Archives: Articles

By Global Times

Editor’s Note:
During the past decade, the world has increasingly witnessed a trend of “the East is rising and the West is declining” in the spheres of economy, security and discourse power. Western countries, particularly the US, plagued by their internal woes, have sought the old path of passing the buck and instigating turmoil elsewhere to ease their own pressure. China, representative of the emerging countries, is proposing new solutions to global problems. By advocating win-win development, facilitating consultation and reconciliation and proposing a balanced and effective security mechanism, China is striving to build a community with a shared future for mankind.

In the 16th piece of the series, Jeffrey Sachs (Sachs), director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, told Global Times (GT) reporter Yu Jincui that the Global Development Initiative, proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping, is a powerful call for cooperation and is very helpful for building an open international cooperative system.

GT: You have visited China many times. How do you comment on China’s development in the past 10 years? What impressed you most and why?

Sachs: I’ve seen China change since my first visit in 1981. This has been more than 40 years, and China’s continuing progress is absolutely remarkable. China went from a country that was filled with poverty to a remarkably prosperous country. And I always so much have benefited from seeing this remarkable progress and also learning from how China succeeded, because the lessons from China are very relevant for other regions of the world, such as Africa today which is still witnessing great poverty, but also has tremendous potential based on the kinds of strategies that China used.

Regarding China’s development in the past 10 years, China has moved from being a prosperous manufacturing country a decade ago to becoming a cutting-edge global technology leader. This is of course a major step. China is also becoming a leader in a wide range of environmentally sustainable technologies. The shift to sustainability is crucial for China and for the world.

GT: China has eliminated absolute poverty. You once said it’s one of the most remarkable economic achievements in human history. Why did you give so much credit to it? What can other countries learn from China in terms of poverty reduction?

Sachs: China showed that it is possible to go from pervasive absolute poverty to the end of poverty in 40 years, from 1980 to 2020. This is not only a wonderful and remarkable accomplishment, but also a road map for Africa and other places still facing extreme poverty. The key to China’s success was high rates of investment in human capital (health and education), infrastructure (power, transport, digital), and business capital. The combination of long-term planning and market forces was essential, as was China’s opening-up to the world.

We know that in the 1970s and indeed, at the time of China’s opening-up in the late 1970s, most people in China lived in rural areas in great poverty. The estimates vary, but by some accounts, the rate of extreme poverty was more than 60 percent of the population, even up to 80 percent by some measures. By 2020, this extreme poverty has been eliminated. I saw that with my own eyes, because at various times, government ministries invited me to join groups to visit different parts of China so that I could help make an assessment or give recommendations. And I visited some of the poorest areas of China on several occasions during the past quarter century.

But even for those who were poor in China, I saw their living standards were rising. This was accomplished by a combination of measures, especially investment in people that is in education, healthcare, improving nutrition, investment, infrastructure, especially in transport, in power, in building new industrial zones, so that production and trade could take place efficiently, of course in a lot of hard work, because Chinese people worked very hard and very long hours for many decades, also in very high saving rates, so the Chinese people saved for the future. This allowed for these big investments to take hold.

So China demonstrated that a high level of investment in people and infrastructure would also attract a tremendous amount of business investment and entrepreneurship as well. China opened the economy to international trade and became the most important trading country in the world during this period and a great manufacturing economy.

So this is the kind of road map based on a large-scale forward-looking investment that I think is very relevant for other regions. I tell leaders in Africa to look at China’s experience. It’s possible in the course of two generations to go from a very poor country to a very prosperous country with no poverty.

GT: There are many discussions over China’s economic development and prospect. How do you see the prospect of China’s future development? Are you optimistic?

Sachs: I am optimistic. China should continue the path of educational excellence, high investments in research and development, and continue outreach to the developing nations through the Belt and Road Initiative.

I think the key that is occurring in China now is China’s increasing development and innovation of cutting-edge technology. For a long time, during the past 40 years, China was a great workshop, a great manufacturing economy, with the skilled workers and using technologies largely from the West, actually. But then starting roughly 15 years ago, China’s innovative capacity rose significantly. Now, you see in any weekly issue of a leading science journal worldwide, many articles coming from China. So is a tremendous amount of cutting-edge science and cutting-edge technology. And China has committed to developing technologies in the crucial sectors of sustainability. For example, electric vehicles and photovoltaics, renewable energy, long-distance energy transmission, 5G that enables smart grids and the so-called Internet of Things, a precision agriculture, new material sciences.

These are several of the areas where China is devoting a lot of basic research and development and a lot of business development with business innovation. I think that this is really the key, because with China’s innovation, the country will continue to be a world leader in industry, in manufacturing, in a range of services, including new digital services. It will be a key leader in the sustainability transformation. We know we cannot go on producing in the old ways; we can’t have a coal-based energy system worldwide; we can’t depend on fossil fuels the way that we did in the past, because the climate change will wreck the planet. So China, fortunately, is moving quickly to the zero-carbon energy systems and will be a leader in that. I’m sure China’s technologies will help other countries to do the same.

GT: Many Chinese people once wanted China to copy the US path of development, but instead of doing that, China insisted on taking its own path. If China had completely followed the US one, what will it mean for today’s world?

Sachs: No countries should completely follow any other country’s models because the circumstances, the culture, the history are different in the different places. And China, as a huge civilization, an enormous economy, an enormous population, is of course following a system with Chinese characteristics, as you said. And this is a mixed economy with a significant state sector, a significant private sector, and a significant effort at industrial policy for innovation and continuing technological development. It’s a very distinctive model. It is China’s own. But I think that it gives lots of indications for how other countries, especially those that are poor and trying to catch up rapidly, can make advances.
Now China will become a leader of innovation. And as I say, I very much hope and count on China becoming a leader for innovation in sustainability.

The US model has unfortunately become dysfunctional in recent decades. Inequality has soared, educational quality is mediocre for a large part of the society, and the energy transformation has been paralyzed because of vested interests in fossil fuels. Moreover, the US is turning inward and protectionist even in business and investment, which is also unfortunate for America’s long-term future and for the rest of the world.

