Dieser Internet-Auftritt kann nach dem Tod des Webmasters, Peter Strutynski, bis auf Weiteres nicht aktualisiert werden. Er steht jedoch weiterhin als Archiv mit Beiträgen aus den Jahren 1996 – 2015 zur Verfügung.

"Er sollte nicht Sicherheitsrat heißen, er sollte Terrorrat heißen"

Viel Aufregung um die UN-Rede des libyschen Staatspräsidenten al-Gaddafi. Was sagte er wirklich?

Von der Rede des libyschen "Revolutionsführers" Muammar al-Gaddafi existiert keine schriftliche Fassung. Gaddafi sprach weitgehend frei. Entsprechend lebendig, aber auch angreifbar geriet seine Rede, während der nach Agenturberichten manche Delegation unter Protest den Plenarsaal verließ. US-Präsident Obama, der vor Gaddafi sprach, ahnte wohl Ungemach und verließ nach seinem Auftritt unverzüglich den Saal.

Der von Tagungspräsident Ali Treki als "König der Könige" angekündigte libysche Staatschef Muammar Al-Ghaddafi kritisierte in seiner Ansprache den UN-Sicherheitsrat als "Terrorrat" (dpa zitiert: "Er sollte nicht Sicherheitsrat heißen, er sollte Terrorrat heißen."). Er habe nicht verhindern können, dass nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg "65 Kriege" geführt worden wären, in denen mehr Menschen ums Leben gekommen seien als im Weltkrieg. Die UN-Charta spreche davon, daß alle Länder unabhängig von ihrer Größe gleich seien. Deshalb verstoße das Vetorecht der fünf ständigen Mitglieder des Sicherheitsrates gegen dieses Gründungsdokument der Vereinten Nationen, zumal diese fünf Mächte Aggressionen gegen die Völker der Welt durchgeführt hätten. Eine Erweiterung der UN-Gremien um weitere Staaten lehnte Ghaddafi ab, weil dies nur zur Entstehung weiterer Supermächte führen und damit die Dinge eher schlechter machen würde.

Auch die UN-Vollversammlung bekam ihr Fett weg. Hier würden nur Fensterreden gehalten von Staatsmännern, die ihren Auftritt haben und dann wieder verschwinden würden. Mit politischer Verantwortung habe das nichts zu tun.

Gaddafi sprach nicht nur für sich (obwohl das wohl in erster Linie), sondern auch im Namen der Afrikanischen Union, deren Vorsitz er zur Zeit innehat. Also erinnerte er auch an die Schuld des Kolonialismus und forderte Entschädigung für die Länder Afrikas. Die Schuld der Kolinialmächte beliefe sich auf 77,7 Billionen US-Dollar. Höchste Zeit sei es auch, dass Afrika einen ständigen Sitz im UN-Sicherheitsrat bekäme.

Aus seinen Worten sprach auch Anerkennung für den neuen US-Präsidenten un d für die USA insgesaqmt, die 50 Jahre lang mit ihren Beiträgen den UN-Sitz in New York ermöglicht hätten. Dies sei aber auch mit Schwierigkeiten verbunden. So sei manchen Mitgliedern seiner Delegation die Einreise in die USA verweigert worden. Daher sein Vorschlag: Die nächsten 50 Jahre sollte die UN-Generalversammlung in einer anderen Hemisphäre tagen.

Im Folgenden dokumentieren wir die - sehr widerspruchsbereinigte - Zusammenfassung von Gaddafis Rede durch den Informationsdienst der 64. UN-Generalversammlung (englisch).

MUAMMAR AL-QADHAFI

Leader of the Revolution of Libya, speaking also on behalf of the African Union, said he hoped this gathering would be a historic one. He also congratulated United States President Barack Obama on his first address to the General Assembly. This year’s debate was being held in the midst of many challenges and the world should unite and defeat these challenges, which included climate change, the economic crisis and the food crisis.

He said many Member States were not present when the United Nations was created by three countries years ago. They created the Charter but the Preamble was different from the provisions and articles. No one objected to the Preamble, but he rejected everything that came after. The Preamble of the United Nations Charter said nations were equal, whether large or small. The veto power bestowed upon the five permanent members of the Security Council was, therefore, against the Charter, and he neither accepted nor recognized it.

Continuing, he said the Charter’s Preamble stated that military force should not be used unless there was a common interest. But 65 wars, with millions of victims, had broken out since the creation of the United Nations. Moreover, the Preamble said if there was aggression against any country, the United Nations together would check such actions. Despite that, countries which held the veto used aggressive force against “the people”, even as the Charter said no nation had the right to intervene in the internal affairs of another.

He went on to express concern that right now, calls for reforming the Organization focused only on increasing the number of Member States. That would only make things worse. For instance, adding more Security Council seats would “give rise to more super-Powers, crush the small people and create more poverty”. Such an impractical move would also generate more competition among countries. In any case, the Council should act according to the rules of the United Nations. The solution was to close the admission of new Member States and provide equality among those already belonging to the Organization, he said.

Currently, the Assembly was like a decor without any substance. “You just make a speech and then you disappear...that’s who you are right now,” he said. Setting that right would mean that the Security Council could serve as a tool for implementing resolutions adopted by the Assembly. The Council should represent the interests of all countries, through individual seats or seats held by unions that represented each region of the world. There were equal votes in the Assembly and there should be equal votes next door in the Security Council, he declared, adding that ultimately, for a united and peaceful world, serious Organizational reform was needed. Keeping his focus squarely on Security Council dynamics, he said that the 15-member body practised “security feudalism” for those who had a protected seat. “It should be called the terror council”, he said, underscoring that terrorism could exist in many forms. The super-Powers had complicated interests and used the United Nations for their own purposes. Indeed, the Security Council did not provide the world with security, but gave it “terror and sanctions”. He was not committed to adhere to the Council’s resolutions, which were used to commit war crimes and genocides. He reiterated that the Council did not provide security and the world did not have to obey the rules or orders it decreed, especially as it was currently constituted.

Regarding Africa, the African Union deserved a permanent seat in the Security Council for the suffering it had endured for many years. This had nothing to do with reform, he said, declaring that Africa deserved compensation, amounting to some $77.7 trillion for the resources and wealth that had been stolen in the past. Colonization should be criminalized and people should be compensated for the suffering endured during the reign of colonial power.

Africans were proud and happy that a son of Africa was now governing the United States of America and it was a great thing -- it was a glimmer of light in the dark of the past eight years, he said. However, he noted the money spent by the United States and the city to secure United Nations Headquarters during the annual Assembly. While thanking the United States for its efforts in hosting the Organization for the past 50 years, he said the United Nations should hold its annual debate in another hemisphere for the next 50 years. He complained about the trouble some diplomats and their staff had in securing visas from the United States Government.

General Debate of the 64th Session (2009); http://www.un.org/ga/64/generaldebate/LY.shtml


Zurück zur UNO-Seite

Zur Libyen-Seite

Zurück zur Homepage