The US ‘Double Standards’ as it Vetoed Gaza Truce Resolution at UNSC!!

Welcome to Geopolitical Trends. So excited to be with you. And yes, uh, I was supposed to do this at 13:30, uh, uh, I changed the time because Rumble was down. So you can read between the lines. Interesting enough that one of you guys in the community just posted, uh, uh, on this channel that the French government now is asking Rumble to take some information, whatever. You can read between the lines, uh, that even Rumble will not be safe from the entities. So fingers crossed, because that's what I intend to take my other conversation from here. We shall see. So for now, we work with this. Yes, I know it's limited information, but better than nothing. So Anyway, I got a— I got an interesting, uh, uh, uh, I wouldn't want to call it show because not— this is not about showing, this is about sharing information, about learning more of what's going on around the world. So, uh, so I will say I got an interesting undertaking that I'm gonna have for you regarding the United Nations, the whole structure including its history and where we see things going, moving forward with that. I'm gonna save my thanks for the channel members, supporters, and so forth to the end because I want to get in into this because there's a lot to cover and I don't want to mess up because I don't want to sort of miss the time, uh, so I'm gonna get in into it right away. So we'll start with the key questions, and the key questions which I prepared them actually yesterday, they're right here, guys. Here's the first question: is the UN Security Council in need of a change? So I know some of you will say, well, the whole UN. For now, we'll go with this. Second question: is it time for a new world order? Because the UN is a reflection of the old order. And the third question: if so, what kind? And these questions, by the way, guys, are for you also to answer. So if you don't mind, since we are in a community here, we exchange ideas. So Uh, this is how to me, uh, uh, uh, great ideas come about, is when you hear a different perspective, when you hear different arguments, when you hear different ideas. And, and if we all come together, this where good ideas come about. So this is the reason why I ask these questions. Yes, I want you to think, of course, because we are in this community to learn, but at the same time You never know what might come up. You just never know. And you never know who's watching. I've learned this in my entire experience. You know, this is why when you do things, do them for the right reasons. Don't do them because someone else is watching. No, do them because it's the right thing to do. So, and the, the last question, or third question, is should the UN, the United Nations, like NATO, be abolished? I know some might think I'm crazy, right? Well, because guess what? About 20 years ago, I asked the same question of someone that I knew back then, and I said, well, won't you think it's about time to reform the UN? A person looks at me as like, well, Mr. O, did you lose your mind? And I said, why is that? He said, Well, it's because the UN— and I say, hold on a second, before you finish your sentence, you know, if you're gonna approach it from the fact that it is an extension of the current, uh, uh, world order, that world order now is coming to an end. Want to make more sense to change that as well, get rid of it, reorganize it, or whatever? And later on, that individual was convinced of my question. It's about time. So of course we were friends. I didn't take it personally, and I would never do that. And this is why I wanted to address this with you guys today, and that's what we're gonna cover. So thank you all for being here, first of all. And to those who might be for the first time here, please make sure to subscribe to this channel. And yes, I, I've got confirmations that indeed YouTube is taking down the likes This is why the number of subscribers not moving up. This is why the videos that I've been doing recently not moving up. It is what it is. There's nothing I can do about that. To me, I rather do my part, and truth will come out no matter what. Truth will come up. And it is my belief that what's going to be happening to YouTube, it's exactly what happened to Facebook. Remember when Facebook started? Was the hype of it. Then it got corrupted. All of a sudden, where is Facebook now? Yes, it changed to Meta, but who cares for it? So I think YouTube is going to experience the same thing because they are not standing by what's right. So I can see it. Some of you have mentioned that they taking down the likes and so, so forth and unsubscribe the, the viewers. But so if you don't mind, just hit the like button, we keep up with it. So anyway, Uh, yeah, type in please where you are joining me from and I will greatly appreciate it. So, so let's start with, uh, one, one of the key thing, and I'm going to share something with you, uh, as I move forward here from one of our viewers because it's very important, because I want to highlight to you the involvements of the community members here. So, so it is what happened yesterday, and I will post the link for you. President President Biden, of course you call him President Incompetent Biden, uh, just sort of warned Israel, uh, what's today? Today is Wednesday. Yesterday, yeah, it's Tuesday. Just warned Israel that it is losing international support because of its— I put this in quote, those are Biden's words— indiscriminate bombing of Gaza. I was like, hold on a second, Mr. Incompetent President. I know some in Washington will say, well, he's using strong words. No, those are not strong words, because to use indiscriminate bombing, the equivalency of genocide, simple as that. So why cherry-picking the word in here to justify one side of the argument but not the other? And even if the president, the incompetent president, will come and say, and I quote here, Israel's security can rest on the United States. But right now it has more than the United States. It has the European Union. It has Europe. It has most of the world supporting them. End of quote. It's laughable. It is laughable. If the EU— if you're gonna count on the EU— as a matter of fact, at the time of this, this conversation here, do you know what the US is doing to the EU? Does anybody know what's going on? Something just been announced recently. So I'm gonna just test your knowledge on this to see you keep up with what's going on in the world. Please type in on the screen for, for my viewers who are in Europe. There is something