Posts Tagged ‘United Nations’

Chemical War Prohibited, 1925

August 28, 2013

This is the integral text of the Protocol forbidding chemical and biological warfare. It was respected by all parties in World War Two:

Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare

Signed at Geneva: 17 June 1925. Entered into force: for each signatory as from the date of deposit of its ratification; accessions take effect on the date of the notification by the depositary Government. Depositary Government: France.

The Undersigned Plenipotentiaries, in the name of their respective Governments:

Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world;

and Whereas the prohibition of such use has been declared in Treaties to which the majority of Powers of the world are Parties; and To the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of International Law, binding alike the conscience and the practice of nations;

Declare: That the High Contracting Parties, so far as they are not already Parties to Treaties prohibiting such use, accept this prohibition, agree to extend this prohibition to the use of bacteriological methods of warfare and agree to be bound as between themselves according to the terms of this declaration.

The High Contracting Parties will exert every effort to induce other States to accede to the present Protocol. Such accession will be notified to the Government of the French Republic, and by the latter to all signatory and acceding Powers, and will take effect on the date of the notification by the Government of the French Republic.

The present Protocol, of which the English and French texts are both authentic, shall be ratified as soon as possible. It shall bear to-day’s date.

The ratifications of the present Protocol shall be addressed to the Government of the French Republic, which will at once notify the deposit of such ratification to each of the signatory and acceding Powers.

The instruments of ratification of and accession to the present Protocol will remain deposited in the archives of the Government of the French Republic.


To become party to the Protocol, states must deposit an instrument with the government of France (the depositary power). Thirty-eight states originally signed the Protocol. France, the first victim of a massive chemical attack, in 1915, was the first signatory to ratify the Protocol on 10 May 1926. As of May 2013, 138 states have ratified, acceded to, or succeeded to the Protocol (most recently Moldova on 4 November 2010).

The rest of the miscreants are bound by International Law, whether they like it, or not.


Even the Nazis respected the 1925 Geneva Protocol. The Nazis had thousands of tons of neurotoxic gas in 1945, and the means to deliver them: V2 rockets, and three types of jet bombers (democratic aircraft did not fly fast enough to catch them!)

The Nazis had also every reason to be resentful: goaded into the war by their erstwhile allies (see the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement), exasperated by American plutocracy bait and switch tactics, seeing their world collapse as the evidence of their cold assassination of more than twenty million civilians was all over their realm, one would have expected for all senior Nazis to emulate Magda Goebbels, who personally poisoned her six children.  

Instead, cooler heads prevailed.

Cooler heads have to be encouraged.  


In 1966 United Nations General Assembly resolution 2162B called for, without any dissent, all states to strictly observe the protocol. In 1969 United Nations General Assembly resolution 2603 (XXIV), to overrule the USA (then using Agent Orange in Vietnam!) declared that the prohibition on use of chemical and biological weapons, now forms part of customary international law.


Hollande, French president (27 August 2013): “Le mas­sacre chimique de Damas ne peut rester sans réponse, et la France est prête à PUNIR ceux qui ont pris la décision infâme de gazer des innocents ” (“Damascus chemical massacre can’t stay unanswered, & France is ready to PUNISH those who took the infamous decision of gazing innocent people”)


So, let’s get personal, and indeed punish directly, individually, those who live in infamy!

Another reminder: very few high officers were responsible of imperial Japan’s fascist, war crime laden rampage that led to the vicious idiocy of Pearl Harbor, among other follies. (There had been an attempted anti-plutocratic coup by junior officers, February 26, 1936, against the higher-ups; many were killed, but the coup failed.)

Taking out a dozen of these fanatical high officers would have done wonders (and not enough of them were hanged after the war!)

Only one caveat in this Syrian story: the responsibility of Assad’s government ought to be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt.

That NO chemical of fanatical Salafist rebels origin have been released has to be made certain; this is when the good old methods of the NSA and other spies, come into play; the information ought to be made public.

Another point: if Hitler had been executed, say in 1944, a fortiori 1939, there is no doubt that the total number of people saved may have been a huge proportion of those who died..

Thus, one has to strike the head of the snake. If one can show that orders to use chemicals were given by Assad, he should be considered, him, as a person, the number one target of any strike on Syria. Because he would be, by far, the most responsible. Do to him what should have been done to Hitler in a timely manner. That ought to encourage those of the same ilk.

Some worry that Syria would be lost without Mr. Assad and his spendthrift wife. Not to worry: I am sure plenty of unsullied secular high officers can be found in the Syrian army to replace him.


Patrice Ayme


July 16, 2008


(Otherwise it will end like Vietnam: a painful and ignominious fate).


The world has become skeptical of strictly American solutions, here, there, and everywhere. The American people should be too.