In fact, all countries – including China – will need to invent a new economic system that is supportive of sustainable development, common prosperity, a high quality of life, the digital economy, and global cooperation. China, I am glad to say, is actively pursuing these various dimensions of an innovative economic system.

GT: How do you comment on the Global Development Initiative (GDI) proposed by President Xi Jinping?

Sachs: The GDI or the Global Development Initiative that President Xi launched and discussed at the United Nations is very important. The GDI says that China wants to cooperate with all the rest of the world, and especially with the developing countries to promote global, sustainable development and the sustainable development goals (SDGs). It is a powerful call for cooperation, and countries around the world have responded very positively to it.

I really appreciate China’s commitment to the SDGs and the GDI. We know that we are not currently on a course for most of the developing countries to achieve the SDGs. We need increased financing, increased focus, more cooperation globally, an end to the war in Ukraine and an end to the sanctions regime. We need an open international cooperative system. GDI is very helpful for that, but now we need to make sure that we stop this conflict in Ukraine through a negotiated peace agreement.

We need to stop the harsh confrontation between the US and China so that the two countries can cooperate. The China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative and ideas in the US for development finance initiatives could work together, and by cooperating together, we can really accelerate the progress of poor countries to sustainable development. This is the direction that I very much hope that we follow. And GDI is a very, very constructive approach toward building the kind of future we want.

9 October 2022

Source: www.globaltimes.cn

By Dr Ramzy Baroud

Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid threw a wrench into the works when he declared from the United Nations General Assembly podium: “An agreement with the Palestinians, based on two states for two peoples, is the right thing for Israel’s security, for Israel’s economy and for the future of our children.”

The statement took many by surprise, including the Palestinian leadership.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has been addressing the UNGA every September, every year, recycling the same speech about how he has fulfilled his commitments to peace and that it is Israel that needs to engage in serious negotiations toward a two-state solution.

This time, too, Abbas did his part as expected. In his latest speech, he referred to Israel’s “total impunity” and “premeditated and deliberate policies” aimed at “destroying the two-state solution”.

Lapid, like Naftali Bennet and Benjamin Netanyahu before him, was also expected to stick to the script: accusing Palestinians of terrorism and incitement, reeling against the UN’s supposed ‘bias’, and making a case of why Israel should be more invested in its own security than in a Palestinian state.

Lapid, however, did not go that route. True, he regurgitated much of the typical Israeli discourse, accusing Palestinians of “firing rockets and missiles at our children”, and the like.  However, he also spoke, unexpectedly, about Israel’s desire to see a Palestinian state.

Hence, Lapid linked the theoretical Palestinian state on the condition it does not become “another terror base from which to threaten the well-being, and the very existence of Israel”.

Conditions aside, Lapid’s reference to a Palestinian state remains interesting and politically risky. Indeed, the majority of Israelis – 58 percent, according to the Israel Democracy Institute – do not support a Palestinian state. Since Israel is embarking on yet another general election – the fifth in less than four years – swimming against Israel’s dominant political current does not, initially, seem like a winning idea.

In fact, immediate condemnations of Lapid’s statement by Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked, indicate that Lapid’s UN comments will definitely be a contentious campaign issue in the coming weeks.

So, why did Lapid utter these words?

To begin with, Lapid is not serious about a Palestinian state.

Israeli leaders have used this line since the start of the so-called peace process as a way to demonstrate their willingness to engage in a political dialogue under the auspices of Washington, but without going any further. If anything, for 30 years, Tel Aviv – and Washington – waved the Palestinian state carrot before the Palestinian leadership to win time for illegal settlement expansion and to, ultimately, cite Palestinian supposed rejection, incitement and violence as real obstacles before the establishment of such a state.

Lapid’s language – on the Palestinian state becoming a “terror base” threatening “the very existence of Israel” – is entirely consistent with the typical Israeli discourse on this issue.

Moreover, Lapid aimed to upset the predictable routine at the UN, where Palestinians make their case, which is usually supported by most UN members, and where Israel goes on the defensive. By alluding to a Palestinian state – a day before Abbas made his appeal for Palestinian full UN membership – Lapid wanted to regain the initiative and appear a pro-active leader with a plan.

Though it may appear that Lapid’s statement was a bad political move within the context of the rightwing-dominated Israeli politics, this might not be the case. For years, the Left and Center in Israel have been embattled, as they appeared to have no answers to any of Israel’s external and internal problems.

Contrastingly, the Right, along with its growing alliances within the religious and ultra-nationalist camps, seemed to have the answer to everything: their answer to Palestinian demands for freedom and sovereignty was annexation. Their answer to Palestinian protests against home demolitions in occupied East Jerusalem is more home demolitions, mass-scale destruction, and widening the circle of expulsions.

Unable to stop the tidal wave of the Right, Israel’s nominally Left, like the Labor party, and Center, like Kahol Lavan, moved closer to the Right. After all, the latter’s ideas, though sinister and violent, are the only ones that seem to be gaining traction among Israeli voters.

Israel’s political dichotomy, however, grew larger, as expressed in the stalemates of four previous elections, starting in April 2019. The Right failed to manage stable coalitions, and the Left failed to catch up. Lapid and his Yesh Atid party hope to change all of this by presenting a potentially stable Center-Left coalition that can offer more than mere opposition to the Right’s ideas, visions and plans of their own.

Though a Palestinian state is hardly a popular idea among most Israelis, Lapid’s target audience is not just Israel’s Left, Center, and possibly Arab parties. Another target audience is the Biden Administration.

US President Joe Biden and his Democratic Party, which remains, at least verbally, committed to a two-state solution, are embarking on very difficult times ahead: the Mid-term November election, which could cost them dearly at the House and Senate, and the subsequent Presidential elections in 2024. Biden is keen to present his administration as that of military strength and a vision of peace and stability. Lapid’s words about a Palestinian state were meant to entice the US administration, which will likely engage with Lapid’s party, and possible coalition government in the future, as a ‘peacemaker’.