just happened that there is a big conversation about that's going to raise the serious questions in Europe. If you guys can type in what it is, and I'm gonna post this link for you, by the way. So I'm gonna keep going on my conversation here. So when you hear President Biden saying this and only 3 or 4 days ago gave the green light to veto the UN Security Council resolution regarding the ceasefire in Gaza. It shows the double standard right there. It shows the hypocrisy right there. So, and again, to me personally, I'm not surprised, is because I did predict this outcome at the UN Security Council last week when I got a, a call for an interview in Washington, DC. And I did say that the US will veto the resolution because to me it became clear, we ain't gonna stand on the right side of history. We ain't gonna stand with what's right. And when I say we, I'm referring to the government. Remember, guys, not the American people. American people, I tell you, they'll take the coat out of their back and give it to you. They are wonderful people like every other race around the world. It's the damn government. That's what it is. So pardon my language here. So, and this is why I said, well, if we are Americans to ask the question, what's in it for us? You know, it's legitimate questions. You know, nothing. It's waste of our tax dollars. We work hard, we pay taxes, and expect the government to represent our values on the global stage. But this is the decision that the government did. It's betrayal of the trust of the American people in their government, in our government. So straightforward. So, and as you know, for those who do not know or may not know the background, the resolution that was supported, uh, uh, by— that was proposed uh, or initiated by United Arab Emirates and introduced by the Secretary General under Article 99. It was supported by 13 out of 15 members of the Security Council. Security Council has 15 members, and I'm going to get into the, the, the structure of the UN so you'll have an understanding once for all, at least to have the basic understanding of it. So, so the US was— which holds the veto power, of course,, and as a permanent member of the, uh, Security Council vetoed this proposition or this resolution that exists. Of course, you get the other, uh, uh, uh, uh, subservient UK, uh, which, uh, uh, voted for a permanent— it is a permanent member but is abstained. But here is what I wanted to share with you from one of our viewers in the community. Named by Spider-Man. And by the way, I'm disclosing the screen name because I get the permission from Spider-Man to disclose this. Usually I don't disclose names, doesn't matter screen name or not. If I don't have the permission, I will not take it upon myself to just do that. So Spider-Man was kind— man was kind enough to say, yes, Dr. O, go ahead and share. So here is what he wrote, very informative. And this is why I say, guys, take a look at the comments. You know, I read them through. You know why I read them through? Is because I want to make sure that there is no nonsense in them. But I'm finding out all of you guys intellectually are where you need to be, and it's reflective through your comments. You know, I'm a professor, I can read between the lines, and I can just tell through your writing where you are intellectually. Not to judge you, of course. So here's what I wrote. On the UN Security Council— this is quote from Spider-Man— on the UN Security Council member votes, the UK rightly abstained from voting on the Security, uh, uh, uh, General's Article 99 invocation as per Article 27, Chapter 6, and Article 52, which requires any party to dispute abstain from voting. Me— meaning what? According to Spider-Man, spot on. Meaning what? The US was also required to abstain, but nobody called them out on it. Shame for— same, I'm sorry, same for the illegal status of the regime, which must be sanctioned via UN Security Council which is never— meaning, you all know what it means, the word, right? Yeah, because we can't say it here. Uh, uh, uh, which has never received the sanctions, end of quote. Spot on. This is why it's important to understand those dynamics, how it works, uh, why, uh, sort of, uh, it, it, it just— like I said, I don't know any other expression is the last nail in the coffin for the US credibility. We done, we done. So UK of course had to follow orders. So let me see what you put, guys, on Europe, the question that I asked you about Europe, uh, because, uh, it's, it's important and it's not heard much about, uh, and, and, and I'm paying attention to it, uh Where is it? Where is it? Where is it? Yeah, I don't see much, uh, right here, so I'm going to go ahead and say it. And this one has to do with, uh, oh, Ben Lansen, Ben said from Belgium. Good to, good to have you here. Good to have you from Belgium. Speaking of Belgium, this is what the question was about what happened with Europe. There is now a conversation that we are pushing towards turning over the military apparatus of the EU under Brussels. In other words, under the US umbrella, the entire Europe military, uh, apparatus. It's bad news. You know, as, uh, the former head of the MI6, his name is Richard Love. Usually, as one who works in Washington, you're gonna have to know who those individuals are. Sometimes our path will cross as far as work, but that's where it stays. But Richard Love, who is by the way well respected in the UK within the community inside MI6, he argued against this. That is bad news. Well, this is now where the push towards having the EU surrender even its military apparatus. And what is the reason for all that? Oh, so we can fight the Russians. You all see where this is going. To me, as I— it's not the first time I say it, guys— Europe has lost its sovereignty. Not all countries, of course, we do not generalize. It's just when you say the EU, you know which countries I'm referring to. That is this. No different than in Asia when you look at Japan and South Korea and now the Philippines given what just took place in the sea between the boats of the Philippines and China. You're all aware of this, and I saw some conversations here, uh, about this issue. I'll be happy to do a live stream on it if you guys want an update on that down the road. But this is where the problem is, and that's why you are— have— you have to think in terms of where this is headed. And I tie all this, all this you might think has nothing to do with why, for example, uh, uh, uh, Rumble was down today. That's why we didn't show up on the big channel, because there