The legitimate gripes many in the Iraqi population have with the USA will keep on feeding terrorist resistance as long as US troops are prominently all over Iraq (that is why it’s a trap to keep significant US forces in Iraq to protect US personnel in Iraq: it would create the problem it claims to solve). Another difficulty about any strictly American “solution” to the occupation, is that Iraq needs huge Foreign Direct Investment, and economic help. The US has no money for itself, and a fortiori none for Iraq.

The most crucial part of an Iraq withdrawal plan is to replace US troops by UNITED NATIONS TROOPS. This is the method that was used systematically in Africa every time France and Great Britain intervened. First they went in, then after the shock military treatment, the United Nations approved the French and/or British intervention, and the United Nations took over with its own military means (with the European presence in the background as overlord).

Organizing the same in Iraq is a necessity, and should be amenable to approval by the Iraqi government. Bringing the UN in would force the world to approve US behavior, looking forward, and would be a clean break from the present acrimony. It would also solve the military quandary of the withdrawal of elite US troops (that method of transfer to the UN has worked well in Congo, Ivory coast, Bosnia, and many other places). . . Iraq is an international problem more than ever

United Nations troops cost less than a tenth per soldier than European or US troops cost. It would be easy for the US to make many countries of Muslim background an offer about sending troops to Iraq, that they could not resist.

Senator Obama has suggested to use the United Nations and the European Union to help solve the Iraq crisis. This is the way to go. France has engaged in combat with fanatical Quranist Islam for 17 centuries, and has scored the largest victories (Toulouse, Poitiers, Narbonne; then delivering North Africa from Turkish subjugation; then enlisting vast Muslim armies to help crush fascism, and finally Nazism, etc…). French know-how should be appreciated (France has special, bicultural agents who immerse themselves inside fanatical groups for decades; the Franks sent special agents to spy on the Muslims as early as the seventh century).   

In truth, the only possible victory in Iraq for the USA at this point, is to hide in a few remote bases, with as low a profile as possible leaving United Nations troops to enjoy the limelight (ready to call residual US forces for heavy intervention if needed).

By inviting other powers inside Iraq, as stakeholders, the USA could pose as the ultimate guarantor of security in Iraq (just as France does in Ivory Coast, and in a number of other African countries).

After killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis directly or indirectly over the last 17 years, it is not difficult to find millions of young Iraqis who hate the USA. The present US forces in Iraq are made of more than 186,000 soldiers and 202,000 mercenaries paid by the USA (Source: Defense Department). If a comparable army occupied the USA in the same proportion, it would have nearly 6 million men.

Senator McCain wants “victory” with this gigantic force. McCain celebrates the “surge”. He is happy that this gigantic force is so successful. Would Senator McCain proclaim success if six million Iraqi soldiers and fighters occupied the USA, and the population was more subdued?

In truth, it seems that a lot of the success of the quote unquote “surge” was a victorious surge of money towards the appropriate hands, just as Saddam Hussein used to do. U.S. Army General Petraeus paid Shiite fighters as if they were US mercenaries, and ordered the US army to cooperate with them. Surely one could “win” over the Taliban, with the same trick.

During the Vietnam war, US presidents were listening to American generals. It was a disaster. During the Korean war, US president Truman fired ignominiously the general who headed the US forces (the extremely famous MacArthur), and brought the United Nations in. Ultimately that war, that could have gone extremely wrong, went extremely well.

Involving the international community, and keeping purely military solutions in check is a lesson to remember in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, by the way, it’s not one or two billion dollars in civilian aid that are going to be enough to change the tide in Afghanistan. Nor a brigade or two. The Afghan poppy trade needs to be made legal to start with (the poppy trade, highest income earner in Afghanistan, is unlawful there, although it is legal in many countries, from France to Turkey, for pharmaceutical purposes; so why not Afghanistan, since it needs it more than the three trillion dollars French economy? GDP per head in Afghanistan is half of one percent of the French GDP per head). 

At this point Serbia, after much threats, accompanied by Russian howling, is calming down, although she lost Kosovo. Why? Well, military intervention by 39 united nations, including all the important ones, was crucial, but so was, afterwards, an offer Serbia could not refuse: future integration in the European Union. That will bring a much better society, economy, and foreign investment, and the Serbs know it. (Besides, the EU will be the way for Serbia to be reunited with its much beloved Kosovo). This is a good way in international politics; crush the obdurate, but then make offers that people of good will cannot refuse.

The international community needs to be brought in as a stakeholder in Iraqi peace and prosperity. In a way, since the USA has no money for itself and borrows from Japan, China, the EU, and Arab countries, to finance all things American, the international community is already supporting the US occupation of Iraq. It’s time for them to share the burden, and the fruits. No choice. Any solely Americano-American attempt at a solution would meet an ominous fate.