Finally, Lapid is aware of the impending transition in the Occupied Palestinian territories. As an armed Intifada is growing in the northern Occupied West Bank, PA leader Abbas, 87, will soon leave the scene. A potential successor, Hussein al-Sheikh, is particularly close to Israel’s security apparatus, thus completely mistrusted by most Palestinians.

The talk of a Palestinian state is, therefore, meant to give whomever is to follow Abbas, political leverage that would allow him to stave off an armed revolt and take Palestinians into another futile hunt in search of another political mirage.

It remains to be seen if Lapid’s strategy will pay dividends – whether it will cost him in the coming Israeli elections, or whether his words will evaporate into the dustbin of history, as did many such references by Israeli leaders in the past.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle.

6 October 2022

Source: countercurrents.org

October 7, 2001. Afghanistan is invaded under the doctrine of “self-defense”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

The legal argument used by Washington and NATO to invade Afghanistan was that the September 11 attacks constituted an undeclared “armed attack” “from abroad” by an unnamed foreign power, and that consequently “the laws of war” apply, allowing the nation under attack, to strike back in the name of “self-defense”.

Both the media and the US government, in chorus, continue to point to the 9/11 attacks and the role of Al Qaeda, allegedly supported by Afghanistan, when in fact (amply documented) Al Qaeda was an intelligence asset created by the CIA.

Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden had been recruited by National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski during the so-called Soviet-Afghan war.

The bombing and invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 was described as a “campaign” against “Islamic terrorists”, rather than a war.

To this date, however, there is no proof that Al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Even if one accepts the official 9/11 narrative, there is no evidence that Afghanistan as a Nation State was behind or in any way complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

The Afghan government in the weeks following 9/11, offered on two occasions through diplomatic channels to deliver Osama bin Laden to US Justice, if there were preliminary evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. These offers were casually refused by Washington.

Where was Osama on September 11, 2001?

To this date, Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, is identified in military documents and official statements of both the Bush and Obama administrations as the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

The Afghan government (the “Taliban regime” in official documents) is identified as supporting Al Qaeda and providing refuge to its leader Osama bin Laden inside Afghan territory in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

On September 10, 2001, according to a CBS news report, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He had been admitted to a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi. (CBS Evening News with Dan Rather;  CBS, 28 January 2002, See also Michel Chossudovsky, Where was Osama on September 11, 2001?, Global Research, 11 September 2008):

“DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR: As the United states and its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the United States September 11.

This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan (CBS, op cit, emphasis added)

9 11 Bin Laden At Rawalpindi Hospital September 10th 1 28 2002

Recovering from his hospital treatment in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, how could Osama have coordinated the 9/11 attacks?

How could Afghanistan be made responsible for these attacks by Al Qaeda?

Bin Laden is a national of Saudi Arabia who, according to CBS News, was not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan at the time of the attacks.

The Invasion of Afghanistan: NATO’s Doctrine of Collective Security

The legal argument used by Washington and NATO to invade Afghanistan was that the September 11 attacks constituted an undeclared “armed attack” “from abroad” by an unnamed foreign power, and that consequently “the laws of war” apply, allowing the nation under attack, to strike back in the name of “self-defense”.

The “Global War on Terrorism” was officially launched by the Bush administration on September 11, 2001. On the following morning (September 12, 2001), NATO’s North Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, adopted the following resolution:

“if it is determined that the [September 11, 2001] attack against the United States was directed from abroad [Afghanistan] against “The North Atlantic area“, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty”. (emphasis added)

In this regard, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty stipulates that if:

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” (NATO, What is Article 5,  NATO Topics – NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)

“Use of Armed Force” only “If It is Determined…”

There was an “if” in the September 12 resolution. Article 5 would apply only if it is determined that Afghanistan as a Nation State was complicit or behind the 9/11 attacks.

In practice, the “if” had already been waived prior to 9/11. The entire NATO arsenal was already on a war footing. In military terms, NATO and the US were already in an advanced state of readiness. Known to military analysts, but never revealed in the Western media, the implementation of a large scale theater war takes up to one year (or more) of advanced operational planning, prior to the launching of an invasion.

Moreover, there was evidence that the war on Afghanistan had been planned prior to 9/11.

The North Atlantic Council in Brussels responded almost immediately in the wake of the 9/11 attacks,  in the morning of September 12, 2001.

The use of article 5 of the Washington Treaty had in all likelihood been contemplated by military planners, as a pretext for waging war, prior to 9/11.

There was, however, no official declaration of war on September 12th. The Alliance waited until 3 days before the invasion to declare war on Afghanistan, an impoverished country which by no stretch of the imagination could have launched an attack against a member state of “The North Atlantic area”.

The September 12 resolution of the Atlantic Council required “determination” and corroborating evidence, that:

1) Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden with the support of a foreign power had ordered the “attack from abroad” on the United States of America;

2) The terrorist attacks of 9/11 constituted a bona fide military operation (under the provisions of Article 5) by an alleged foreign country (Afghanistan) against a NATO member state, and consequently against all NATO member states under the doctrine of collective security:

“Article 5 and the case of the terrorist attacks against the United States: The United States has been the object of brutal terrorist attacks. It immediately consulted with the other members of the Alliance. The Alliance determined that the US had been the object of an armed attack. The Alliance therefore agreed that if it was determined that this attack was directed from abroad, it would be regarded as covered by Article 5. NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance’s decision.

Article 5 has thus been invoked, but no determination has yet been made whether the attack against the United States was directed from abroad. If such a determination is made, each Ally will then consider what assistance it should provide. In practice, there will be consultations among the Allies. Any collective action by NATO will be decided by the North Atlantic Council. The United States can also carry out independent actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the UN Charter.

Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to the situation. This assistance is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. Each individual member determines how it will contribute and will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.

By invoking Article 5, NATO members have shown their solidarity toward the United States and condemned, in the strongest possible way, the terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September.

If the conditions are met for the application of Article 5, NATO Allies will decide how to assist the United States. (Many Allies have clearly offered emergency assistance). Each Ally is obliged to assist the United States by taking forward, individually and in concert with other Allies, such action as it deems necessary. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in these particular circumstances.