was no Rumble. I intend to move all the conversation there. I shall, I shall find out moving forward. So this is where the issue— just again, once again, for those who do not know the background about what happened at the UN Security Council, it was the US that vetoed all this. So now you are looking at conversations from around the world, from even London itself to the streets in, in, in some parts in Africa and Latin America, that sort of people are waking up to this reality. And what is this reality? Is injustice. That's the reality of it. Why? Because these people understand the importance of standing up for what is right. So once again, I do say it, shame on my government for standing on the wrong side of history. No other way around it. We have, uh, you know, our politicians have lost the sense of what it's like to be human. They've lost that. Corruption has taken over their well-being. Yeah, it resided in the heart. That's it. All they see, thanks, in terms of political benefits. There is no consideration for human being. There is no consideration for humanity. There is no consideration for peace. There is no consideration for live and let live. As the sad reality of what has become of some of us now. So this is why people are, are kind of thinking How odd, how odd for the United States that is a sort of one that claims to stand for dignity, human rights, democracy, rule of law. You got despair. So, but at the same time, let's not forget that everything starts from us. Change becomes from, or begins rather, from within. So it's like for you guys, not just in the matters of politics or geopolitics or global affairs, whatever, just in your daily life, you know, you can't be telling people you need to do A, B, C, and D when you couldn't do it yourself, because change starts from within. Same thing with charity. Charity starts at home first. So, and this is why it becomes the duty of every citizen to speak out. That's what I'm doing here because I sort of feel, uh, uh, time has come. Time has come for me now to transfer that knowledge that I gained over 30, 40 years, whatever that is, to humanity, you included, the community here and everyone else around the world. Whoever can access this stuff. So, so because it becomes a duty, it's my duty to do so now, but also to demand better approach from my government, which to me comes the time when the voting comes. Why should I vote? I don't care what you tell me. If you didn't show that in action, how, how can I trust you? How can I trust you? Trust you. But also, it is the responsibility of the citizen to hold those leaders accountable. So that is what it is. Let me share with you a brief— uh, well, it's not a brief because it's very extensive, but you need to understand the history of the UN. So the UN, United Nations, officially, uh, came into existence, uh, back in 1945. Uh, there's a specific date, is October 24th. This is why it's every year on October 4th, uh, 24th is, is, uh, the United Nations celebrates its existence, whatever. So on this day also, October 24th, 1945, the United Nations Charter was created. It was also adopted and signed. It signed— created at that time, but officially signed on June 26th of the same year, 1945. So, and that's when, when it— once it was signed, the Charter it became official. In other words, it entered into effect. So United Nations Day is celebrated, as I mentioned, on October 24th. That's each year, every year, that's, that's what it is. So what happened, how this came about, because you need to understand the background of it. In 1945, representatives of 50— yeah, 5-0— of 50 countries met in San Francisco here in the United States, in California. So, as the United Nations Conference on International Organization to draw up the United Nations Charter— start with the meeting first to draw the charter, which paved the way, uh, uh, during the San Francisco Conference, that's what it was known. And it convened on April 25th, 1945. Again, it was presided at that time by President Franklin Roosevelt. Because he was the president. In addition to him, he was also Prime Minister of England, Winston Churchill, and also, uh, was the— who was the Soviet Premier at that time? Can anybody tell me? So type it in on the chat box. I want to test your knowledge here. Remember, 1945. So it was Roosevelt, and there's that famous picture, three of them sitting. Who was that third person? The Soviet premier at that time? Let me see your response, guys. I like just to— and once again, guys, it's all meant to engage all of us for conversation. Oh, I got a, I got a, a follow Texan from here. Nezzy Sabaz watching from Keller, Texas. Good to have you, man. Yeah, let me see, uh, what did you guys put for this? I know there's a delay here a little bit, but Uh, uh, if you can tell me the name of that person. Oh, Samir, Samir, uh, uh, and Samir and Abtawi, thank you so much for your Super Sticker. Truly appreciate it. Samir, first time I see name Samir, uh Uh, where is— yeah, if you guys can put in the name, who was the third person? It was Franklin Roosevelt, it was Churchill, and who was the premier of the Soviet Union at that time? You got it right, you got it right! Fight back, you got it right, it was Joseph Stalin. He also attended that meeting in San Francisco. So, and of course there were the representatives of the 50 states. Or 15 nations— I'm sorry, not state— 15 nations, including— here is the key that I need you to understand, and I'm gonna quote all this for you— including 9 continental European states, 21 North, Central, and South American republics, 7 Middle Eastern states, 5 British Commonwealth nations, 2 Soviet republics, in addition to USSR itself, two East Asian nations, and three African states. All those together, the delegates deliberated, uh, uh, on the basis of proposal worked out by representatives from China, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and the United States. This had previously been crafted at Dortmund's Oak, which is District of Columbia, uh, DC. We call it DC, Washington DC. That's why when you see Washington DC, it's not a Washington diplomatic capital, it's Washington District of Columbia. That's what it is. So, and, uh, so, and this was between August and October of '44. This is where those meetings took place to pave the way. This is why charter was signed in June 1945, the following year, that is, by representatives of those 50 countries. And here is what is, is interesting. It was one Eastern European country, it was Poland. Poland, which was not represented at the