The Day After 9/11: UN Security Council’s Passes Resolution 1368 and Starts “Pillar Four” of the United Nations
The first draft of this article was written in 2014. It is now ready for publication (including several corrections).
The first overt diplomatic achievement by the United States related to 9/11, was Resolution No. 1368.
It was adopted at noontime by the UN Security Council on September 12,
2001. The resolution contained the obligatory statements of condemnation
and of solidarity with the 9/11 victims and their families. But this
particular resolution manifested three puzzling features whose
implications are
unsettling.
Resolution 1368
included a one-paragraph preamble in which the Council “recognized the
inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance
with the Charter.” There was no need to mention this
particular principle in the resolution unless it was the intent of the
Council to give the United States a wink that it may, if it wishes, use
military force against any country it chooses as a response to 9/11.
A Wink
Note that the Council
did not “authorize” the United States to use military force, as it had
done in the case of the invasion and occupation of Kuwait by Iraq in
1990,[1] but chose to convey to the United States indirectly the message
that the Council would look the other way and ask no questions, if the
United States would use military force against foreign states in
response to 9/11.
That is precisely what
happened: The U.S. bombing campaign against Afghanistan and the
subsequent occupation of that country was not condemned by any member of
the Security Council, although it was a violation of
customary international law – as established on the basis of the
so-called Caroline doctrine – and of the U.N. Charter.
According to the
Caroline doctrine, the resort to self-defense requires “a necessity of
self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no
moment of deliberation.” Furthermore, any action taken must
be proportional, “since the act justified by the necessity of
self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within
it.”
Resolution 1368 also
condoned a blatant act of aggression. The International Military
Tribunal at Nuremberg (1945) called the waging of aggressive war “not
only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime,
differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself
the accumulated evil of the whole.” [2]
I argue that by
including the Charter’s provision on self- defense into Resolution No.
1368, Council members contributed to the violation of customary
international law and the commission of the supreme international
crime by the U.S. government, namely aggression.
Was 9-11 an International Act?
Furthermore, the Council
designated the events of the preceding day as an act of “international”
terrorism, and “a threat to international peace and security” without
being provided with the slightest evidence in support of both of these
assertions. The Council is not known to have at any time requested or
obtained such evidence.
Note: it is the formula
“threat to international peace” that gives the UNSC the authority to
issue resolutions that bind member states. I am referring to Article 39
of the UN Charter:
”
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the
peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make
recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance
with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace
and security.”
According to the US’s
official account, four airliners in domestic routes were hijacked by 19
passengers on September 11, 2001. Even if that account had been true –
which it is not – it would not have amounted to an act
of “international” terrorism, but would remain a large-scale act of
domestic terrorism by travelers whose real identities remain in
question.
A further puzzling
feature is the swiftness with which Resolution 1368 was adopted. Had the
above two features not been included in the resolution – calling 9/11
international terrorism and designating terrorism as a threat to peace —
there would be nothing odd about the fact that it was adopted one day
after the attacks.
Numerous governments and
inter-governmental organisations adopted resolutions on the very day of
the attacks, September 11, 2001, in which they condemned the attacks
and expressed solidarity with the victims. They, however, carefully
refrained from designating the attacks as containing an international
dimension.
Vast Implications
The two features
discussed above were neither self-evident nor necessary, yet have vast
legal and political implications. It is inconceivable that individuals
sitting in the Council, representing their governments, would approve
the wording of Council resolutions on the base of their personal
feelings, no matter how strong.
Drafts of Security
Council resolutions, particularly those which contain legal precedents
or entail legal consequences, are typically examined – down to their
punctuation – by legal experts in the home countries of the Council’s
members. It is inconceivable that experts around the world would be able
to assess within hours the legal and political ramifications of the
features discussed above.
I can conceive of only
two explanations for this apparent swiftness: Either the United States
(backed by its NATO allies) threatened the governments of the other
Security Council members with severe sanctions, should they fail
to adopt this resolution, or the draft resolution had been circulated
to, and approved by selected members of the Security Council prior to
the events of 9/11, in order to ensure its speedy adoption on September
12, 2001. Both explanations give rise to highly disturbing questions.
