetition of colonizations and no more usurpation and stealing of the wealth of the people.

And why the Africans should go to Europe? Why do Africans go to Europe? Why do Asians go to Europe? Why do Latin American people go to Europe? Because Europe was colonized by — they took the mines (ph), the wealth, all the resources of Africa, of Asia, of Latin America. And they took all the oil, the fruit, the vegetables and the stock and the people, and they used them.

Now, the new generation, the African generations whether it is Asian, whether it is Latin America or it is in Africa, now they are looking for these ones which have been usurped and stolen. Now, when I stop one African (inaudible) going to Europe (inaudible), I told them where are you going? They told me, I’m going to take my usurped wealth. If you bring my reserved wealth, then I don’t go. I stop.

Who can bring back the wealth that was taken to me? Make a decision to bring all these resources and wealth so that no more immigration from the Philippines to Latin America, to Mauritius, to India. Let us have the wealth that was taken from us and looted from us. Africa deserves compensation — trillion $7.7, $7.77 trillion.

That’s the compensation Africa deserves from the countries who colonized Africa. Africa will call for that.

And if you don’t give us this amount, 7.77, the Africans will go to where you have taken these trillions. They have the right. They have to follow. Bring the money back. And then they can be (inaudible).

No Libyan immigration to Italy, even though Libya’s so (inaudible). Why there is no Libyan immigration to Italy? Because Italy (inaudible) compensation for the Libyan people (inaudible) and accepted the compensations and signed the (inaudible), a treaty, an agreement with the Italian — with Libyan, and it was endorsed by the Italian parliament, and accepted that the colonization was wrong, and we should not be repeated again.

And Italy would not accept to be attacked whether by air, sea against the Libyan people and that Libya will compensate for the next 20 years, will pay a quarter of billions and will build hospitals for the Libyans who are lost their members of their hands or their fingers because of the mines during the Second World War when the mines were laid upon the Libyan land.

Italy made apology and was sorry and said that it will never be a country — will occupy other country, the territories of other countries. And it was — Italy when it was a kingdom and it was Italy during the fascist regime. And Italy has done a glorified thing and a civilized thing and should be commended during the Berlusconi and even the predecessor to Berlusconi did their own contribution until we achieved this result.

The Third World calls for compensation, why? So that we don’t have any more colonizations, so we don’t have a repeat of colonizations. And so that no country will be big and will covet (ph) to colonize another country. So that this country will know that there will be compensation, and will not go on (inaudible). Colonization should be eliminated, and countries should pay compensations who have done damage to the peoples during the colonization area, and they should be compensated for the damage and the suffering that they have inflicted during their colonial power.

The other point I would hope that we have to face patiently — but before I say this point, it’s is rather sensitive to a certain extent. There are sentences between two brackets I would like to shed some light upon and mention. We as a matter of fact that we Africans are happy, proud, that one son of Africans governs the United States of America, of Africa. This is a historic event. One day that the black doesn’t go where the white go and cannot be in a bus where the white is. Now, the American people, the black African Kenyan, young — voted for him and made him a president. This is a great thing, and we are proud of that.

You are the beginning of a change. He did go for a change. But as far as I’m concerned, Obama is a glimpse in the dark for the four years or the next eight years, and I’m afraid that we may go back to square one. How can you guarantee America after Obama? Can you guarantee after Obama how America will be governed?

No one can guarantee America. We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as the president of the United States of America.

The speech made by Obama just before me, it is completely different when (ph) an American president that we have witnessed or that we have lived with or — the former Americans, they used to say, and I quote, they say, “We shall send you the — all the weapons. We shall send you the road clusters and the sandstorms and the rolling thunder, and we shall send you the poisonous roses to the Libyan children.”

This was the logic. The American presidents used to say to us, they shall terrorize us. We shall send you the like rolling thunder like the one was sent to Vietnam. We shall send you rolling thunder the same way that was sent to Vietnam, and the sandstorm like it was sent to Iraq.

We shall send you — the night (ph) as it was sent to Egypt in ‘56 even though America was against the night operations. And we shall send you the poisonous rose that Reagan sent to the Libyan children. Can you imagine the president of a permanent country, a big country has a permanent seat at the Security Council, has a right to veto? We thought that America will protect us and send us peace.

What is it? These are lesser-guided bombs sent to us according to the — carried on the F-1 airplanes. This was the logic. And we shall lead the world, and we shall punish anyone who — anyone whether they like it or not. We shall punish anyone who will be against us. Now, what our son Obama said is completely different today. He’s calling for the — seriously, for discardment (ph) or the deproliferation (ph) of nuclear weapons, and we should applaud that. America cannot solve the problem alone, and the whole world should come together.