conference, signed it shortly thereafter to become one of the original 51 member states. And this is where the UN officially came into existence, as I mentioned earlier, October 24th, 1945, when the Charter has been ratified by China and France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as by the majority of other signatories. Here is what's interesting about this piece of history, this last sentence: the Charter was ratified by China, France, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and United States. Who are those five? Can anybody tell me? Let me see what you guys wrote down here. Yeah, so that's part of this delay here that's gonna show up later. You're absolutely correct, Fight Back. The UN, United Nations Security Council. Now you saw, that's why I asked the question, is it time for reform, not only for the UN Security Council but the world order? This is why it's important to understand this part of history as far as its makeup. So now let me share with you the structure of the, the how the UN, because without understanding the structure. When I was teaching at a university, I had to take a delegation to participate in the Arab League summits. It was, uh, this is on a collegiate, uh, or at the, on the university level, uh, they play a role of United Nations. They did it in the Arab League instead. And, and fascinating, those developments is the same arguments here. For why I need to share with you the structure, and the duties and the power. So United Nations system is based on 6 organs. They call them organs or principal organs. So, and I'm going to share one by one, but in brief, because it'll take us forever here. So all of these integral, integral organs, in other words, they work in, in conjunction with each other, were established back then, 1945. Remember, they were created right after that. When the UN was created. So, and this, uh, this principal organs, uh, sort of, uh, or the General Assembly, there are 6 of them. Just keep a mental note for this, at least you become well informed as far as how the UN is structured. So you have the first one is the General Assembly, that's the one that meets every year in September. You have the Security Council, which is the UN Security Council. You have the Economic and Social Council known as, uh, uh, ECOSOC, Economic and Social Council. Then you have the Trusteeship Council. Then you have the International Court of Justice. And the last one is the United Nations Secretariat. So, and by the way, the Trusteeship Council was suspended Its operations were suspended in 1994. Why is that year important? Who can tell me what happened on a global stage during the— that time, during the '90s in Africa? And that was after the independence of Palau, the last remaining US trustee territory. So let me share with you, uh, uh, a location here for Palau to those who might not know, because it's worth, uh, knowing at least, uh, basic— again, two things always, guys, remember: geography and history. You can, you can understand global affairs without understanding, uh, geography and the history of that part. Present. Share screen. All right, why it's not allowing me to share? Share screen. Share screen. Okay, let's see. Here we go. I wanted to share this with you guys, so you need to see Palau. Okay, here it is. That's Palau. Now, what is— where is Palau? Palau, by the way, is an island nation, uh, uh, and an archipelago of about, uh, based on a record that I looked into, about 20 to 340 coral and volcanic islands. It is located in the western Pacific Ocean. It is geographically positioned both in the northern, northern and eastern hemispheres of the Earth. Palau shares maritime borders with the Federated States of Micronesia to the east, with Indonesia to the south, with Philippines to the west, and the International International Waters to the north. Let me see, I have another map here that— yeah, right there, guys, that's one of them here. Let me see, here is the best one. This is the best, uh, yeah, best view here just to show you. And that's from World Atlas, and I will provide you the link for all this. So that's why it's important to understand, uh, where Palau is. So let's go back to our one. Stop sharing. There we go. Uh, let me go back to, uh, addressing those 6 organs of the UN. So General Assembly, and again, I'm going to provide you brief, then I'll get into the analysis about the Security Council itself. Uh, uh, General Assembly, that is the main deliberative policymaking and representative organ of the UN. This is why you have the yearly meeting of the, uh, uh, the yearly meeting of the UN in New York, where all nations represented in the UN, about 193 countries, uh, give speeches. Uh, there are those recognized, not recognized, and I'm going to get into this with two, I think, uh, three, with three entities. So So it can be considered, if you may use the term, the parliament, parliament of the world. But the big question that is many come to ask is, why is it in New York? Why not do it in some, uh, uh, uh, another country that is isolated? And there is no country that is isolated in the world. Let's just be realistic. We used to hear about Switzerland being a neutral. Switzerland is not a neutral. Switzerland does its things behind the scenes. If you only know, I spent time, I used to go through a lot through Switzerland and understand the dynamics of what's going on in Switzerland. Switzerland is not neutral, so let's just put that to record. But it has to be some mechanism by which you put, uh, uh, the whole headquarters of NATO— of, I'm sorry, of the UN— in some neutral country we all decide and agree upon, uh, decisions on important issues such as those on peace and security The admission of new members and budgetary matters require a two-thirds majority. Meanwhile, other decisions require only a simple majority. So then you have the, uh, UN Security Council. Now this one has been assigned the primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security. You know, it's laughable, right? I'll say it straightforward. This is why you have Russia has been pushing for maybe time to change this permanent members. Even the Russians were saying it. I'm sure the Chinese will be on board with that, but I bet you the US and the UK will object to it. So is France, which by the way, France now is getting into the Red Sea, involved in— why, why the heck are you going to a Red Sea, get involved for? So anyway, the Security Council is arguably and this is known fact, the most powerful organs in the UN. I mean, look just what happened