Patrice Ayme



Technical addenda:

1) Right now the USA is occupying Iraq under the cover of a UN mandate that expires next year. The Bush administration is trying to replace it by some sort of indefinite colonial arrangement (the Iraqi government vociferously disagrees, while knowing full well some foreign military muscle is needed). The plan suggested above is quite different. US bases in Germany are there in full agreement with the UN (for decades they were there with British, Russian and French forces). The UN was created during WWII (as a replacement for the French inspired SDN that failed because the USA stayed out of it, after co-launching it!). The basic idea of the UN is peace through force, and Iraq is ideally suited for it.

2) Another advantage of the plan above is that, when UN TROOPS are in, the US can stay in the background, flying drones, and stopping to be a major irritant, while contributing to the stability of the region (by facing theocratic Iran).

3) The sort of UN military intervention we are speaking about here has nothing to do with the pathetic, but hare brained mission of Sergio De Mello (ending in 2003 with his death and the destruction of the UN headquarters). Indeed Iraqi resistance fighters could point out that the UN then was just a cover for the USA (as per the mandate). When the full UN intervenes militarily fully, as we suggest here, it’s not a cover for the USA. On the other hand, having United Nations cover and legitimacy will allow the USA to advance its economic and cultural interest more than if it were all by itself, all naked, and accused worldwide of having its own personal agenda in Iraq. So UN troops and cover in Iraq is the best way for the US in all ways.

4) Any Americano-American withdrawal plan under sole US authority smacks of something bound to perpetual failure, hence would become its own mechanism providing an excuse for staying in Iraq indefinitely (or trying to). Or then would ultimately incite an exasperated US to lurch out of Iraq. Such a plan would not work any better than its predecessor in Vietnam.


June 30, 2008


Abstract: to prevent another Hitler, discourage despots around the world, and avoid adventures such as democracies invading other countries because of they are “addicted to oil” (as Bush himself put it about the USA), the most urgent reform for the United Nations should be to set up an “Ultimate Crime Directorate”. Such a directorate, composed of elected individuals dedicated to the law (not countries dedicated to self serving multiculturalism) would be fair, balanced, impervious to daily politics, professional, and effective than the rest of the United Nations.

For most of the world’s population to keep on going optimally, we need an international police to keep governments honest enough.

Hitler was stopped by war, not negotiation (that was tried first, with the Munich Treaty). If France had not aggressively stood in Hitler’s way, the Nazis would have been able to start their war when they intended to be ready, five years later (around 1944).

The Nazis’ plan was to exterminate many races. Exterminating the Jews was just a little warm-up. The Slavs and Africans were next. Germans with some black ancestry were sterilized already. Meanwhile the Nazis were buying off time, collaborating with powerful Anglo-Saxon plutocrats on their racist plan to “make space” for their private enjoyment.

If Zimbabwe’s Mugabe was the leader of a powerful technological country such as Pakistan or China, we would have again a world war situation (but facing forces armed with nukes). This is the clearest, greatest danger. Weapons of Mass Destruction are getting easier and easier to make, so, we need to make potential Hitlers completely impossible, by installing a system to cut them down in a timely manner.

As everyone knows, the French army lost a crucial battle, ten months after France declared war to Hitler, so the war lasted another five years, and killed another sixty million people; none of this would have happened if the United nations had got its act together in a timely manner).

The reason for negotiating with Hitler was to back him off in a moral corner. Before the police can be sent, the police needs to know it’s righteous (inside democratic countries the judicial system interprets the law to make sure of that).

So we need to make sure the UN can have MORAL AUTHORITY (which it was deprived of during the Bush attack on, and demolition of, Iraq).

To determine the moral facts, before acting, we need to set up an ULTIMATE CRIME DIRECTORATE at the United Nations, with a strictly advisory role to the Security Council and the General Assembly.

The ULTIMATE CRIME DIRECTORATE  would mitigate bias in the UN, and accusations or expectations of, and making excuses for, alleged bias. In the present system, despots hide behind a philosophical theory called “multiculturalism”, according to which all cultures are equally respectable.

“Multiculturalism” was invented by a German philosopher named Herder, who used it against the Enlightenment. Multiculturalism led straight to Nazism. It is the reigning paradigm at the United Nations (and very practical laws come out of it).

The Nazis claimed that  their  violations of human rights were justified by reasons traditional in Germany. In recent years the Islamists, and the countries in which they reign, have used exactly the same line of reasoning (for example they claim it’s traditional to take care of women by keeping them inside the house).

Multiculturalism allows despots to hide behind “politically correct” (or is that “politically coward”?) people who often change the conversation, and make unfounded racist accusations whenever more courageous moral activists complain about gross violations of basic human rights.