And he said that the position we are at now, we should not continue. Now we are meet (ph) and making a speech it should not be like that. We accept it. We applaud it. And then the United Nations also we come here to United Nations to talk against each other. It’s true that we come here, we should have equal footing and equal unions and equal associations, and he says that democracy we should not be imposed from outside.

So, the reason there is the American president who recently says that we should impose democracy against Iraq and against so on, so on, so on. He did say that this is an (inaudible) of everybody. This was lost (ph) words, and what we hear right now is the true sense of the word when he said that democracy cannot be imposed from outside.

So, we have to be cautious, and before I just say my sensitive remark or the whole — the whole world has so many problems (ph).

Shh, whole world, shh, listen, listen. World of so many problems (ph). Should be like that, should we have so many problems (ph)? Can’t we nations on equal footing? Can’t we — let’s have an answer.

Anyone have an answer that it is better to have a world of so many polarities? Why can’t we have equal standing? Should we have a patriarch (ph)? Should we have bombs? Should we have guns? Is it — and this is — why should we have a world of so many polarity?

We reject — we accept — we don’t — we do not accept that a world living not equal, big and small. The other point that is sensitive, the quarters of the United Nations. Please, can I have your attention? Please, can I have your attention?

All of you came across the Atlantic, crossing the Atlantic oceans, the Asian continent or the African continent to reach this place. Why? Is this the Jerusalem? Is this the Vatican? Is this Mecca? All of you are tired, having jet lag, suffering from jet lag, tired, had sleepless night, and very tired and physically speaking, you are very low. One just arrived now, flying 20 hours, and then you 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 the energy because of having to travel a long journey. Why do that? Your country now, some of our countries are in nighttime, and they are asleep, and now you should be asleep because your biological hour or your biological mind is accustomed to be asleep at this time. I wake up 4:00 at New York time, before dawn, because in Libya it is 11:00 in the morning.

Because when I wake up at 11:00, I am supposed to be daytime. At 4:00 I’m awake. Why do you think? Why do you think, why? Think about it. If this was put in ‘45, should we keep it up to now? Why can’t we think about a place that is in the — comfortable?

The other point, America, the hosting country, that bears the consequences — the expenses and the looking after the headquarters and the looking after the peace and security of heads of state who come here, very strict, and they spend a lot of money and New York and all of America being very tired. I want to relieve America from this hardship. We should thank America, and we say to America, thank you for all the trouble that incurred upon itself. And we say thank you to America. We want to help America. We want to make America secure and New York secure, and we should not have the responsibility of looking after the security.

Perhaps somebody would do — any terrorists will make an explosion or a bomb of an aircraft or a president or an American, and then this place is a target by — targeted by the Al Qaida. This very same place, the same building. And if it was — and why? Because on the 11th of September, it did not hit it. That was beyond their power.

And the next target, that would be — and I’m not saying this out of the record that we have tens of members of Al Qaida being detained in the Libyan prisons and (inaudible), very scary. And this makes America lives in — under tension, and perhaps you never know what will happen.

Perhaps America will be targeted again by a rocket, or by perhaps tens of heads of state will die.

We want America, to relieve America from this worry, and we shall take the place to a place where it is not targeted. Now, after 50 years, should be taken to another part of the hemisphere. Fifty years in the western hemisphere. Now for the next 50 years should be in the eastern hemisphere or in the middle hemisphere, like this by rotation. Now 64 years now, now we have extra 14 years over the 50 years that the quarters should have been taken from this.

This is not any insult to America. This is a service to America. We should thank America. This was possible in 1945, but we should not accept it now. And, of course, this is also put for vote in the General Assembly. Only in the General Assembly, because Article 23 of the — of the agreement 64, it says that — (inaudible).

After the America has the right to make any tight securities because America is targeted by the terrorists and by Al Qaida. America has the right to be — to take all the security measures. We’re not blaming America for that. But we don’t tolerate these measures. We don’t have to come to New York. And we don’t have to be submitted to all these measures. One president told me that your copilot should not come to America because there is restrictions. He said, how can I come — how can I cross the Atlantic without a copilot? Why, why? He doesn’t have to. He doesn’t have to come here.

When another president complained that his guard cannot — his honor guard cannot come because there is some misunderstanding in his name and granting him a visa. He came — one other president came and said, my own doctor, he couldn’t get a visa, and he could not come to America because he was not granted an entry visa. You see, the security measures very strict.

And, of course, if there is any problem that a country has with America, then they will put restrictions for the movement of the member delegations like in Guantanamo. Is this a member state of the United Nations or he is a prisoner in the Guantanamo camp that he cannot allow free movement?