last week. The UN Security Secretary General Guterres prov— uh, uh, uh, proposed the article, or invoked— I'm sorry, not proposed, invoked Article 99, which forced the proposition of what United Arab Emirates proposed as far as ceasefire proposal, in the, uh, UN Security Council. And all it took, one vote from the US. Yeah, that's all it took. I'm gonna share a picture here. That's all it took. This one. And it wasn't, uh, Greenfield that day. Interesting enough, she avoided being there that day. It was this guy right here, Robert Wood. He's Robert Wood. He's the deputy ambassador to the UN. She wasn't there that day because she knew it's be in the history books that this one— now of course, we're not blaming them. Let's just be fair, because you got to be fair. They were following orders. That's the way how it works in Washington. So, but this is why I don't like, you know, what people here— but we can also sugarcoat it. Can't. You gotta call it, because if they could take stand and said, you know what, this is wrong— no, they were more concerned about their political careers. Because what comes after this, after they're done with this? The new administration is going to come, those guys going to leave. They already lined up some contract somewhere, uh, because it's, you know, that just— that's how corrupted the system is. So, so, and this is what I'm saying let's just be fair. So, so together with the General Assembly, the, the Security Council, okay, elects— here is the key— the sec— the, the Security Council elects the judges of the International Court of Justice. While other organs of the UN can only make recommendations to the member states, the Security Council has the power to make binding decisions that member states have agreed to carry on. This is why all those members— 15 out of the 15, 13 supported the resolution of ceasefire. It took only the US veto it and the UK abstained it. So, uh, moving on to the International Court of Justice, this is the ICC. Uh, the, uh, that's the criminal— no, I'm sorry, that's the International Criminal Court. But the International Court of Justice is the judicial organs of the UN. Unlike the organ— unlike other organs which are located in New York City, the International Court of Justice is located— can anybody tell me where the ICC is located? I like to— again, this, uh, uh, this information, guys, and the reason I ask is for you to become aware. I, I know some of you will see it, but we know it, but it's just the idea of, of ensuring— that's how knowledge is. You can tell somebody who's knowledgeable from somebody who's a bullshitter. Pardon my language. So easy to spot. You will need more than about— I'll say about 45 seconds, and you will be able to tell. Oh, you got, you got it right! You got it right, Nicholas Delfino, at The Hague in Netherlands. You're absolutely correct, that's where it is. So the courts, the court's role is to sort of settle in accordance with the international law, legal disputes, one of them referred to it by member states, and to give counsel on illegal questions referred to by other UN organs and specialized agencies. Why am I highlighting this? What have you read or heard about 3 or 4 weeks that some countries calling on ICC to conduct investigations? For the bombardments, uh, in, in, in the Middle East. What happened? Nothing. Nothing happened. So, and here is where, uh, at least one of the, uh, uh, conversations that comes about is the controversy— controversies and the criticism pertaining to the UN. And this is where I put my own input This is what I add, my own input about all this. Excuse me. The UN is over 70 years old. Yeah, that's how old it is. And the development of the, uh, strategies, you know, I want to use the term that they are being attacked. No. It's needed for a reform on many fronts. Like I always say, and I, I still stand by my, my conviction regarding this, is that UN is toothless. UN doesn't have the power. This is why for us, you will never ever see American forces under UN command You all know the blue helmet, you're familiar with those, right? There will never be American soldier or entity under the UN. So where is the power of the UN? Shows you right there. So, uh, because the UN is also a bureaucracy, very, very bureaucratic, so, uh, it takes forever for it to get involved. Forever. It almost gets involved after the fact, after the fact. So, and the questions that have been raised regarding to its relevancy— how relevant the UN is dealing with really the challenges, challenges confronting the world today. Remember 1945. Once again, this is why I asked that question at the beginning. Is the UN and NATO about time for them to be let go, abolished, get rid of this all? Once again, question that's worth thinking about. And all this despite the UN numbers. Remember when this started, how many countries were there? 50. It quadruples now, you know. Uh, still only one organ, one organ that controls the UN is the Security Council, plain and simple. I want you to know this. So when you hear the UN doing this, no, it's nonsense. It is nonsense. And this beg— this begs the question for what kind of UN we're gonna see tomorrow. Once again, that's why I ask the question about, is it the time for a new world order? And usually I ask questions precisely for specific reasons. I don't just, uh, because I see the link of the— if we are to talk about the UN for tomorrow, that means automatically we have to talk about the new world order of tomorrow, 21st century, that is. So, so to me, uh, if, if the UN was the, was the innovation of it or its creation in 20th century, uh, okay, it served its purpose. It has no relevancy in the 21st century. The same arguments can be made about the new global order, the old world order, uh, that was in the 21st, in the 20th century, known also as the American century, has come to an end. Now we're looking at the 21st century. This is why I use the term the need for a new world order, because we need it, uh, more than you can even imagine. And by the way, I just recorded the video for you guys this morning. My editor has it, he'll work on it. And then, uh, regarding China conducting its first— and listen carefully its first oil transactions using, using digital renminbi, CBDC, central bank digital currency. A hint not only to the financial system, Global One, but the new order. Same argument can be, uh, made about the UN, because the 21st century brings its own challenges. We are moving from a unipolar to to a multipolar system now. So the UN cannot be under the auspices of