Now for a comment on the
probity of information put before the UNSC. The Security Council does
not have to base its decisions on proven facts. It may legally base its
operative decisions on hunches, hypotheticals, hearsay and even fantasy.
The Security Council would be legally entitled to determine that the
earth is flat, if such determination would politically suit its members.
The members of the
Security Council are admittedly under the legal obligation to act in
good faith, but no international entity has been set up to examine
whether they have complied with this principle, and if violated,
to invalidate decisions based on the breach of this principle.[3]
The readiness of all
members of the Security Council to underwrite American foreign policy
aims, as reflected in the provisions of Resolution No. 1368, must be
regarded as a historical watershed.
The UN’s Fourth Pillar
For years, I have been a
lonely voice pointing out that the UNSC’s Permanent Five (US, UK,
France, Russia and China) have committed themselves to define
“international terrorism” as a major threat to world peace. This definition is a monumental lie,
for terrorism is not even a threat to the sovereignty, national
defense, or political order of any country. While terrorism (attacks on
civilians for political purposes) is a crime, the number of
people killed yearly by terrorist acts in most countries lies between
zero and and 10. In Europe, a territory of over 500 million people,
about 44 people die on the average yearly in terrorist attacks (compared
to over 5,000 yearly homicides).
I have repeatedly warned that the United Nations have adopted the ideology of “counter-terrorism”
as one of the pillars for the entire UN system. Now, finally and
belatedly, others vindicate my warnings. In June 2020, the UK-based
organization Saferworld has lamented the mainstreaming of the
counter-terrorism ideology within the United Nations Organization.
“For three-quarters of a century, peace, rights and development have been the three core pillars that define the UN’s unique purpose. However, in the post-9/11 era, governments’ collective determination to define terrorism as the pre-eminent global security challenge has made a deep impression on the UN [sic]. Counter-terrorism has come to the fore through a flood of UN Security Council resolutions, General Assembly strategies, new funding streams, offices, committees, working groups and staff – all dedicated to counter-terrorism.” [4]
Any Good Guys?
I urge all those who for
various reasons believe Russia and China to be “the hope for Mankind”
as opposed to Western imperialism, to take a second look at this
perception. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are
firmly committed to the fraudulent counter-terrorism ideology, for it
provides all governments around the globe with justifications to abolish democracy and institute a digital dictatorship.
The counter-terrorism
ideology, now complemented by a global health-scare campaign, is
precisely the cement that binds the rulers of the P5, and it bears no
relation to Al Qaeda, ISIS or other real or fake terrorist
organisations. The P5, serving their ruling classes, have thus declared a
war against the world’s peoples. The United Nations, once a hope for
the world, have become a tool of oppression. “We the People” can trust
no government and no organisation of states to ensure our rights and
liberties. We must join hands across borders without state or corporate
interference to restore an acceptable world order.
*
Note to readers: please click the share
buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists.
Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Elias Davidsson
is an Icelandic citizen living in Germany. He is a composer, human
rights and peace activist and author of several books on 9/11 and
false-flag terrorism.
Notes
[1] This is
from the “Gulf war”: Under SC Resolution 678 of November 29, 1990, the
Security Council “authorize[d] Member States co-operating with the
Government of Kuwait […] to use all necessary means to uphold
and implement resolution 660(1990) and all subsequent relevant
resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the
area.”
[2] The Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court, too, refers to the crime
of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the
international community”, and provides that the crime falls within the
jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
[3] See, in
particular, Elias Davidsson, “The Security Council’s Obligations of Good
Faith”, Florida Journal of International Law, Vol. XV, No. 4 (Summer
2003) (http://www.aldeilis.net/bpb/goodfaith.pdf)
Featured image is from The Greanville Post
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Elias Davidsson, Global Research, 2020
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page
Become a Member of Global Research
No comments:
Post a Comment