Article 6: End Do-Nothing-ism

I just wanted to mention something with regards to the the question or potential concern that people might have as to whether or not there has been any attempt before to expel a member state from the UN. This the this question that sister Imam just answered very very eloquently. There's another side to it that I would like to point out, which is that no country or no member state has been expelled from the United Nations because article six requires that that member state has persistently violated the principles of the charter and no one else has done that. So it's kind of an irrelevant question or an irrelevant concern because if you can tell me of another country that's a member of the United Nations that has committed multiple genocides, that has committed enforced starvation of populations around the world, that has invaded multiple countries around the world, that has that has evaded international law, has illegally subjected countries to sanctions against international law, has protected international war criminals, has protected human rights violators, has been guilty of human rights violations all around the world, and in fact approaches their entire philosophy, on foreign policy, is in violation of article two of the United Nations Charter.

If you can tell me of another country that's done that, then it would be a relevant question because this this is a country, The United States, which is guilty of very obvious, very easily provable persistent violations of the UN charter, and that's the requirement. That's the criteria. That's the prerequisite for invoking Article six. So there isn't another member state that has violated the principles of the UN Charter to any degree whatsoever near the consistency and the insistence and persistence of The United States. So no, it has never been invoked.

And what does that tell you? Except that every other member state, every other member of the United Nations knows how to follow the law. Every other member of the United Nations knows how to abide by the charter. Every other member knows how to abide by the principles and respect the principles. There may be some errors here and there, and there may be some violations here and there, but not every day for the last eighty years.

There's only one country, and that's The United States. And you can include in The United States when we're talking about the violations by The United States of the UN Charter. You can include in that Israel because when we talk about Israel, we talk about America. When we talk about America, we talk about Israel. It's one entity.

So you can include all of the violations that have been committed by Israel including its very existence, which is in and of itself a violation of international law and in violation of the very agreement and the very resolution that even brought it into existence, which was supposed to also bring Palestinian state into existence, that never happened, and that never got enforced. So and why did it not get enforced? Well, because of The United States, another violation. So there isn't another country. There isn't another member state that even qualifies to have article six invoked against it.

Because as I say, all of the other members of the general assembly, even all of the other members of the UN Security Council including violators like France, violators like The UK, and yes, violators like China, and violators like Russia. They've all violated the charter, but with with nowhere near the consistency and the persistence of The United States. And I will just also point out one other element to why it has never happened before. The main reason is because no one else is qualified, no one else is eligible to be kicked out of the United Nations because everyone else knows how to follow the rules to one extent or another. But the other reason, because America could always invoke article six against another country.

And you know that they would love to do that. You know, they would love to have kicked the Soviet Union when it was the Soviet Union. You know, they would have loved to kick the Soviet Union out. You know, that they would love to kick Iran out. You know, that they would love to kick China out.

You know, that they would love to kick Russia out today. And they even talked about it at one point when they when the invasion of Ukraine first happened. You know that they would love to kick out any one of the countries that is an official enemy of The United States. They would love to do that. So what's stopping them?

Well, one is, of course, that you could not actually prove persistent violations by that country because no one has done it like The United States. And the fact that no one has done it like The United States is also why The United States doesn't even want to bring it up. They don't wanna draw attention to the existence of article six because they know that if the world knows that article six exists, and a and a persistent violator of international law, a persistent violator of the principles of the UN Charter can actually be expelled from the United Nations, then the whole world will agree that there's only one culprit. There's only one criminal, war criminal, that is eligible for having article six invoked against him and that that is The United States. So America doesn't want to draw attention to the existence of article six in the UN Charter because they know that once the the global population and all of the governments of the global South and all of the governments of the international victims of American policy, once they're aware that this can be invoked, then the first country that is gonna be invoked against will be The United States.

I'm I'm kind of looking at some of the comments that are that are coming through, and there's a kind of a thread of a sense of helplessness and hopelessness in some of the comments. An idea that justice can never be achieved, that America will never allow that, that the colonizers will never allow that, that imperialism will never allow that, or that the that the Zionist elites who supposedly control the world would never allow that and so forth. The the the common thread running through all of these types of arguments, which aren't really arguments, they're excuses to do nothing. All of these arguments to justify and rationalize doing nothing are based on or are are driven by or or originate from exactly what we've been talking about, which is the corrupting influence of American domination. The corrupting influence of America's domination of the United Nations and through the United Nations, the impunity that America has been able to enjoy for eight decades.

Because this is something that has to be clarified. I've I've clarified it a number of times. When we talk about American hegemony, what we're actually talking about is is American impunity, American unaccountability. That is the one and only thing that has enabled America to have hegemony around the world. And this is the only thing that has enabled them to dominate the global landscape politically, economically and in every other kind of way.