one entity called the Security Council that controls, you know. I am sure if we are to put it to vote, you know, and this is where sometimes you hear about democracy and all that, but it's nothing but hypes. Put it to vote to the people of the world. Do you want the UN or not? Yes or no? There is no ifs and buts. I bet you, you know what the answer is. So, so, and this leads me to mention two main things, uh, uh, two entities. Entities. I won't call them countries. Entities. Why? If we are to follow the Charter of the UN, they don't have representation there officially. The first is Israel. Second is Palestine. In Israel, here's the question for you: Is Israel a full member of the UN, uh, uh, at the United Nations, or should Israel be considered as a full member of the United Nations? The same arguments can be applied to Palestine. Does the Palestinian, uh, uh, Assembly of— I'm sorry, does the Palestinian entity, uh, uh, requires to be a full member, or is it just, uh, a representative of sort? So in the case of Israel, it has been admitted since 1949 to the UN. However, in practice, Israel has been denied full participation that questions the definition of membership. So basically, in a simple language, while Israel is a member of the UN, it is not a full member under the international recognition of countries in the UN. That's the same argument many of us have made when we hear these hypes about Taiwan Taiwan, it's not a country, it's not a sovereign state. Because when you hear the term sovereignty, this is where that representation at the UN comes in. This is why Israel doesn't have that, this is why Taiwan doesn't have that, and this is why the Palestinian, uh, uh, uh, uh, also does not have that. Now, in the case of Palestine It was a General Assembly Resolution 6719, if I recall, was presented. And that resolution, uh, uh, uh, to accord the Palestinian— not a membership, full membership, but it will be an observer status. So basically, the Palestine entity will be an observer entity within the UN without having the full recognition of the UN. So that's, that's how it is. And, uh, which means what? That the entity will not acquire the rights, the privileges that goes with the full membership. The same thing to Israel, same thing to, uh, Taiwan. So to me personally, understanding how international law operates and diplomacy and so forth we won't be able to call those entities a sovereign state because they don't have a full, uh, uh, membership there. And I will post the link for you guys if you want to read up more on this. And this is once again leads me to my earlier question: is it time for reform or a new world order? That's how important this is. That is why You are seeing what you are witnessing now with, for us, the US, uh, uh, uh, sort of embarking on this decision that defies logic, defies the norm, defies— and when you hear our, uh, incompetent president, uh, coming and saying, well, the right and this and that, it's nothing but a hype. He's doing it for political calculations regarding the upcoming elections. You know, how can you now trust— you know, for the last 30 years, guys, the last 30 years, uh, American foreign policy, no, it's gone. It's gone. We've been arguing for it for a while. Uh, I forgot to share this with you guys. This is a headquarters in New York. Which, by the way, I talked to some security folks in New York way back. They said— I asked them, we were joking, you know, because we understand how security stuff is very— I told them, hey, what is your best day in the year? They knew I was being facetious with them, laughing and joking. I didn't want to say, what is your nightmare day in the year? What did that— that is during the Assembly General in New York. That's their nightmare. They don't like it. They don't want it. As a matter of fact, most of them wish we didn't have, uh, the UN headquarters in New York. So that's one. And there is one inside right here. That's inside the Assembly. And by the way, you all remember when, uh, what's his name, uh, Hugo Chavez— he died of, of Venezuela— when he did give a speech back then at the UN before his death. It was about 2 years when he stood at the podium and was pounding and said, he was getting at George Bush at that time when he said, if I recall in Spanish, todavía el fuere al sufre, and meaning today we smell the sulfur. He was in reference to George W. Bush, you know. Oh, the way he said it, I remember. He says, uh, El Diablo estaba aquí todavía, él fue al sobre. Yeah, that's what he said. I remember it. You can check the record, guys, in Spanish. El Diablo estaba aquí todavía, él fue al sobre. Today the devil is in the house. It smells like sulfur. And if you know anything about sulfur, its smell is a very, very, very bad stuff. That's why Hugo Chavez. And we all remember when Nikita Khrushchev took his shoes and pound on the podium there, or the pendulum, that is. And, uh, so those are— because every country that is fully represented there, uh, you know, some of you will ask the questions, even for Palestine, even for Israel, they do give, uh, they are being given the podium to speak. They are recognized, except that they don't have the full rights like other members. You know, I haven't seen Taiwan in that case, you know. But the question that we all need to ask now, uh, uh, before I close this up, guys, and answer some of your questions, is that is it time to reform the UN Security Council? So you have two options: either reform it or get rid of it. If you are to reform it, how would you go about it? What do you guys think? What do you suggest if we are to reform it? Let's say we want to keep the UN Security Council. How would you reform it if you are given a chance? I have my own opinion. I want to hear yours first. Or do we just get rid of it altogether? We'll start with that first. So, but, but it's, uh, it's worth asking Because as I said earlier, the world is moving into a different stage, different setting. Consider yourself lucky to be alive and living through this. You witnessing history in the making, and you are now, you know, intelligent enough to know how to read the global landscape. You know, you don't have to have a PhD and so forth, but at least your, uh, your pragmatic understanding of, of, of the issues allow you at least to speak intelligently, uh, to those who might not know much, or to those who speak loud or argue vociferously without making the case. So you are in a better position, in my opinion, and I'm not saying it to be Mr. Nice. You all know this by now. So, so let me see, what