HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
<<<<have to tell you that some inconsistencies in your message > suggest that you are really not Tariq at all but only one of > the many non-existent persons, so-called "cyber ghosts", in- > vented by a certain reactionary-minded person in the USA, > Thomas P. Murray, who takes an interest in trying to fool > others and "at best" lead them astray in various ways.>>>>> Yet another sign of an extremely paranoid individual, seriously in need of councelling. <<<< >... said, "I agree- [USA] and Israel! >The two nations that continually vote against peace and >progress!" > >I will like to add another name: India. Well, Tariq, that was one thing which you wrote that was *completely out of character* for any *genuine* Pakistani Leftist. But a typical one for a stupid reactionary US bourgeois person, such as the inveterate "cyber ghost" in- ventor Thomas P. Murray, to try to *make people believe* a Pakistani Leftist might writ>>>> AH -- but how does the enlightened "marxist" Rolf Marten of Sweden define such a term as a ' genuine Pakistani Leftist'?; and for that matter,"genuine" leftist? Under what circumstances is this title revoked? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copies to: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Rolf Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Support for kicking the USA out of the UN (#02) [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Date sent: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 12:07:26 +0200 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK > --------------------------- > > Support for kicking the USA out of the UN (#02) > [01.07.02] > > [This goes to some mailing lists and some Usenet newsgroups, > and also to Taimur Rahman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, with > whom I had a brief public discussion on his "In Defense of > Marxism" in mid-June and who may be able later to check on > some things - if necssary - among those mentioned below.] > > > Tariq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, to the "MaoZe- > Dong" mailing list on Sun, 30 Jun 2002 22:20:21 +0500, sub- > ject "Re: Support for kicking the USA out of the UN (#01)": > > > >Dear Rolf Martens, > > > > > >I support, 'Kick the US out of UNO'. > > > Hello Tariq, > > Thank you for your support of this call, and for your in- > teresting viewpoints. > > We thus are already three(?) supporters of that call. > > It was nice to learn too that some of you "in Peshawar, Pa- > kistan, will arrange, in the last week of July, 2002, a se- > minar/debate to see how effective are the arguments con- > tained" in my message. > > I have to tell you that some inconsistencies in your message > suggest that you are really not Tariq at all but only one of > the many non-existent persons, so-called "cyber ghosts", in- > vented by a certain reactionary-minded person in the USA, > Thomas P. Murray, who takes an interest in trying to fool > others and "at best" lead them astray in various ways. > > If that should be the case, I'm sorry for you of course, > since it cannot be fun to lead the existence of just a ghost. > And in that case too, you would constitute a new development > in Murray's activities, since he has not earlier been able > to acquire e-mail addresses with a domain clearly of another > country than that of the USA - in your case "pk", a Pakistan > domain. And then of course there would not really be that > further support for kicking the USA out of the UN, nor such > a later seminar/debate in Peshawar as that you mentioned. > > Anyway, here are a few comments on your viewpoints; these > perhaps might interest some others even if it should turn > out that you Tariq are just another Murr-Murray ghost. > > [Tariq, further:] > >I read your very lengthy message. It was a feat in itself to > >go through that. I deeply appreciate and admire the effort > >you have put in. > > By my "very lengthy message", you no doubt mean my "UNITE! > Info #173en: Kick the USA out of the UN!" of 28.06 which, > yes, was relatively long. But something you wrote also sug- > gests you didn't really read all of it. That US Murr-Murr > always *was* a lazy bastard, even if striving quite hard to > "improve on" his swindle attempts. > > >Nevertheless, I have my reservations about the exercise be > >any success. Although I know much less of international law > >and the functioning of UNO but: The members constitute the > >UNO, who all operate through their officially appointed > >emisaries. You would agree the US could not have gone that > >far 'down' had she known there would be some countries tel- > >ling her, 'No More'. > > I on my part, on the contrary, hold that the call *is* quite > realistic. > > It's true that, so far, the governments of other countries > have *not* resisted the international desperate terrorist > war and war threat activities of the US imperialists quite so > strongly as would correspond to a number of them uniting in > order, for instance, kick the USA out of that UN in which it > today clearly does not belong. > > This is due to the bourgeois character of practically all of > these governments too, of course. And in particular, the > rulers of other "richer" countries, such as Sweden and the > other West European ones, and also the new tsarists who rule > Russia and the Chinese revisionists in control of China, > today see a