It has been their impunity. They have secured their impunity through their domination of the United Nations and all of the associated bodies that are charged with the enforcement of international law. It isn't their power that has enabled them to exercise hegemony over the globe. It it isn't their military strength. It isn't even their economic strength that has enabled them to do that.

Because even with economic power, you have to make deals. You have to make agreements. Trade is a is a transactional relationship. It can't necessarily be forced, but they have the ability to force these types of things. They have the ability to exert coercive measures against smaller countries precisely because they have secured for themselves impunity at the United Nations and domination of the United Nations.

So the fact that that we have lived through eight decades of this domination, the fact that we've lived through eight decades in which it has become the default assumption that America can do whatever it wants, that it has become the de facto reality that America will never be held accountable, that has completely eroded public trust and public confidence in international institutions and even worse than that, it has eroded our confidence and our trust and our belief in even concepts of international justice. Even the concept of international justice and the concept of a a of a world in which the the countries large and small have an equal voice, which is what the UN Charter says. We've we've lost our faith in those ideals, those principles, those values because of America's corrupting influence. But what I want to also point out is that this is an obsolete understanding of global power dynamics. You're operating according to information that maybe you grew up with or maybe your parents told you about because they grew up with it, but this is not up to date information.

America does not have the kind of power that they had, eight decades ago. Don't They have the kind of political power. They don't have the kind of military power and they don't even have the same kind of economic power that they had eight decades ago. Their their share of global GDP is a fraction of it what of what it was when they established the United Nations. They don't have the kind of power that they used to have.

The global South is rising. BRICS is rising. The global power dynamics are in transition and America is on the losing end of that transition. Your assumption that the colonizers won't let you do something, that's an obsolete way of looking at the world. They don't get to let you or not let you do anything today.

You have power now. You are underestimating yourselves and this is, this this self underestimation is what America is counting on. They're counting on you still being haunted by the past and thinking that the past is the present. Well, it's not. The present is very, very different.

And the fact the fact that we're in a very different place in 2024 or we're almost at 2025, so let's just go with that. We're at a very different place, and the fact that we're at a very different place in 2025 than we were at in 1945 shows you how different the future can be. Because the world doesn't bear any resemblance to what it was like in 1945, particularly in terms of American hegemony, American power, American domination, American supremacy. We're nowhere close to what it was like in 1945. If you think that we're that we're living in the in the same kind of world, then you need to do some research.

You need to look at history and look at how powerful The United States was in the nineteen forties, nineteen fifties, even the nineteen sixties. But it started to decline in the seventies, was declining more in the eighties, more in the nineties, in the February. It's been in the state of steady decline. Meanwhile, the countries of the global south have been rising that entire time. Look at what has happened in China since the nineteen seventies.

You know, very short time, just in in fifty years, what China has accomplished, what China has become. And then, what did China do? This is very different, for example. I'm not necessarily advocating for China, so don't misunderstand me. But just look at the difference in global philosophy, the philosophy of international relations, and how it's different from The United States.

When China gained the kind of power that they have gained, that they never had before on the global stage, When they reached that level, as a superpower, what did they do? They created and they joined an organization of other global South countries to work together. That's a complete opposite philosophy to to the American exceptional exceptionalist concept. The American exceptionalist philosophy. The American supremacist philosophy that no one else can come up.

If we're on the top, then we have to be on the top and everyone else has to be at the bottom. That's the American philosophy. That's the American approach to international relations. That's not what China did, and China is representative of the attitude of the global South, of the philosophy of the global South, of the theory of international relations of the global South, which advocates for harmony, which advocates for collaboration, which advocates for cooperation, which advocates for lifting each other up, helping each other to to, succeed, helping each other to prosper. And that is what is happening.

That's the transition that we're living through. So if you're still thinking that we're living in a time when America can dictate to the rest of the world this, that, and the other, you're wrong. And the only thing that is, keeping that, as some sort of a fact in the world, in world politics, is just because you think so. You insist on American supremacy more than American supremacy has been able to maintain insistence upon itself. Your psychological colonization, your psychological, pacification is the only thing left that's giving The United States power anymore.

Because you still think that that, that that slave master who when he enslaved you was young and virile and strong and brawny and muscular and so forth. You think it's still the same man, But it's not. He's become old and decrepit and weak and feeble. Meanwhile, you've only gotten stronger. So you need to understand the way things really are in the world today and don't make excuses.

I was just I was talking about the the the mentality of some of the people in the comment section who who are expressing a very hopeless and helpless sort of a passive, complacent, do nothing sort of attitude. And I wanted to address that. I was talking about how this reflects the effect on people's confidence in even concepts like justice, concepts like fairness, concepts like the the sovereignty of nations and so forth, and concepts like accountability for nations large and small. That America's domination in the United Nations has had a very correct corrupting influence over the attitudes of the global population towards concepts like this. And it has bred in the population a sense of hopelessness, a sense of despondency, a sense of helplessness, and a sense of complacency and passivity.