do you guys suggest, uh, uh, if you think the UN, UN Security Council should be reformed. How would you suggest it? Oh, Boone, thank you so much, Boone. And by the way, I didn't get a chance because I didn't see it last time. You put a super sticker, man, and I didn't see it. So I want to say thank you again. I didn't mean to ignore that. I just didn't see it, uh, till after I logged off. And, and, uh, because I go back, guys, and I read your comments, your interaction with each other. So, so thank you so much, Ibon. Bunt, really appreciate it. Uh, you wrote, hopefully the multipolar world will have no UN. Valid arguments, because there are those who are arguing for it. I'm one of those, but I don't want to tell you about the UN Security Council yet till I hear your arguments. So thank you so much for your super sticker, uh, Bunt, truly appreciate it. Bunt's been an avid supporter of the channel. It means a lot. I hope one day I don't know when, how, where. I hope one day to really have a live conversation with you face to face, face to face. I know some of you do mention to me where you are reside, your location is. I won't disclose it here, of course, because I don't have your permission. But if I am to be passing through that area and know exactly I'm gonna be there for a few more days, I will make an effort to reach out to you and link up with you for cup of coffee, cup of tea. For those who bought me coffee also, I will, I will, and I mean it, I will do it if I know. So, so thank you again, Boone. Uh, let me see, uh, what did you guys put down, uh, as far as how would you suggest, what would you recommend? Uh, no Schwab. Oh, that's an interesting one. Uh, unfortunately, I will, I will, I will find a way to talk to you about Schwab. By the way, guys, is nothing but a mouthpiece. FYI, Schwab is following orders. Yes, you hear, uh, the— no, because it was an organization before the WEF, it was called something else. So, so he's nothing but a mouthpiece. Uh, let me see what you guys suggest for the, uh, Hung Wan. I don't know if you are answering this or not. Uh, you saying no veto, meaning for the Security Council. Please correct me if I'm wrong here because I'm looking. Get rid, get rid of it. How? Okay, that's, that's suggestion. That's a suggestion. Get rid of it. It's wor— that's— I see, I see. Uh, uh, David Richard, get rid of it. Oh, or get rid of the UN and replace it with BRICS after India is kicked out of BRICS. That would be interesting. Yeah, India is in bad, bad, bad shape. Very bad shape. Yeah. And I'm even starting to suspect there are some interference with my channel. You all know, you all know, can read between the lines. So, uh, ICC, all right. Uh, oh, uh, Harry, uh, how you doing? What do you mean by ICC? Yes, UN no. So you're in favor of maintaining the International Criminal Court or International Court of Justice? Okay, That's fair, that's fair. So, all right, let me see what you guys wrote down. Oh, here is, uh, Pengu, thank you so much, thank you for your super sticker. You're right, UN is good, it just have to be reformed. Fair point, valid. Yeah, because we can, guys, just FYI, we can react emotionally just because there is a conflict. This is where people lose sight. When I see people even leaders themselves, because you have to maintain some composure in understanding. Uh, of course you're gonna have to— you, you can't deny your emotions. Of course, that's to me why I'm doing what I'm doing. When I saw what my country is doing, I can't just sit and smile at that. It's pathetic for what our incompetent president is doing. Shame. But on the other hand, when it comes down to decision makings, you have to understand the long-term impact. And so you're absolutely correct. I see your point. I see your point. All right, some of you, uh, where was this one? Oh, Sharif, Sharif Smith, you wrote no veto for any country, which means it will be no UN Security Council. That, that's one way of looking at it. Now here is what I'm gonna suggest, and again, it's just my suggestion, uh, uh, and I don't know why there's the delay here, whatever. So my suggestion is, if you have a 15-member, okay, how about you do rotational on a rotational basis? There won't be no permanent members, which means what? All the other countries will have the same power, but not to the point that the decision will be finalized. Which means what? Other members outside those 5 permanent— because that's where the problem is. If we didn't have the 5 permanents, there will be no finalized decision. The US won't be able to do this if there were no permanent. Why? Because all members will have to either agree or disagree on it. If we are to say democracy. But of course, in international politics, you have to think about the national interest, not your— you know, here is the reason why the US vetoed this. Does any of you know why the US vetoed this? You know, I'm, I'm— again, I just want to push your thinking to the limits. Why do you think the US went ahead against all us, knowing the rest of the world is gonna go, oh my gosh, and they did it anyway. Can anybody tell me why, in your opinion? This is your opinion, not what others are saying in YouTube, whatever, because I've seen some ludicrous stuff on YouTube regarding this issue. Sorry, I have to call it, call a spade a spade. Because it's worth asking, why do you think the US did that? I agree with this statements here, uh, oh, where is it? Oh, it disappeared. I was going to share, uh statement with you. Ah, it's gone. I don't know where it is. Uh, uh, Bon, no. Oh, I'm sorry, that's not Bon. Here is Bon. Bon, you wrote APEC. No, has nothing to do with that. This one has to do with the decision that was made few years ago. And who made that decision? Meaning who vetoed? It was Russia. You all remember during the Syrian conflict when Russia intervened? What did the US ask during the, the, the, uh, the UN Security Council meeting? And by the way, who called on that? It was the US that called on the UN Security session. And what they asked for is for the presence of international force. Russia went ahead and vetoed it. I don't remember what China did, but I think China either vetoed or abstained, but it won't matter. It was Russia that took the lead on that and vetoed it. So my thinking is that now here it is, 2, 3, 4, whatever years, how many it was, payback time. That's why the US won again, knowing, knowing that only about a week ago the Iranian president, Ebrahim Raisi, was in Russia And about the same week, the Russian president was in the Middle East, flew