The Imperative of Article 6

With regards to how long it will take, we don't really know. I don't think that it's accurate to say that it will take years. What we have to focus on right now is getting to a 100,000 signatures. Once we get to a 100,000 signatures and we raise it to the political and diplomatic level and we approach some of the some of the member states, particularly some of those states that are members of the, what's it called, the friends of the United Nations in defense of the UN charter. Some of the some of the states, some of the member states, some of the countries that are the most victimized by America and by America's domination of the United Nations which has given them impunity to victimize countries around the world.

Once we raise it to these countries, it's just a question of whether or not they will accept to do it. And if they accept to do it, then it can happen very rapidly. The only the the the longest part of the process is what we are going through now, which is to gather the signatures on the petition so that we have a way of gauging popular support which we can then prove to the member states when we raise it at at the political and diplomatic level and try to convince them to have the boldness and have the confidence to bring the issue to the United Nations. And then the next longest process is simply the gathering of the evidence of the violations. And that in and of itself might be quite lengthy simply because there are so many violations by The United States.

Because again, when you consider that the the entire approach of The United States in terms of their foreign policy, in terms of their approach to international relations, their entire philosophy of how they approach international relations is a violation of the article two of the UN Charter, which is the the article that deals with the self determination and the sovereignty of every country, of every member state. It it guarantees the sovereignty and the independence and the self determination of every country and their safety from coercion and force and the threat of force. So all three of these aspects, are completely contradictory to the way that The United States approaches foreign policy. Their entire approach to the world is that they get to decide what any country does and what kind of a government they'll have and what kind of their well, what their policies are going to be, whether it's domestic or or foreign policy. America thinks that they have a right decide that.

They have they think that they have a right to decide what kind of a government you're gonna have, which party is gonna be in power, and and what their policies will be. So gathering the full sort of dossier of all of America's violations over the last eight decades is in and of itself going to be a relatively lengthy process depending on how many researchers we can have to work on that process. But once a state, once a member state decides to raise the issue, it will happen quite rapidly. So I wouldn't be surprised, inshallah, if by this time next year, you can see this issue being raised at the United Nations. I don't think this is a process that necessarily will have to take years and years, and I don't think anyone should think about it that being a goal that is that that far in the future.

I mean, anyone who who says that we should disband the United Nations, that's that's that's exactly like if you were to have a tumor, cancer, and you go to the doctor, you go to a surgeon or whatever, and he seems to understand that his assignment is to save the tumor rather than to save you. That he thinks that that that you're the problem, not the tumor. That's that that's the thinking of someone who thinks that the problem is the United Nations itself, and that therefore we should just kill the United Nations. That's exactly like a doctor thinking that he should kill you to try to save the tumor. It makes no sense.

Brother Shahid, could you tell us what are actual potential obstacles that we might face when trying to invoke article six? Well, I think interestingly, we're actually seeing some of those obstacles or what you could call rather maneuvers being made now, which is to try to head off the article six campaign by means of offering sort of compromises that they think would satisfy the demand for article six, such as offering Africa two seats on the Security Council without granting those two African countries unnamed, undefined or undecided African countries, offering those two countries a seat on the Security Council with no veto power, which is essentially giving them observer status on the Security Council. But the idea behind that, I believe, is that it's it's a sort of an olive branch being offered directly to the article six campaign to see whether or not we would be satisfied with that token gesture. And another example would be, for example, Finland suggesting that the veto should be abolished. The the veto power of the UN Security Council should be abolished and no none of the permanent members should have veto power.

This also is a kind of a compromise that's being offered, I think, to try to head off the demand for the invocation of Article six against The United States. So I think that the the most significant challenges that we'll face come before the issue is actually raised at the United Nations. I think that The United States is going to do everything they can to try to make sure that this issue never gets raised at the United Nations precisely because once it is raised at the United Nations, they can't be sure of how it's gonna go. They can't be sure for example, the the the the main thing that people think about as to what might happen or what or or how article six could be defeated is that France or The UK would veto it. But I think that we're seeing by these maneuvers a sign that The United States isn't even sure that they could rely upon their so called allies to veto it if it were brought to the Security Council.

And we already know that the other members of the Security Council, Russia and China, we already know with some level of certainty and with some level of confidence which way they'll vote on any measure to expel the the the most prolific violator of the UN Charter, The United States. We already know how Russia and China will most likely vote on that. So the only question is how is the UK gonna vote on that and how will France vote on that? Will they exercise the veto power for the first time in decades? Will they do it for preventing The US from being expelled from the United Nations?