No collective action will be taken by NATO until further consultations are held and further decisions are made by the the North Atlantic Council. (NATO, NATO Topics – NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)

The Mysterious Frank Taylor Report

The final decision to invoke Article 5 in relation to the 9/11 attacks came three weeks later upon the submission to the NATO Council of a mysterious classified report by a US State Department official named Frank Taylor. The report was submitted to NATO on October 2nd, 5 days before the commencement of the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan.

Frank Taylor was working in the US State Department. He had been entrusted with the writing of a brief to establish whether the US “had been attacked from abroad”, pursuant to the North Atlantic Council’s resolution of September 12 2001.

US Ambassador at Large and Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism Frank Taylor briefed the North Atlantic Council on October 2nd, five days before the commencement of the bombings.

On October 2nd  he handed his brief to NATO “on the results of investigations into the 11 September attacks…. ” (NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009).

The classified report was not released to the media. And to this date, to our knowledge, it has remained classified.

NATO’s Secretary General Lord Robertson casually summarised the substance of the Frank Taylor report in a press release:

“This morning, the United States briefed the North Atlantic Council on the results of the investigation into who was responsible for the horrific terrorist attacks which took place on September 11.

The briefing was given by Ambassador Frank Taylor, the United States Department of State Coordinator for Counter-terrorism.

This morning’s briefing follows those offered by United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and illustrates the commitment of the United States to maintain close cooperation with Allies.

Today’s was classified briefing and so I cannot give you all the details.

Briefings are also being given directly by the United States to the Allies in their capitals.

The briefing addressed the events of September 11 themselves, the results of the investigation so far, what is known about Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida organisation and their involvement in the attacks and in previous terrorist activity, and the links between al-Qaida and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The facts are clear and compelling. The information presented points conclusively to an al-Qaida role in the September 11 attacks.

We know that the individuals who carried out these attacks were part of the world-wide terrorist network of al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and his key lieutenants and protected by the Taliban.

On the basis of this briefing, it has now been determined that the attack against the United States on September 11 was directed from abroad and shall therefore be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack on one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

I want to reiterate that the United States of America can rely on the full support of its 18 NATO Allies in the campaign against terrorism.”

(Lord Robertson, NATO Secretary General, statement to the NATO Council, State Department, Appendix H, Multinational Response to September 11 NATO Press

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10313.pdf, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)

In other words, on October 5, 2001, two days before the actual commencement of the bombing campaign on October 7, the North Atlantic Council decided, based on the information provided by Frank Taylor to the Council  “that the attacks were directed from abroad” by Al Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, thereby requiring an action on the part of NATO under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty ( NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009).

NATO action under article 5, was outlined in an October 4 decision, 3 days before the commencement of the bombings. This NATO decision implied eight measures in support the United States, which were tantamount to a declaration of war on Afghanistan:

to enhance intelligence sharing and co-operation, both bilaterally and in appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the threats posed by terrorism and the actions to be taken against it;

to provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate and according to their capabilities, [military] assistance to Allies and other states which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats as a result of their support for the campaign against terrorism;

to take necessary measures to provide increased security for facilities of the United States and other Allies on their territory;

to backfill selected Allied assets in NATO’s area of responsibility that are required to directly support operations against terrorism;

to provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other Allies’ aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national procedures, for military flights related to operations against terrorism; to provide access for the United States and other Allies to ports and airfields on the territory of NATO nations for operations against terrorism, including for refuelling, in accordance with national procedures;

that the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of its Standing Naval Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to provide a NATO presence and demonstrate resolve; and that the Alliance is similarly ready to deploy elements of its NATO Airborne Early Warning Force to support operations against terrorism. NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009 emphasis added)

Press reports of Frank Taylor’s brief to the NATO Council were scanty. The invocation of Article 5, five days before the bombings commenced, was barely mentioned. The media consensus was: “all roads lead to Bin Laden” as if bin Laden was a Nation State which had attacked America.

What stands out are outright lies and fabrications. Moreover, prior to October 2nd, NATO had no pretext under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty to intervene militarily in Afghanistan.

The justification was provided by Frank Taylor’s classified report, which was not made public.

The two UN Security Council resolutions adopted in the course of September 2001, did not, under any circumstances, provide a justification for the invasion and illegal occupation  of a UN member country. (See: Security Council resolution 1368 (2001) Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,  Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts).

UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001) called for prevention and suppression of terrorist acts, as well suppression of the financing of terrorism:

“(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;

…

“3. Calls upon all States to:

“(a) Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information, especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives or sensitive materials; use of communications technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups;

“(b) Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;

“(c) Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts;

…

“4. Notes with concern the close connection between international terrorism and transnational organized crime, illicit drugs, money-laundering, illegal arms-trafficking, and illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological and other potentially deadly materials, and in this regard emphasizes the need to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and international levels in order to strengthen a global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security;

“5. Declares that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations (excerpts of UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001, See also UN Press Release SC 7178 SECURITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTS WIDE-RANGING ANTI-TERRORISM RESOLUTION; CALLS FOR SUPPRESSING FINANCING, IMPROVING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, Security Council, 4385th Meeting, September 2001)

Nowhere in this resolution is there any mention of military action against a UN member State.

The War on Afghanistan Had been Planned Prior to 9/11

Known and documented, the war on Afghanistan had been  planned prior to 9/11. According to Jane Defense, India had been approached in March 2001 by US to participate in a US military operation against Afghanistan:

Insider accounts published in the British, French and Indian media have revealed that US officials threatened war against Afghanistan during the summer of 2001. These reports include the prediction, made in July, that “if the military action went ahead, it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.”

The Bush administration began its bombing strikes on the hapless, poverty-stricken country October 7, and ground attacks by US Special Forces began October 19. (see Patrick Martin, US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11, wsws.org, November 20, 2001)

According to statements of former foreign Secretary of Pakistan Niaz Naik, the US had already decided to wage war on Afghanistan prior to 9/11 ( BBC report published one week after the attacks, September 18, 2001)  ”

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Russian troops were on standby. …

The underlying objective according to Mr Naik, was to “topple the Taleban regime” and install a government  “possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.”