And I was arguing and I was I was explaining that this attitude is exactly what is maintaining American power because they don't actually have the power that they had eight decades ago when the establishment of the United Nations first came about. They don't have that kind of power that they did in 1945 in 2025, And the power is shifting from the West to the global South and to the East. And I wanted to bring up arguments or what I would call sort of half measures like saying we need to get rid of the veto power or the other argument being we need to disband the United Nations or can't BRICS, can't the global South start their own United Nations? Can't all of the 193 countries in the world, exit the United Nations and so forth? All of these types of, half measure or pretend solutions.

And I wanted to address that because it's a common these are common arguments that we get or common excuses that we get or common questions or concerns or opinions that we get. And I wanted to address it because running through those types of comments, running through those types of opinions is a sense of weakness and I'm sorry to say cowardice. Because if we're talking about if you put it on a like and sometimes it helps when you're looking at something that's on a very macro level, on a global level, on a very large scale level. Bring it down to something that's more relatable. Bring it down to the micro level.

If your home was invaded, if you were the subject or the the victim, if you were the victim of a home invasion and someone came and broke into your home and now started to, you know, hold you hostage and order you around and tell you what to do and so forth. But what do you think is the right response to that? To just give him your house? To give him whatever he wants? Or to try to confront him and to fight him and to draw and to bring him to justice?

That's what you're supposed to want. That's what you want with criminals. They're supposed to be brought to justice. There's supposed there's supposed to be accountability. And all of these types of suggestions or proposals or or half measures like saying, well, let's just get rid of the veto power.

That will solve the problem. It doesn't solve the problem. That doesn't solve the problem of American impunity. That doesn't solve the problem of America's domination of the United Nations. The veto is just one thing, that America abuses.

That's just one thing that they abuse. They also abuse their funding of the United Nations and exploit and manipulate and extort and they use it as bribe money and hush money against the successful and fair operations of all of the bodies of the United Nations. So, no, getting rid of the veto power is not the answer. Getting rid of the getting rid of the veto power is a separate issue. There's a there's an argument to be made and it's a good argument that the veto power is unfair.

That's true. But that's a separate issue from what we're talking about. We're talking about a member state that has consistently, persistently, and insistently violated the principles of the UN Charter. What are you gonna do about that? What are you gonna do about eight decades of violations?

What are you gonna do about eight decades of crimes? Earlier in the in the live, before we got cut off in the early, portion of the live, the speakers were, enumerating a number of countries that have been severely victimized by The United States. Tunisia, Morocco, Puerto Rico, Syria, Philippines, and the list goes on and on. These are just a a handful of countries that we've selected from the early years of the United Nations to demonstrate the crimes that were being committed all the way back then, but they didn't stop back then, and those aren't the only countries that they were victimizing back then. Okay?

So what about justice for Tunisia? What about justice for Morocco? What about justice for Algeria? What about justice for Syria? What about justice for The Philippines?

What about justice for Puerto Rico? What about justice for all of America's victims over the last eight decades? Getting rid of the veto power doesn't solve that problem, neither does dismantling the United Nations. But you're taking a passive approach. You're taking a weak approach.

You're taking a retreat approach. You're taking a surrender approach. What you're supposed to do is confront them. You're supposed to confront the criminal. You're supposed to confront the one who is committing injustice and call them to account and bring them to justice.

And that's what we're advocating. This is a strong approach, and that's the only approach that you can take. That's the approach that that's the kind of approach that you have to take with a bully. You can't, pacify and appease a bully. All of these half measures are just appeasement measures of The United States because nobody wants to get into open conflict with them.

No one wants to call them to account. No one wants to, call them on the carpet, and tell them to their face what they've done. Tell them to their face. Look them in the eye. Look uncle Sam dead in the eye and tell him what he's done and say that you have to answer for that.

You have to be held accountable for that. There has to be justice for your victims. We're not gonna just look the other way. We're not gonna leave this house. We're not gonna leave this organization.

We're not gonna abandon international law because we just don't know how to get you to comply with it. No. We have an option. It's in the charter, and the power is moving in our direction. So we have the power.

The global the South has the power. BRICS has the power. The global majority does have the power, and we have the legal mechanisms for calling America to account and expelling them from the United Nations. And once they're expelled from the United Nations, then the United Nations will be liberated from that domination and that corrupting influence and it will be able to operate as it was supposed to operate. It will be able to operate as I said earlier when I was talking about why there has never been a country that was expelled.

Why, article six has never been invoked before. Because everyone else knows how to follow the rules. That's why. So once you expel the rule breaker, once you expel the problem maker, then you can actually have an organization that operates according to its own charter, that operates according to its own rules, and that can hold America accountable and can bring America to justice and can impose consequences for America's eight decades of criminal actions.