I think that America themselves do not feel confident that they can rely upon their allies, their so called allies. And they have good reason to believe that they may not be able to rely upon their so called allies. Because the truth of the matter is that both France and The UK, as I mentioned recently, are actually seething with resentment and anger and envy against The United States precisely because of what The United States did when the United Nations was established, which was to basically use the United Nations as a mechanism for taking over their colonial empires. And they would like themselves to return to some sort of an independent status because they themselves were also subjugated and they're in a process now of becoming even more subjugated. As I've talked about many times and I've I've done several videos of it on the channel, talking about the destabilization project that The United States has launched at least since the start of the Ukraine war and the Russian the the sanctions against Russia, which have been devastating to the European economy.

And I think that for example, even if you look at even if you look at Finland with their proposal to abolish the the veto power. BRICS, the BRICS nations, the relationship between Finland and the BRICS nations is becoming increasingly important just as the relationship between all of the European nations. Their relationship with BRICS is becoming increasingly important. I think that between 25 to 30% of Finland's GDP is derived directly or indirectly from their relationship with BRICS. So this their relationship with the BRICS nations, their relationship with the global south is increasingly important and vital to them.

More so than their relationship with The United States. And this goes across the continent. This applies across the continent of Europe. All of the European countries are increasingly interested in and concerned with trying to maintain or improve their relationship with the countries in the global south, are represented by the BRICS organization. So this is one of the reasons why I think that The United States doesn't have the confidence that The UK or France will necessarily be on their side if article six or rather I should say when article six comes to a vote by the Security Council.

But those are the main challenges that we might face. As I say, primarily, I think the challenges are gonna be before we ever get it to the Security Council. But then the other challenge would be making sure that France and the UK either abstain from the vote or vote positively in favor of article six. And the only danger would be that they would veto it. But personally, as I've outlined here, I don't think that there's actually that much of a danger that they would veto it once it comes to the Security Council in Charlotte.

Even if you remove the veto power from The United States or from or from everyone and say no one has the veto power anymore. Okay. What do you do now about the eight decades of violations that The United States has committed? How does that solve the problem? That doesn't solve the problem at all.

There hasn't that's not justice. America has committed serious, extremely serious violations of the UN Charter consistently, persistently, and insistently for eight decades, and they're doing it right now. Where's the justice for that? Just because you remove their veto ability, their, their privilege of the veto power, how is that justice for all of their victims? No.

There has to be justice. And another side of it is that this talk about removing the veto power isn't necessarily new. We have seen, several countries over the last twenty, thirty years are raising the issue of, removing the veto power. That's this this isn't the first time it's come up because obviously it's an unfair privilege. It's an unfair advantage that the members of the security council have.

So it's obviously it has come up before and nothing ever comes of it. Any country that has ever brought it up, okay, you can bring it up and it will go nowhere. So they're not fooling us. Finland isn't fooling us and we're not going to be fooled by the West and by by the security council by anyone talking about, well, we'll entertain the possibility of getting rid of the veto power if everyone can just calm down. No.

We're not going to be fooled by that because you've talked about it before and it never goes anywhere. So we know perfectly well that this is just a a smokescreen and a decoy to try to get us off of the path of invoke invocation of article six. To to say that so that that you have solved the problem by taking away America's veto power, it would be like if you were getting beaten with a club and the police come and disarm the person who is beating you, and then they say, okay, there's nothing to see here. We're all done. No.

There should be criminal charges against the one who was beating you. There has to be justice. There has to be accountability. Just because you, do something to disarm the criminal, disarm the assailant, that doesn't mean that you weren't assaulted. You were assaulted and you should have justice.

And that's the case for country after country after country all around the world. And then just with regards to to Israel, exactly what you said, that's a nonstarter. That's a completely futile effort to try to invoke article six against Israel. It's futile for one thing because it's unnecessary since if you can expel The United States, then you've already solved your Israel problem. But but also, as you said perfectly well, even trying to invoke article six against the against Israel will immediately get shot down by the Security Council, by the American veto.

So that's a completely futile effort. If you wanna be involved in something that's just symbolic to show that you're that you disapprove of Israel, that's fine. That's your business. But we're trying to do something that's serious and that has actual consequences for the benefit of the planet, for the benefit of the Palestinians, and for the benefit of everyone else, for the benefit of all of the victims of The United States of the last eighty years.