He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks.

Concluding Remarks: Twenty-one Years Later

Afghanistan did not attack America on September 11, 2001.

The war on Afghanistan was already on the Pentagon’s drawing board prior to 9/11.

The US led war on Afghanistan, using 9/11 as a pretext and a justification,  is illegal and criminal.

The US and NATO heads of state and heads of government from 2001 to the present are complicit in the launching of a criminal and illegal war.

Invoking article 5 of the Washington Treaty is an illegal and criminal procedure.  The (former) US and NATO heads of state and heads of government should be prosecuted for war crimes.

4 October 2022

Source: globalresearch.ca

By Bharat Dogra

On October 2 an increasingly divided and troubled world observes the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi (MG). This is a good time to reflect on the essence of some of his enduring messages.

Firstly, he said that economics should never be separated from ethics. In particular he gave a call for placing the poorer and weaker sections at the center of decision making and, in a statement that has been widely quoted since then, told policy makers that whenever they are confused regarding policy-choice, they should examine the question from the perspective of its impact on the poor and decide on the basis of what will most help/ empower the weak and the deprived. This thinking is also reflected in his views on mechanization and technology as he clearly declared, at the risk of being ridiculed, that in a country like India where so many people had been already unemployed by highly unjust colonial policies, he was prepared to emphasize protection of labor-intensive technologies in several lines of work (for example hand spinning and weaving), along with the special skills these involved, regardless of the easy availability of heavy machines for this work. He called upon consumers to support these hand-made goods and built up a huge market for these by his tireless efforts, a market which still exists, helped much by the linkage it has with the work and ideas of MG. In agriculture this thinking is reflected in his support for low-cost, self-reliant, organic, soil protecting methods which, as has been increasingly realized now, also help in climate change adaptation and mitigation.

This brings us to his essential message which is actually at the root of protecting environment, although MG had the wisdom to give this message even before the environmental crisis had become such a big issue. This message is of limiting human consumption, of voluntary simplicity in life style choices. MG continued to experiment with this in various experiments of community living. Once this voluntary frugality  is accepted as an ideal of daily life patterns and choice of food, clothing, housing, furnishing etc. is based on simplicity instead rather than greed, grandeur or ‘more and more’, this becomes a very important value that enhances humanity’s ability to live in sustainable ways without disrupting earth systems. People living this way have much less reason to be either discontented or dominating, excessively ambitious and careerist; they also get more time and space to devote to the higher aim of life of creating a better world.

Hence unlike the present-day highly reductionist thinking on environmental issues Mahatma Gandhi provided a holistic view based on the entire life pattern being simple and frugal, placing the least burden on nature. This, together with his ethical economics based on a deeply caring attitude towards weaker sections, provides for equality and simplicity to be the base of any society.

Equality and simplicity also provide very conducive conditions for peace and non-violence. MG saw non-violence as an all encompassing part of life, a way of thinking, which helps greatly to improve social relationships, to reduce widespread and very distressing problems like domestic violence, child abuse, bullying and identity-based violence. At the same time this helps to create a base for peace in world, which increases the chances of creating a world without wars and a war without the most terribly destructive weapons. Non-violence forms of opposing any injustice is something to which MG devoted his entire life.

Today we have a heavily demarcated way of thinking, researching and finding solutions and so we spend a lot of effort and resources for finding solutions separately of many problems with their roots in widespread tendencies of violence and dominance. MG’s thinking and worldview offer a different approach of a way of life rooted in non-dominance and non-violence, as well as self-training and training for this, which can reduce these painful social problems very significantly.

MG was able to mobilize millions of people for non-violent movements against injustices of colonial rule time and again. There were both successes to celebrate and mistakes to learn from in these struggles. What made the freedom movement successes bigger was the ability to add many constructive activities to these, and to prepare a wider base for more equality and justice based changes to follow. No less remarkable is the fact that the legacy of Gandhi lives on 74 years after his death in numerous big and small non-violent struggles for justice which are inspired by him and draw strength from him.

At a time when the world needs prolonged peace, stability and international cooperation to resolve unprecedented environmental problems which according to most senior scientists are already serious enough to endanger the basic life nurturing conditions of earth, we need more than ever before messages of healing which can help and guide us to seek deeper and more comprehensive as well as sustained solutions—beyond technological and short-term fixes—and the ideas and work of MG are particularly relevant and important in this context.

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Man over Machine, Planet in Peril and Protecting Earth for Children.

2 October 2022

Source: countercurrents.org

By John Scales Avery

I agree with Jan Oberg

Dr. Jan Oberg, Co-Founder and leader of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, wrote a really excellent article on the question of who sabotaged Nordstream  pipelines. In the article, he points out that Russia had no motive for sabotaging Nordstream pipelines. If the Russians had wanted to stop the flow of natural gas through the pipeline, they could have simply turned it off at the Russian end. Here is a link to Dr. Oberg’s fine article:

https://transnational.live/2022/09/29/jan-oberg-biden-and-nuland-promised-to-destroy-nordstream-before-the-russian-invasion/

and here is a link to other articles making the same point:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Biden+on+Nordstream+2+if+Russia+invades&t=ffab&atb=v327-1&ia=webd

Both Joe Biden and Victoria Newland said the US was going to do it

In February, 2022, both Joe Biden and his Under-Secretary of State, Victoria Newland, said that if Russia should invade Ukraine, there would be no Nordstram 2. Here is a link to some articles that make this point:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Biden+on+Nordstream+2+if+Russia+invades&t=ffab&atb=v327-1&ia=web

The United States had a motive

The United States had a motive for sabotaging Nordstream 2, namely to weaken Russia by reducing its income from the sale of natural gas. Washington’s aim throughout the Ukraine war has been to weaken Russia.

US interference with other countries

If the US is guilty of sabotaging Nordstream 2, it is one more example of US interference in the affairs of other countries. Other examples are too numerous to list. The methods used include regime change, assasination of politicians , unilateral sanctions, arms transfers. war, and so on.