So, this is what is submitted for voting for the United — for the General Assemblies. The transformation or the moving of the headquarters. If 51 percent say, then we come to the second vote. To the middle of the globe or to the eastern part of the globe. If we say that we have to take the headquarters, then certain — the place is (inaudible). Whether the middle — whether the center hemisphere. Why don’t we go to (inaudible). If you go to 1,000 (inaudible), and no one can blame you? And no — you can come even without a visa.

Once you come with a president, it’s a secure country (ph).

We are not going to restrict you to 100 or 500 meters, and Libya has no hostile actions against anybody. And again, I think we’ll be in the same positions. And if the vote, it say that we shall have to take the vote to the eastern part, then it will be Delhi or Beijing in China, the capital of China or the capital city of India.

And this is logic, I believe, my brothers. And I don’t think there will be any objection to that. And then you will play — you will say that thank — you will thank me for this proposal for eliminating the suffering and the trouble of flying over 20 hours and 15 hours to come to this place, and no one can blame America, can say that America will reduce its contribution to the United Nations.

No, nobody should have this bad thought.

America, I’m sure, will be committed to its international obligations, and America will not be angry, and America will thank you for alleviating the hardship of America. And America should thank us for taking all the hardship and all the restrictions for the — this, plus — even though this place is targeted by terrorists. Then we come to the — we come to the issues that will be taken by the General Assembly.

Either we have to try ourselves. Either we do the right thing, or whether we have a new meeting. This is not a normal meeting. This is not a normal gathering.

This is — even my son, Obama said that. He said that this is a historical one. This is not a normal gathering. This is not a normal one.

Now, the wars that took place after the establishment of the Second World War, why did it happen? Where was the Security Council? Where was the charter? Where was the United Nations?

There should be investigations, and there should be court orders. And why there was massacres? We start with the Korean War.

This was taken after the establishment of the United Nations.

How a war broke out and millions of people fell victims, and perhaps there was even a nuclear — a nuclear — the world was about — the world was about to witness a nuclear war. And those who are responsible, and those who caused the war should be tried and should pay the consequence.

Then we come to the Suez Canal war in 1956. The file should be opened. Why three countries who have permanent seats in the Security Councils enjoyed the right, the veto of the Security Council’s attack, a member state in this General Assembly?

A country that is Egypt in this case, that was a sovereign state, was attacked and the army was destroyed. And thousands of Egyptian people were killed, and towns, villages were destroyed.

How could such a thing happen during the era of the United Nations? And how can we guarantee that such a thing will not be repeated unless we redeem the past?

And this is a very dangerous thing. The Suez Canal war, the Korean War, we should open the files.

And then we come to the Vietnam War. Three million victims of the Vietnam War. During 11 days, bombs were used more than the bombs used during the whole war. And during the Second World War, all the shells and the bombs that were used, or bombed during the four years of the war, the bombs that were used in the 12 days were more than.

This was a fierce war. And this war took place after the establishment of the United Nations. And we decided that there would be no wars.

This is the future of the mankind, and we cannot keep quiet. How can we be — how can we be safe? How can we feel accomplished? How can we feel complacent, I mean. This is the future of the world and this is the General Assembly of the world, and we have to make sure that such wars will not be repeated in the future.

Then Panama was attacked, even though it was an independent state, a member state of the General Assembly, of the United Nations. And 4,000 peoples were killed, and the president of this country was taken as a prisoner and was taken — put in prison.

And Noriega should be released, and we should open the file. And how we give the right to a country that is a member state of the United Nations to go and wage a war against a country and take the president of such a country and take him as a criminal and put him in prison? Who would accept that?

This may be repeated. And we should not be quiet, and we should make investigations, and we should — each one of us may face the same destiny. Each member state of us may face the same, especially if this aggression is made by a member state that is — has a member seat in the Security Council and supposed to look and maintain the world peace security.

Then we have the Grenada war. This country was attacked, was invaded even though it was a member state, by 7,000 — 5,000 warships and using 7,000 troops. It is the smallest country in the world.

And after the establishment of the Security Council, after the establishment of the United Nations, and the (inaudible). And the president of this country, Maurice Bishop, was assassinated. How this can be done with impunity? This is a tragedy.

And then how can we guarantee that the United Nations is good or not, that the Security Council is good enough? Can we be safe and happy about our future or not? Can we trust the Security Council or not? Can we trust the United Nations or not?

Then we have to check and investigate the bombing of Somalia.

Somalia was a member state of the United Nations. It is an independent country. And (inaudible).

Why? Who allowed that? Who gave the green light for such a country to attack — to be attacked?

Then the Yugoslav war. No country that is peaceful country like Yugoslavia, that was built — that was built step by step, piece by piece, after it was destroyed by Hitler. We destroy it as if we are doing the same job like Hitler.