The Ultimate Crime Directorate would discourage the ‘multicultural’ cop-out. The Ultimate Crime Directorate could grow from the UN Human Rights Council (the UNHRC created in 2006, to replace its predecessor, that had elected the country of Libya to watch over human rights!). But the members of the UNHRC are states, instead of a commission of professionals aware and respectful of the spirit of international law (those professionals should be elected as the Secretary General is).

The present intrusion of states in advising what human rights should be put the wolves in charge of the chickens (as any of the Founding Fathers of the USA would point out), under the guise of “multiculturalism”.

“Multiculturalism” abusively replaces International Law in the present setup (maybe multiculturalism should face the truth and be called multidespotism instead).

When all the moral, politically correct lenifying discourse is done, and death comes knocking at the door, all what’s left is the morality of survival. Sheep turn into lions.

Many Jews had done nothing to fight back against the Nazis when they could have (because they had been living their daily lives according to their politico-religious correctness, a form of passivity on steroids). But the same Jews who had done nothing against Hitler, but looking the other way, would always fight each other viciously for air in the gas chambers (as related by fellow Jews in charge of gassing them).

This demonstrates that, when life is clearly coming to its end, people forget all their moral codes, and will do anything for survival (in particular a fascist group in power will fight to death if its survival is at stake).

So, ultimately, not resisting Hitler did not come from a superior moral fiber, but a form of mental cowardice (have others do the fighting, like the French), and idiotic shortsightedness (it’s good to be a sheep).

The same brainless, amoral behavior has long been in evidence when dealing with Iran, Pakistan, or US “neoconservatives” (who should be tried at the very least for what they did to Iraq after occupying it!).

There has been a shortage of righteousness, and that induced a failure of timely prevention.

The primacy of the survival instinct has other consequences. If a big time Hitler character occurred in the future, civilization would go out of the window on a planetary scale: the morality of survival would make sure of that. Zimbabwe is a baby demonstration of how wrong things can go, and we have to learn, as a planet, to prevent, or extinguish such deviations. We do not have 200 years. It is true that civilization has demonstrated in the past that it can flow in reverse for millennia. But not next time.

The technological and resource situation is such that, if we hit the iceberg, we would not be able to go back anymore than the Titanic.

The concept of “ultimate crime” would be more general than that of “crime against mankind” (used since Nuremberg). It would cover anti-democratic measures (such as abusive control of the media). By the time the Nazis engaged in crimes against mankind, they had spent years being extremely anti-democratic, an indispensable preliminary that allowed them, in turn, to indoctrinate millions of young fanatical inhuman robots.

So we need an Ultimate Crime Directorate to reestablish the planetary primacy of law over local tradition (generally fascist, because the past was more friendly to fascism).  Being ONLY CONSULTATIVE will give the Ultimate Crime Directorate greater moral authority. The Roman Senate had only a “consultative” role (in theory). Each such advice, truly a “consultation”, a “Senatus Consultum” was established by vote. The Senate’s powerful influence lasted more than 1,000 years, more than twice longer than the republic itself.


Patrice Ayme


Postscript explaining why an Ultimate Crime Directorate could have avoided the collapse of the Roman republic:

The Ultimate Crime Directorate would have functioned as an ultimate examination system, finding out that what did not look like a crime actually was one, because it violated the spirit of the law. It was what the Roman Senate, or the People needed but did not quite have. The Senate (from “senex”, a board of old men), had thrown out the old Roman monarchy and installed the republic in 510 BCE. The Senate resisted all, from the empire to the Christian dark ages. The Senate actually grew in influence later, under the Barbarians, a full millennium after its birth. Unfortunately the Ostrogoth despot Theodoric made the mistake (he said so himself later) to arrest and kill the Senatus Princeps (president), the famous philosopher Boethius (who wrote the “Consolation of Philosophy” while waiting for his gory execution in 525 CE). Nevertheless, the Senate went on into the seventh century, and was back in business by the tenth (trying to change back Rome into a republic).

The Senate’s shortcoming in the examination of ultimate crimes was crucial in the collapse of the Roman republic into plutocracy and then fascism. It was not an easy mistake to avoid: eighty Senators died in combat, in just one day, at the battle of Cannae (216 BCE), so the Senate was depleted after the Second Punic War. A plutocracy of war profiteers who had stayed safely behind the fortified walls of the cities became dominant (hopefully this is not happening with the USA in Iraq). Three generations later that militarized plutocracy destroyed Carthage, a free republic in Spain, Corinth, and subjugated Greece. Civil wars were next. All this could have been avoided if the Senate, or the People (“populus”) had been able to define, and expose carefully, in a timely manner, the human, republican and democratic rights who had been violated by the profiteers during the war against Hannibal. Instead the Gracchi brothers were reduced to improvise and to try to weaken the Senate (by then colonized by the profiteers) by declaring “senatus consultum ULTIMA” unconstitutional. Of course, the Gracchi were accused in turn of violating the Constitution…