A crime against the environment

The methane bubbling up to the surface from the sabotaged pipeline is entering our earth’s atmosphere. Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas. Although it has a shorter lifetime in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, while it remains there, methane is twenty times as powerful.

We must rapidly end our dependence on fossil fuels

A point that no one seems to mention in connection with the sabotaging of Nordstream 2, is that we must rapidly end our dependence on all fossil fuels, if we are to have a chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change.

Books and articles on global problems

My books and articles on global problems and on cultural history may be found at the following web addresses.

Most of them may be downloaded and circulated free of charge.

https://www.johnavery.info/

http://eacpe.org/about-john-scales-avery/

https://www.meer.com/en/authors/716-john-scales-avery

John Scales Avery is a theoretical chemist at the University of Copenhagen.

30 September 2022

Source: countercurrents.org

Palestine Update 597

For years; Israel has had its eyes on Golan for strategic military reasons. It also wants a monopoly of the tourism sector in The Golan Heights because there are massive profits in this arena. Israel annexed Golan in 1981 through a Knesset resolution. Even though that was nullified by a Security Council Resolution, Donald Trump in some of his most bizarre decisions gifted Israel, Jerusalem, the Golan and then the settlements! Zionism has not hidden its greed in the Golan since 1918, as David Ben-Gurion drew his conception of the “State of Israel”. In a document in which he stated that the borders of “the Jewish state” should include the entire Negev and part of the Sanjak of Damascus and the districts of Quneitra, Wadi Anjar and Hasbaya. The Zionist entity occupied Golan in 1967 and sought from the first day of its occupation to change its geographical and demographic features, destroying its villages and farms, establishing settlements, displacing its residents, tampering with its monuments, extending its control over all water resources, and laying mines in Agricultural areas and in the vicinity of populated areas and worked to convert many sites and villages into military sites. Any space that Israel eyes as helpful to its interests become part of its design for occupation and colonization. Syrian citizens in Golan refuse to surrender and are steadfast in the face of the Zionist occupation authorities. To them it is their conviction that the Golan will return to their homeland, Syria sooner or later.

On another difficult front we are informed by Sada Social Center, a Ramallah-based social media rights group, that there have been 130 violations against Palestinian digital content on the social media in September 2022, including the permanent removal of 93 accounts. The platforms run by Meta came at the top of the platforms censoring the Palestinian content, with 91 violations on Face book, which varied between deleting posts, restricting access, preventing posting, preventing the use of some features such as live broadcasts and advertisements and participation in groups for a certain period of time, and the permanent removal of accounts. Still on the question of reporting news, WAFA has recorded 26 Israeli violations against Palestinian journalists and media in the occupied territories during September. WAFA stated in its monthly report on Israeli violations against journalists and media outlets that the Israeli occupation forces continued to deliberately target Palestinian journalists with an aim to limit their coverage of the Israeli army practices and violations against the defenseless Palestinian citizens.

Israeli occupation forces have been ruthless in their killing of innocent Palestinians during military assaults. The targets have been young people and those killings are aimed to remove liberation fighters from the younger age group. 175 Palestinians, including at least 29 children, were injured by Israeli occupation forces across the West Bank, of whom 17 were hit by live ammunition. Israeli settlers protected by soldiers also injured eight Palestinians and damaged Palestinian property in 11 instances. During the reporting period, Israeli forces conducted 120 search-and-arrest operations and arrested 216 Palestinians, including at least 10 children across the West Bank. The UN has called for an investigation, said OCHA. The UN report also reports confiscation of Palestinian-owned structures in Area C of the West Bank citing the lack of Israeli-issued building permits; four of the structures had been provided as donor-funded humanitarian aid. Citizens and were displaced, and the livelihoods of about 270 others were affected. Israeli authorities seal off wells without prior notice. These wells are the sole irrigation source for about 4,000 dunums of cultivated land and are also used for drinking water. These indiscriminate acts affect more than 8,000 Palestinians in surrounding villages.

Other vicious Israeli acts include seeking to diminish the voices of those who speak out socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture. Despite growing strides the Palestinian cause in the USA, criticism of the Israeli government and its treatment of the Palestinians is still the major taboo in US political discourse. Left-Wing Journalist Katie Halper Has Been Fired for Calling Israel an Apartheid State.

The Resistance rages on. The Islamic Movement Hamas organized a mass rally on Saturday under the title “Al-Aqsa is in Danger”, to emphasize the centrality of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque. Hamas representatives denounced the escalation of Israeli aggressions and violations of the sanctity of the holy mosque. The rally attracted thousands of Palestinians from across the besieged Gaza Strip, brought together a large number of Palestinian political leaders and dignitaries.

Ranjan Solomon
For MLN Palestine Updates

3 October 2022

Source: Palestine Update

Occupied Golan, SANA-The occupied Syrian Golan is a Syrian territory, located in the southwest of Syria along the border with occupied Palestine, and its total area is estimated at about 1860 kilometers square.

Golan has a geographical location of great importance that made it a transit area for convoys, armies and peoples since ancient times.

Mount Hermon -Al-Sheikh mount- is located in the north and is separated from the southern Bekaa in Lebanon, as well as the Yarmouk Valley in the south from the northwestern heights of Ajloun and Jordan, and from the west the Hawa Plain and Lake Tiberias, while Wadi Al-Raqad lies in the east between it and the area Houran.

Golan diversity climatic ranging between cold, moderate and hot, and it is an ideal area for agriculture throughout the year and it is attractive for tourism as well. Various civilizations, had followed it , most notably the Canaanite, Aramaic and Islamic ones.

Zionism has not hidden its greed in the Golan since 1918 , as David Ben-Gurion drew his conception of the so-called “State of Israel” in a document in which he stated that the borders of “the Jewish state” should include the entire Negev and part of the Sanjak of Damascus and the districts of Quneitra, Wadi Anjar and Hasbaya.

