Obstacles to Invoking Article 6

Are the potential obstacles to invoking Article six at the United Nations? So the question is what are the obstacles? What are the potential obstacles to the invocation of Article six? Well, first, there are obstacles that we can face or that we are have already been facing and expect to to face more, which is the obstacles that we face prior to getting it invoked, prior to actually bringing the issue to the United Nations, which is all of the various machinations that The US and their allies will will come up with to try to derail the Article six campaign. This includes trying to recommend sort of compromises or concessions that they would expect for us to be satisfied with, such as saying, well, let's just talk about reform.

And we we find this from many NGOs, for example. And I think that also the Finland also recommended that we should talk about the veto power. Let's talk about everything except for the chief criminal international criminal that is dominating the United Nations and that is sabotaging the United Nations from day one. Let's talk about everything except for that. And they're hoping that if if they talk about these things, that they will be satisfied and will give up the campaign.

Because I think one of the things that they want to avoid is for anyone to even know that article six exists. They don't want anyone to even know that it exists. That's one of the questions that we've also dealt with, which is are there any precedents for the invocation of article six, and there aren't. And one of the reasons why there there are why there are no precedents for the invocation of article six is because no one else is qualified to be expelled from the United Nations other than The United States. No one else is a persistent violator of international law.

No one else is a persistent violator of the UN Charter except The United States. Now The United States would have wanted to invoke article six against, for example, Soviet Union or, for example, against Russia after the Ukraine war started or at various times, various enemies, maybe Cuba, maybe China, what have you, maybe Vietnam, who knows. But they don't wanna even bring up the topic of article six because they know perfectly well that no one is more eligible to have article six invoked against them more than they are, more than The United States. So they want to derail any discussion about article six, and they want to redirect any criticism towards talking about reform, UN reform, security council reform, veto reform, and so forth to try to satisfy critics like ourselves and hopefully like everyone who's following this live right now so that they can avoid the issue. That's one of the one of the things that we'll face.

Then now the other thing, the other practical obstacle that we might face once it is raised at the United Nations is the various tactics and strategies that America will try to use to avoid having it successfully invoked. And one of those will be to argue that they have the right to veto it Because, technically, they would have a right to veto it if we don't include in our invocation of article six the invocation of article 27. In order for us to to invoke article 27, we have to prove that this represents a dispute because the article 27 says that a member state cannot veto a member a member state who's on the Security Council cannot veto a resolution that pertains to a dispute in which they are involved. So we would have to prove, and I think it's a relatively easy case to prove, that invoking article six is a measure arising out of a dispute between basically the rest of the world and The United States. But at least in this case, we can say that it's between, whichever member state or group of member states raises Article six to the UN, to the Security Council, a dispute between, those countries or that country and America.

And as brother Ali said, you would be hard pressed to find any country in the world that hasn't suffered at the hands of The United States and hasn't suffered at the hands of American foreign policy and hasn't had the United Nations charter violated against them by The United States because, in fact, America violates the the UN charter as a matter of policy because they feel that they have every right in the world to interfere in the domestic politics of every other country. They have they believe that they have every right to interfere in the government and to determine the government and to execute coups, execute overthrows, execute regime change operations, and so forth. They talk about it openly. So this is this is a a country that that approaches the rest of the world in an outlaw mentality or with an outlaw mentality, and they do it openly. So it's not going to be very difficult, in my opinion, to prove that invoking article six arises out of a dispute between whichever member state or whichever grouping of member states raises the issue at the United Nations.

Once we're able to prove that it is arising out of a dispute, then America will not be able to veto it. The next line of defense will be to have France or The UK veto Article six. Now as you know, there are the the only ones who can veto anything at the Security Council are the permanent members, and that's France, the UK, obviously, America, Russia, and China. Russia and China, I don't believe are gonna be an issue. It's in their interest anyway.

The only concern would be France and the UK, but I think that we've seen many developments over the last few years and especially over the last several months that indicate that Europe overall and France and The UK specifically would see that it is in their best interest actually to support the isolation of The United States and to liberate themselves from The United States. France has talked a lot about, what do they call, strategic autonomy. I think that is the term they use, strategic autonomy, which is rather embarrassing for an independent country to have to even talk about. A supposedly, you know, metropolitan advanced developed civilized nation like France, as they claim to be, saying that trying to make some kind of a rationale or some kind of a justification for why they should be allowed to have strategic autonomy. Mind you, not just autonomy, but strategic autonomy, that they that they should be able to move as they like.