great "need" to team up with the militarily much > stronger US imperialists, whose espionage organizations en- > gage in cloak-and-dagger murder activities against the people > everywhere too. These other rulers too desperately fear > "their own" people, and the peoples everywhere. They hope > that this really big-time terrorist, US imperialism, may > "protect" them from the people in the world. > > At the same time, really big-time and (relatively) strong > imperialist powers have always been very hungry "crocodiles". > Today that incomparably strongest one, US imperialism, is > so insatiably hungry too that it wants, and tries, to eat up > as much as it only can of Western Europe, Russia, China etc - > or to be more precise, gobble up "for free", as much as it > only can, the products of these countries too - leaving only > smaller crumbs to those other predatory, much smaller ani- > mals, the respective ruling circles of those countries. > > Thus, even they are in certain conflict with the US rulers > too. > > "Don't feed the crocodile!" was, in another but in some ways > similar situation, over 60 years ago, the rather good advice > of one politician who himself of course was an imperialist > too, Winston Churchill of Great Britain, to the relatively > "rich" but small countries here in Scandinavia, whose leaders > in early 1940 thought that their interests were best served > if they continued to provide wildly aggressive Nazi Germany, > which had then already gobbled up some other countries, with > iron ore and other goods, and continued to have "good rela- > tions" with that particularly dangerous predator then, in- > stead of opposing it. > > "You're feeding the crocodile in the hope that you may be the > last to be gobbled up by it; but this will turn out to be > foolosh", W. Churchill in that situation told the leaders of > those countries, to their great embarrassment. He turned out > to be right on this, of course. The Norwegians and the Danes > well remember 9 April 1940 and what followed for their coun- > tries during five years from then on. A few Swedes, still to- > day, do think that the "crocodile-feeding" at that time by > *their* government was "a success"; in this they very much > are wrong. > > Today, even the of course very reactionary rulers of the > small and medium-sized West European countries, and those > of the rather big ones Russia and China, will have *some* > thoughts, at least, on how it may be unwise, even as seen > from their own likewise reactionary wievpoints, to continue > "feeding" that particularly big and hungry "crocodile" in the > world today completely. > > And of course the many internationally-oppressed and -exploi- > ted, considerably weaker countries in the world today, many > of which are now also already under direct or indirect US > military attack, and many of which are being quite openly > threatened by such attack, in speech after speech by the pre- > sent-day crocodile leaders, they very clearly have an inte- > rest in reflecting, among other things: Should we not team > up internationally, so as for instance to kick that croc out > of the UN, alerting all to the danger from it? > > Of course there is hesitation on the part of many governments > of such countries too, since these themselves are also of a > bourgeois character and in most cases likewise stand, some- > times more actutely and sometimes less so, in contradiction > to their own, or "their own", people. That of Pakistan, for > instance, clearly is relatively dependent today on that cro- > codile of today's world, US imperialism. > > But for many of those oppressed/attacked/threatened coun- > tries' governments, who together of course do have a big > majority of all the votes (some 180-190 altoghether) in the > UN General Assembly, kicking the USA out of the UN already > should be something to reflect seriously on. > > And not only this. As class contradictions and the contra- > dictions deriving from this, those of imperialism in the > world, continue to sharpen, as they certainly will, the US > imperialists will embark on even more desperate adventures > of war, terrorism and direct mass murder than they have done > so far. Those rather recent, very desperate, terrorist at- > tacks of theirs against "their very own" people on 11 Septem- > ber 2001, and their, if anything, even more insane interna- > tional "follow-ups" of this so far do constitute a new "de- > velopment" in the world, a new "development" in the cen- > turies-long struggle between the bourgeoisie and the prole- > tariat in the world. That quite dangerous crocodile, fed by > the the bourgeoisie in all the world so as "to protect" it, > in the rather near future will try to put it jaws around > others, in openly-violent and other ways. > > Then the need for joint resistance against it will be seen > even more clearly, by a number of governments too, I think. > > >I am reminded of the tactics of the 'great' Mongol con- > >querer, Chengiz Khan who swept over most of Eurasian mailand > >in a very short time. At each city before his horsemen would > >knock at the gates the moles inside would have eaten up the > >edifices already. Unless we clean the muck within the house, > >no window dressing would work. > > In this you're quite right, of course, Tariq (or, perhaps, > Murray). Youre referring to that bourgeois, exploiting-class > character which most governments have