Hitler — after the death of Tito — and he built this country step by step and brick by brick, and then we come and dismember it for imperialist personal interests. How can we be satisfied? How can we be happy? If a peaceful country like Yugoslavia faced this tragedy, the General Assembly should make investigations and the General Assembly should decide who should be tried for the (inaudible).

Then we come to the Iraqi war, the mother of all evils. The United Nations also should investigate.

The General Assembly presided by (inaudible) should be investigated by the General Assembly, the invasion of Iraq itself. This was in violation of the United Nations charter without any justifications made by several countries who have member seats in the Security Council.

Iraq is an independent country, member in this General Assembly. How this country is attacked and how this country — how we have already read in the general — in the — in the charter that the United Nations should have interfered and stopped.

We have come to General Assembly, and we have resorted to the General Assembly. We said that we should go to the General Assembly and use the charter for the checking (ph). We were against this invasion of Kuwait, but Arab countries fought with foreign countries in the name of the General Assembly with foreign countries.In the first place, the U.N. charter was respected. And the second time we wanted to use to it stop the war against Iraq, no one used the U.N. charter. And it was discarded in the dustbin.

Why? General Assembly should investigate. Why? Why there was any reason to invade Iraq? Because it is mysterious, ambiguous, and we may face the same destiny. Why did we invade Iraq?

The invasion in itself is a serious violation of the U.N. charter. I mean, the invasion itself, per se, is wrong. Then the total massacre, or the genocide. More than 1.5 million Iraqi people were killed.

We want the — we want to take this file and we want to — those who have committed the general mass murder against the Iraqi people should be tried. Yes.

Make it easy for (inaudible) to go to be tried, or Bashir to be tried. Or it is easy for (inaudible) to be tried, or Noriega to be tried. That is an easy job to be done.

OK. What about those who have committed mass murder against Iraqis? Cannot be tried? Cannot go to the — we should not accept it. Either it is meant for all of us, big or small, or we should not accept it and refuse it.

If anyone who commits a crime and can be tried, we are not animals in the livestock, or in — that we slaughter — we have the right. We are ready to fight. We are ready to defend ourselves. And we have the right to live dignified under the sun, on the Earth, and they have already tested us, and we can put up to test.

The other thing, how come that prisoners of war of Iraq can be sentenced to death? Then when Iraq was invaded and the president of the Iraqi war was caught, it was made as a prisoner of war. He should not be tried. He should not be hanged. And after the end of war, he should be released.

So, we want to know why the prisoner of war have been tried or should have been tried. Who sentenced to death the president of Iraq? Is there an answer to that?

We know who tried — who tried him, the name of the judge, the identity of the judge. Who put on the sacrifice day the rope around the neck and killed — or hanged the president? People we don’t know, they have a mask over their face.

If this is a civilized war, these are prisoners of war under civilized countries, under the international law. How a member of a government and the president of a country should be sentenced to death and hanged, do they have the right? Are they legal people? Are they a member of a judicial system?

Do you know what other people say — or what the people say? People say that the American president and the president — the British president are wearing the masks, and they have already put to death the president of Iraq.

This is — why don’t they uncover their face? Why don’t we know their ranks? Why don’t we know, is he an officer or a judge, a doctor?

Who is he? How come a president of a country, a member state, is sentenced to death and killed? We don’t know the identity.

Those countries, the implementation — the United Nations has the duty to answer these questions. Who have exercised or implemented the death sentence? Those foreigners, they should have the legal status (ph), and they should have the legal status (ph), and we should know the identity of the presence of the doctor, and all the legal procedures should be, even for a layman, let alone as the president of a country, a member state in the United Nations to be sentenced in such a way and put to death in such a way.

This is the Iraqi war.

Point number three in the Iraqi war is the Abu Ghraib situation, which is a disgrace to mankind. I know America made the investigations for this scandal, or the authorities under the Americans, but the United Nations also should not forget it. The United Nations should — the General Assembly of the United Nations should investigate and look into this matter.

The Abu Ghraib decisions, the prisoners of war who were prosecuted there and who were badly treated, and dogs were used on them, and men were made love to. And no one has done this before in previous wars, sodomy, and this is unprecedented. No one — no previous aggressions, or no — or aggressors and prisoners of war, there are — there are soldiers, and they are raped in prisons.

Then by a member state of the Security Council, this Security Council, this is against civilization. And this is a humane kind, and we should not keep quiet. We should know the facts.

And up to now, a quarter of a million prisoners are still — men and women are in Abu Ghraib. They are badly treated and persecuted and raped. We should never forget, and we should open an investigation for that.

Then Afghanistan. Then we have the Afghani war.

There should also be an investigation for the Afghani war. Why are we against Taliban? Why are we against Afghanistan? Who’s Taliban?

If Taliban wants to make a religious state, OK, like the Vatican.