The Zionist entity occupied Golan in 1967 and sought from the first day of its occupation to change its geographical and demographic features, destroying its villages and farms, establishing settlements, displacing its residents, tampering with its monuments, extending its control over all water resources, and laying mines in Agricultural areas and in the vicinity of populated areas and worked to convert many sites and villages into military sites.

On December 14, 1981, the Israeli Knesset approved the so-called decision of annexing the Golan, according to which “Israeli law, judiciary, and administration were imposed on the Golan,” but the UN Security Council responded quickly to the Zionist move and adopted Resolution No. 497 on December 17 From 1981, considering that Israel’s decision to annex the Golan is null and void and has no legal effect on the international level.

Today, Syria citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan continue to stand firm in the face of the Zionist occupation authorities, and they are all confident and certain that the Golan will return to homeland, Syria.

Fedaa al-Rhayiah/ Mazen Eyon

1 October 2022

Source: sana.sy

RAMALLAH, Sunday, October 02, 2022 (WAFA) – Sada Social Center, a Ramallah-based social media rights group, said today it has documented more than 130 violations against Palestinian digital content on the social media in September 2022, including the permeant removal of 93 accounts.

The platforms run by Meta came at the top of the platforms censoring the Palestinian content, said the Center in a statement, with 91 violations on Facebook, which varied between deleting posts, restricting access, preventing posting, preventing the use of some features such as live broadcasts and advertisements and participation in groups for a certain period of time, and the permeant removal of accounts,.

20 violations were monitored by the Center on WhatsApp, 11 on Instagram, 4 on TikTok, 2 violations on Twitter, which classified many Palestinian news content as sensitive, and 2 violations on YouTube against news and Palestinian channels.

Sada Social Center pointed out that journalists and media organizations were the most vulnerable to documented violations, with 73 violations as some accounts were permanently deleted.

In September 2022, the Center said 48% of the content censored were texts and words related to the Palestinian cause, 32% were Palestinian pictures of martyrs or events describing the Israeli attacks, and 16% were videos of the funerals of Palestinian martyrs.

Sada Social Center noted that these documented violations came despite the release of the BSR Center for Human Rights study, which expressed in its results the bias of Meta against Palestinian content and was acknowledged by Meta’s administration.

M.N

2 October 2022

Source: wafa.ps

If you live in Germany, you may want to begin scouting out firewood before winter.

By Kurt Nimmo

Increasingly, there is little doubt who is behind the Nordstream pipeline leaks, now numbering four. The corporate media is lamely attempting to blame Russia for blowing up its own multi-billion dollar pipeline and its expensive cargo, but as usual, the corporate propaganda media provides no evidence to back this up.

From that oh-so-reliable news source, the Express:

The massive leak in the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, which many suspected to be an act of sabotage, could be Russia’s way of sending a horrifying threat to Europe, experts have warned. They say he has the prowess and firepower needed to damage other pipelines. Over the past few days, four leaks have been discovered along the 1,234km-long Nord Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany. The pipelines, which bypassed Ukraine and Poland by transitting gas via the Baltic Sea, started leaking on Monday, which experts from Denmark and Sweden have confirmed occurred after strong explosions.

Indeed, I am certain Russia does possess such technology. However, so do the US and NATO, both with more incentive to blow up the pipelines than Russia. It doesn’t need to do this. Russia can simply turn off the tap on its end, as it has partially accomplished in response to Germany and Europe sending munitions to kill Russian soldiers.

As for the required technology:

BALTOPS is an annual military exercise held in the Baltic Sea. From Naval News:

Participating nations include Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These countries will exercise a myriad of capabilities demonstrating the inherent flexibility of maritime forces. Exercise scenarios include amphibious operations, gunnery, anti-submarine, air defense, mine clearance operations, explosive ordnance disposal, unmanned underwater vehicles, and medical response. (Emphasis added.)

Moreover, not mentioned by the corporate propaganda media, is the fact BALTOPS was held near the coast of Bornholm, an island off the east coast of Denmark, precisely where the explosions and gas leaks occurred.

It wasn’t disclosed because this explosive-laden device belongs to the US military or NATO (or possibly Sweden, a country begging, along with Finland, to join NATO). If it had been identified as Russian, the morning headlines would be taller than Mount Everest.

Only trade publications reported the strange discovery. Obviously, not many Americans read pipeline technology journals.

The vehicle was discovered during a routine survey operation as part of the annual integrity assessment of the Nord Stream pipeline. Since it was within the Swedish Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) approximately 120 km away from the island of Gotland, the Swedes called on their armed forces to remove and ultimately disarm the object.

As social media de-platformed analyst Pepe Escobar notes, the development and production of this sort of submersible drone have been on NATO’s to-do list for some time. “NATO for its part has been very active on the underwater drones department. The Americans have access to long distance Norwegian underwater drones which can be modified with other designs,” he writes.

Meanwhile, the corporate propaganda media is ramping up the “Russia did it” story.

I’d link to The Washington Post story, but they want money to read their propaganda.

*
Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

30 September 2022

Source: www.globalresearch.ca

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies

We have spent the past week reading and listening to speeches by world leaders at the UN General Assembly in New York. Most of them condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a violation of the UN Charter and a serious setback for the peaceful world order that is the UN’s founding and defining principle.

But what has not been reported in the United States is that leaders from 66 countries, mainly from the Global South, also used their General Assembly speeches to call urgently for diplomacy to end the war in Ukraine through peaceful negotiations, as the UN Charter requires. We have compiled excerpts from the speeches of all 66 countries to show the breadth and depth of their appeals, and we highlight a few of them here.

African leaders echoed one of the first speakers, Macky Sall, the president of Senegal, who also spoke in his capacity as the current chairman of the African Union when he said, “We call for de-escalation and a cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, as well as for a negotiated solution, to avoid the catastrophic risk of a potentially global conflict.”

The 66 nations that called for peace in Ukraine make up more than a third of the countries in the world, and they represent most of the Earth’s population, including India, China, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Brazil and Mexico.