too, and which I men- > tioned above. The people everywhere must step up their re- > sistance against that exploitation engaged in by them, and > of course what is necessary internationally above all is pro- > letarian revolution. > > But this does not mean that it's not entirely possible, even > today, for a number of governments to team up, out of some > interests not entirely those of "their" respective people, > to team up against US imperialism for instance with such an > action as that which I've proposed and which you (or Murray) > have stated your support for too. > > >Again the most effective body of the UNO is the UNSC, where > >five permanent members, actually the victors of WW II, at the > >end of which the UNO Charter was drafted by these very na- > >tions, hold veto power. > > Well, some people *say* that these five "permanent" members - > one of which, by the way, does not even exist any more, the > Soviet Union, but still expressly is mentioned(!) in the UN > Charter as if it would exist, and another, the so-called > "Republic of China" (said to be a "permanent member" too, in > the UN Charter as found on the Internet today!) which only has > control of a small part of Chinese territory, the island of > Taiwan, no longer actually is a Security Council member > either - all "have a veto" on certain questions. > > If you had really read my "very lengthy message", Tariq (or > Murray?), i.e. my Info #173en, "Kick the USA out of the UN!", > then you would have seen my arguing, that no, they *don't* > really have such a "veto", at least not in this very clear > case, the question of whether this, in practice already, > *non*-UN-member crocodile should also formally be kicked out. > > As I wrote, Article 24 of the UN Charter, which provides that > the Security Council, as only the executive organ of the UN > - while, clearly, the General Assembly is the UN's highest > deciding organ - is obliged to act NB! "in accordance with > the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations" NB!. > > This clearly *overrides* that provision in Article 27 which > requires that, on some decisions, all the five so-called > "permanent" (not in all cases really so permanent either - > see above!) members of the Security Council must concur, for > the decision to be valid. That is, the provision which some > people think means is a "permanent" "veto" given to those > five back in 1945. > > What I argued was that, in case some members of the Security > Council (which has 10 "non-permanent" members too; those are > replaced every second year) propose a recommendation to the > General Assembly to kick the crocodile out, and some others > in the Security Council (inluding some "permanent" members, > including the crocodile itself, for instance) perhaps oppose > this and would try to "vote no" to it within the Security > Council, these "votes" then would be *invalid*. > > This because it very clearly goes straight *against* those > purposes and principles of the UN, which are stated in its > Charter, against the very most basic of them all, in fact, > that of *peace between nations*, to keep such a clearly in > fact non-UN-member as that crocodile, the persistently Char- > ter-violating USA, as ruled by the present regime there. > > As I wrote too, most probably it would be sufficient to have > a recommendation from the Security Council on this, behind > which there stood *only one* SC member, for the General As- > sembly then to be able to effect, with a "simple" majority > vote, the expulsion of the USA, in full accordance with the > UN Charter's procedure rules. > > The agreement of some 95-100 UN members, including one member > of the Security Council, thus would be sufficient, I argued. > > >This means one permanent member of UNSC can undo the will of > >the entire world. > > Well, once more, that's what some people *say*. It's not > true, I've argued. And it would be most flagrantly undemo- > cratic really to "have", or to accept, such a "veto", of > course. > > If some 100 UN members (on the initiative, say of some of the > already attacked ones or some of those many today openly > threatened, by the US imperialists), including 1 in the SC, > agree on kicking the USA out, then they with full support of > the UN Charter, and basing themselves also on such elementary > principles of democracy as all can easily understand, can > say, "Crocodile, you're out! Your purported 'veto' is not a > really existing such, since it in this clear case goes > straight against the most basic purposes and principles of the > United Nations. Goodbye; the USA as a country is welcome back > only at such a time when there are really democratic elections > in it." > > >'Veto' is not without reason 'Vote' misspelt. I do not know > >how you visualise getting the motion through the same UNSC. > [The UN Security Council, you mean.] > > It's because you, obviously, failed to read all of my Info > #173en that you don't know this. I've now explained it to you > (and to others who perhaps missed my point on this) once more. > > >UN GA [the Un General Assembly] where nations have equal re- > >presentation, the house has little legal weight. > > Not true, of course! Take any "ordinary" bourgeois republic, > for comparison. There it precisely *is* "the house", the > parliament, that is the highest deciding organ. The executive > one, the government, is elected by it and basically