This is just the fact that they're even suggesting this or the the fact that they're even talking about this indicates that they understand and they can recognize that it is not in their interests to go along with America on every single policy and to be subordinated to The United States as both France and The UK are and Europe in general. And in fact, for at least the last three and a half years or so, it's almost going on four years since the Ukraine war started, and the sanctions against Russia started, which are which have done nothing really significant to damage Russia, but have done a devastating damage to Europe. Germany is being destabilized. Germany is being deindustrialized. And if Germany is deindustrialized, then the rest of Europe will follow.

It will have a cascading economic impact, and it already is having a cascading economic impact with energy prices and inflation and supply chain disruptions and so forth. Europe is suffering drastically for their alignment with The United States. And I think that now with Trump being in office, we see, an even greater and more open level of hostility, between being expressed by America towards Europe. So I don't think that, it's that the historic relationship I'll say this. The historic relationship between France and The UK and America is increasingly becoming obsolete.

It's becoming a thing of the past. France and The UK and Europe overall need to decide. You know, we talk about being on the right side of history. Well, they need to be on the right side of the future, and the future is not in alignment with The United States. America is making it very clear that they want to withdraw from the world, that they want to isolate themselves, and that they are directing their hostility increasingly towards their own historical allies.

With Trump talking about, for example, not even ruling out the possibility of military intervention to seize control over Greenland, which was regarded correctly by the EU as a direct threat military threat by America against the European Union. So I think that if it was thirty years ago, we could say that France and The UK would reliably veto the invocation of article six. But I think that it's entirely possible, especially if we play our cards right in terms of how we lobby those governments and lobby more importantly perhaps countries to whom those those governments, the governments of France and the government of the UK, the the the countries that they themselves are connected to economically, such as the Gulf countries and China. If we lobby those countries and lobby and get support from those countries, and then those countries in turn can lobby France and the UK, I think that it's not a given at all that France and the UK would agree to veto it. Rather, I think that they would see the invocation of Article six as their own liberation, and then they wouldn't have to talk about strategic autonomy.

They could actually have genuine independence, which I think is something that they would support. So these are some of the obstacles that we'll face. I think that the the the biggest the biggest obstacle or the biggest challenge that we will have once it is raised, when it is raised at the United Nations, the biggest challenge will be The US trying to play with words and trying to sort of do legal ease type of challenges to the definitions and the meanings in article six and in article 27, the the most relevant articles here of the UN Charter because it hasn't been tested before. So they would challenge the interpretations of the definitions and and and the interpretations of what these what these articles mean and their applicability to The United States. But either way, once this is raised at the UN, even if they try to come up with various legalistic arguments, the evidence of their crimes, the vast crimes that they've committed since 1945, remember.

We're not just talking about what they've done recently. If we're talking about persistent violations, this is what's in the this is what's in article six. Persistent violations of the UN Charter means we have to prove the persistence of it. Means we have to go all the way back to 1945, which is why earlier in this live and in our other lives, we talk about violations by The United States of the UN Charter going all the way back to the nineteen fifties, going back to the to the to the late nineteen forties, going back since the beginning of the United Nations because there isn't they've they've violated the UN Charter more times than there are years of the United Nations' existence. They have violated the the the UN Charter so persistently that when we bring the volumes of evidence of their crimes like I said, you could take one country like brother Ali was talking about.

You could choose almost any country in the world. You could choose we we don't even have to look at all of the violations internationally that they've committed. Even if we just looked at Palestine if we just looked at Palestine and looked at all of the violations that America has committed since 1945 until today, that's persistent violations. We could do the same with Guatemala. We could do the same with Nicaragua.

We could do the same with Argentina. We could do the same with Chile. We could do the same with Vietnam. We could do the same with Afghanistan. We could do the same with Somalia.

We could do the same with Pakistan, on and on and on. There's not a single you could even go into Europe just like brother Ali is talking about with Greece. We could talk about Greece. We could talk about Germany. We could talk about Italy.

There's not a single country that America has ever left alone. Even like sister sister was talking about, sister Nisa, even their own country. They haven't left their own country alone. Even they violated the charter against their own people. This is a serial violator.

This is a habitual violator. They're addicted to violating, the the UN charter. They're addicted to violating international law. So when we bring it, even if they try to fight it with with legalistic language and and and playing with words and interpretations and so forth, well, they're gonna have to face the music, they're gonna have to face the reality of everything that they've done because all of that's gonna be publicized. All of that will be highlighted.

All of that will be spotlighted. So even if they win in their legalistic argument, they lose in the court of public opinion. They lose in their influence. They lose in their credibility. And we'll bring it back again next year, and we'll do the same thing again until we get it done.

So this is the other thing about article six. It's not that that if you get turned away one time, then it's over. There's no it's double jeopardy. No. We can keep doing it again and again and again until it gets done, and that's exactly what we'll do.