While NATO and EU countries have rejected peace negotiations, and U.S. and U.K. leaders have actively undermined them, five European countries – Hungary, Malta, Portugal, San Marino and the Vatican – joined the calls for peace at the General Assembly.

The peace caucus also includes many of the small countries that have the most to lose from the failure of the UN system revealed by recent wars in Ukraine and the Greater Middle East, and who have the most to gain by strengthening the UN and enforcing the UN Charter to protect the weak and restrain the powerful.

Philip Pierre, the Prime Minister of Saint Lucia, a small island state in the Caribbean, told the General Assembly,

“Articles 2 and 33 of the UN Charter are unambiguous in binding Member States to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state and to negotiate and settle all international disputes by peaceful means.…We therefore call upon all parties involved to immediately end the conflict in Ukraine, by undertaking immediate negotiations to permanently settle all disputes in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.”

Global South leaders lamented the breakdown of the UN system, not just in the war in Ukraine but throughout decades of war and economic coercion by the United States and its allies. President Jose Ramos-Horta of Timor-Leste directly challenged the West’s double standards, telling Western countries,

“They should pause for a moment to reflect on the glaring contrast in their response to the wars elsewhere where women and children have died by the thousands from wars and starvation. The response to our beloved Secretary-General’s cries for help in these situations have not met with equal compassion. As countries in the Global South, we see double standards. Our public opinion does not see the Ukraine war the same way it is seen in the North.”

Many leaders called urgently for an end to the war in Ukraine before it escalates into a nuclear war that would kill billions of people and end human civilization as we know it. The Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, warned,

“…the war in Ukraine not only undermines the nuclear non-proliferation regime, but also presents us with the danger of nuclear devastation, either through escalation or accident. … To avoid a nuclear disaster, it is vital that there be serious engagement to find a peaceful outcome to the conflict.”

Others described the economic impacts already depriving their people of food and basic necessities, and called on all sides, including Ukraine’s Western backers, to return to the negotiating table before the war’s impacts escalate into multiple humanitarian disasters across the Global South. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh told the Assembly,

“We want the end of the Russia-Ukraine war. Due to sanctions and counter-sanctions, …the entire mankind, including women and children, is punished. Its impact does not remain confined to one country, rather it puts the lives and livelihoods of the people of all nations in greater risk, and infringes their human rights. People are deprived of food, shelter, healthcare and education. Children suffer the most in particular. Their future sinks into darkness.

My urge to the conscience of the world – stop the arms race, stop the war and sanctions. Ensure food, education, healthcare and security of the children. Establish peace.”

Turkey, Mexico and Thailand each offered their own approaches to restarting peace negotiations, while Sheikh Al-Thani, the Amir of Qatar, succinctly explained that delaying negotiations will only bring more death and suffering:

“We are fully aware of the complexities of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and the international and global dimension to this crisis. However, we still call for an immediate ceasefire and a peaceful settlement, because this is ultimately what will happen regardless of how long this conflict will go on for. Perpetuating the crisis will not change this result. It will only increase the number of casualties, and it will increase the disastrous repercussions on Europe, Russia and the global economy.”

Responding to Western pressure on the Global South to actively support Ukraine’s war effort, India’s Foreign Minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, claimed the moral high ground and championed diplomacy,

“As the Ukraine conflict continues to rage, we are often asked whose side we are on. And our answer, each time, is straight and honest. India is on the side of peace and will remain firmly there. We are on the side that respects the UN Charter and its founding principles. We are on the side that calls for dialogue and diplomacy as the only way out. We are on the side of those struggling to make ends meet, even as they stare at escalating costs of food, fuel and fertilizers.

It is therefore in our collective interest to work constructively, both within the United Nations and outside, in finding an early resolution to this conflict.”

One of the most passionate and eloquent speeches was delivered by Congolese Foreign Minister Jean-Claude Gakosso, who summarized the thoughts of many, and appealed directly to Russia and Ukraine – in Russian!

“Because of the considerable risk of a nuclear disaster for the entire planet, not only those involved in this conflict but also those foreign powers who could influence events by calming them down, should all temper their zeal. They must stop fanning the flames and they must turn their backs on this type of vanity of the powerful which has so far closed the door to dialogue.

Under the auspices of the United Nations, we must all commit without delay to peace negotiations – just, sincere and equitable negotiations. After Waterloo, we know that since the Vienna Congress, all wars finish around the table of negotiation.

The world urgently needs these negotiations to prevent the current confrontations – which are already so devastating – to prevent them from going even further and pushing humanity into what could be an irredeemable cataclysm, a widespread nuclear war beyond the control of the great powers themselves – the war, about which Einstein, the great atomic theorist, said that it would be the last battle that humans would fight on Earth.

Nelson Mandela, a man of eternal forgiveness, said that peace is a long road, but it has no alternative, it has no price. In reality, the Russians and Ukrainians have no other choice but to take this path, the path of peace.

Moreover, we too should go with them, because we must throughout the world be legions working together in solidarity, and we must be able to impose the unconditional option of peace on the war lobbies.

(Next three paragraphs in Russian) Now I wish to be direct, and directly address my dear Russian and Ukrainian friends.

Too much blood has been spilled – the sacred blood of your sweet children. It’s time to stop this mass destruction. It’s time to stop this war. The entire world is watching you. It’s time to fight for life, the same way that you courageously and selflessly fought together against the Nazis during World War Two, in particular in Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kursk and Berlin.

Think about the youth of your two countries. Think about the fate of your future generations. The time has come to fight for peace, to fight for them. Please give peace a real chance, today, before it is too late for us all. I humbly ask this of you.”

At the end of the debate on September 26, Csaba Korosi, the president of the General Assembly, acknowledged in his closing statement that ending the war in Ukraine was one of the main messages “reverberating through the Hall” at this year’s General Assembly.

You can read here Korosi’s closing statement and all the calls for peace he was referring to.

And if you want to join the “legions working together in solidarity… to impose the unconditional option of peace on the war lobbies,” as Jean-Claude Gakosso said, you can learn more at https://www.peaceinukraine.org/.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, available from OR Books in October/November 2022.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

29 September 2022

Source: countercurrents.org