must > abide by its decisions. > > Now, true enough, the UN *was* constructed *somewhat* diffe- > rently, and more openly undemocratically, back in 1945, with > that Article 27 provision concerning those SC members which > were then called "permanent" such. But things do change. As > I wrote and as all know, it's pretty ridiculous that the > regime on the island Taiwan (although today perhaps no worse, > in its character as against "its" people, than the one on the > Chinese mainland) still is listed as one such. And one other > of those "permanent" members, a socialist state in 1945, and > 20 years later, quite on the contrary, a social-imperialist > one, since over 10 years today is so little "permanent" that > it no longer even exists as a state. > > And not only do things change; things *should* change too. > A "veto" on the part of a "government member" - who is now > persistently committing all sorts of vile crimes, and even > declares his intention to continue doing so "eternally"! - > against his own called-for resignation, or his impeachment, > that's something that not many people will find remotely > acceptable today. > > >I feel the UNO is so structured that it ensures exactly > >opposite of what its charter declares. > > "Ensures"? As I already said, the UN structure does *not* > really ensure that. > > >Despite the above, we in Peshawar, Pakistan in the last week > >of July 2002 are arranging a seminar/debate to see how ef- > >fective the arguments contained in your message are. > > Which would be very nice, Tariq, if you're *not* really Mr. > Murr-Murray, USA! Time will show, very clearly, how things > stand concerning this! > > >We plan to have two or three International Law experts, on > >each side to speak for and against. The experts will be from > >academicia, bar and public sector to speak for and against > >the proposal. I hope it will be of some interest to those > >interested. We plan to invite just a select group, not more > >than 20 besides the experts. I will try to let you know the > >outcome. > > > > > >Tariq > > A report by you on this might be quite interesting, provided > the whole thing is not just a ghost "seminar/debate". Taimur > Rahman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, whose background is Pakis- > tani, might be interested too, in that case. (I mentioned him > above, and if later, you do "let me know" something about > this, then I shall show it to him too.) Let's see what I, and > perhaps he, will be informed about, and conclude, concerning > that Peshawar seminar/debate in early August or so, then. > > > >PS 1. Robert Fisk... > > No, that writer is *not* called "Robert Fisk" - although > there *is* a such with that first name too, mainly read by > some people in the "West", I believe - but just "Fisk", as a > signature. This misunderstanding of yours was another small > strangeness in your posting. > > >... said, "I agree- [USA] and Israel! > >The two nations that continually vote against peace and > >progress!" > > > >I will like to add another name: India. > > Well, Tariq, that was one thing which you wrote that was > *completely out of character* for any *genuine* Pakistani > Leftist. But a typical one for a stupid reactionary US > bourgeois person, such as the inveterate "cyber ghost" in- > ventor Thomas P. Murray, to try to *make people believe* a > Pakistani Leftist might write. > > >PS 2. If you lay your hands on the article, "The United > >States versus the World at the United Nations'' by Willium > >Blum, please let me have its copy throug e-mail. > > And that was another thing too that was not too smart of you, > I must say. That article of course was forwarded by me (as > reproduced by Fisk, who added to its subject line, "Kick the > USA out!") precisely at the same time as I posted that thing > which you replied too. You must have seen it on the same > mailing list, not too far from this. Or else, it would have > been somewhat of a coincidence if you had thought of that > particular article in this context. > > It's pretty clear, I think, that you (or Murr-Murray, in case > you're another invention by him) already have that article. > So I won't bother sending you another copy. > > > Although this "further support" of the call, as coming from > you Tariq, thus must be said to be of somewhat doubtful > nature, I hope that other readers may have some use for the > arguments presented in the discussion above. > > Rolf M. > Malm�, Sweden > > ============================ > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Rolf Martens > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 7:45 AM > Subject: [MaoZeDong] Support for kicking the USA out > of the UN (#01) > > > >> Support for kicking the USA out of the UN (#01) > >> [30.06.02] > >> > >> In reply to my "UNITE! Info #173en: Kick the USA out of the > >> UN!" on Friday, 28.06.2002, the signature Fisk, who manages > >> the Socialism and Communism Forum at > >> http://www.pwrhouse.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=272, > >> wrote, likewise on 28.06, to the Forum mentioned: > >> > >> >I agree- and Israel! > >> >The two nations that continually vote against peace and > >> >progress! > ... > > * * * > > --------------------------- > ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST > > --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.bacIlu Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