over to Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. That's to me the reason why. Of course, besides also being pressured, the US was pressured by the entity behind the scenes, which is the APAC, the Israeli— the American-Israeli Political Action Committee. APAC, very influential, very powerful. That's what it was. So, and again, that's my opinion and the way I can read it, because that's how it works in international affairs. Oh, Alessandra! David Oualaalou, thank you so much for your super sticker. Truly appreciate it. I'm starting to see this name a lot on our chat. Thank you for being here. So truly appreciate you for that. Uh, and this is where I see, uh, the challenges coming in, and that's why takes us back to the original questions. Is it time for reform of the UN? Is it time for reform for the global order? Is it time to get rid of the UN Security Council? Is it time to just reform the UN Security Council? Like I said, if you are to do rotational basis, there are 15 members, you know, you're always going to rotate. And you don't re— uh, rotate only the major powers because there are members there that they are not, uh, happy. And this is where the UN ends up being toothless. That brings me back to my point as to what happened during the '90s, as I mentioned to you, in Africa. I didn't see the answer to that yet. Maybe you guys, uh, and I was aware of that incident very vividly because I was following it from two aspects, on the military side and on the, on the, on the domestic, meaning over there. So I'm— let me see if you guys can type in the word at least for what took place in Africa during at that time in the '90s, a major, major— just to help you out. Oh, you got it. I was about to say it. You got it. It's about the Emancipator. You're absolutely correct. The Emancipator, the Rwandan genocide. What did the UN do? What did the American administration during Bill Clinton era? We all stood by the side when the Tutsis and the Hutus were, you know, killing each other. And as a matter of fact, I'm going to share a personal story with you. We might shock you, but when I received my degree, my PhD, during this ceremony to be handed the degree and so forth, the speaker who gave the commencement speech, you know who he was? You all remember the movie Hotel Rwanda? I don't know if you do or not. The speaker in my commencement for my PhD was the true owner of the Hotel of Rwanda, and he gave the commencement speech. It makes you just— I, I, I get upset. I got upset for what he shared with us. I got upset because of the lack of commitments from the West when they claim standing for rights and so forth. They couldn't move an inch. When the fighting start between the, the, the, the Hutu and the Tutsi. And the stories he shared, how he had to hide people in his hotel in some underground places, how the little babies were with, with the machetes. It was very gruesome. I'm not gonna detail much here, but it was just the fact that you say, where's the UN? It's because the UN is toothless, couldn't deploy without the approval of the members of the Security Council. You know, where is the African Command? Where is, where is, where is? You got my point. And this is why you are to say, if you are to reform the UN, you got to reform it the right way according to the new global order. You know, you can't have an entity that is over 70 years old still maintaining the mindset. That's like what we have with our politicians here, still thinking, still thinking in the mindset of the Cold War. Cold War is over, was over. And now we seeing the incompetent Biden pushing Europe into submitting their military, uh, uh, apparatus under Brussels. Yes, there is one under the UN— the— I'm sorry, under the NATO. We're talking about different things here. We're talking about even the UK to turn over its nuclear capabilities under— or to put its nuclear capabilities under Brussels. But Germany— Germany is no sovereignty there. We have our troops there. I mean, really, are you going to count on Olaf Scholz to even speak pragmatically. No offense to anybody here, but it's the reality. And that's why when we are talking about reforms in the UN or the Security Council, if you are to do— pardon me— if you are to do just the Security Council, you start to think about the rotational basis. You know, you have, uh, 5 members, 10 members, or get rid of the members altogether as far as the voting power allow the 15 members— and by the way, those 15 members will not be permanent. There is no such thing as permanent, you know. If you are to talk about United Nations, why permanent? You got 193 countries, rotates among them. That's the way I see it. This way, no country controls the process. And another reason why we are influencing the one beyond any? Because of the budget. We contribute a lot, and we contribute a lot so we can dictate the terms. The same argument we are making for NATO. That's why— are you gonna hear Germany stepping up? Are you gonna see France stepping up? UK? Italy? Turkey? None. None. Because none of them contribute as much as we do. But also we have reasons for that, is because we want to maintain the decision-making. This is why always, always, and it will always be as long as NATO exists, the commander of NATO is always a 4-star US general. That's no ifs and buts. That's, that's, that's how it's been. So, so this is where I see the changes or the challenges that lies ahead as we move into the 21st century. As I said, it's a different— remember, multipolarity is going to bring the world from a different path. It's like when you are driving on a highway and you need to exit or you need to enter the highway. Well, you can't be coming in from the shoulder into the main highway with fast speed. You can't do that because there are other cars coming very fast and it end up hitting you if you don't pay close attention. The same thing. The, uh, the, uh, the, uh, multipolarity in the 21st century is coming, and it's coming faster. So as the world is changing, changing, it's gonna have to, you know, slowly, gradually get in into the highway to accommodate and move along, assuming there is a desire to move together. Even though I have my own concern about that, because we are not gonna let it happen. Uh, to those who are familiar with Thucydides, you all know who Thucydides is. Uh, I don't know if I have a picture of him here, or— I doubt it, but let me see if I can pull him up for you. Tassiridis. Yep, I do have a picture because I read up on him a little bit, so let me share it with you. Share screen. Tassiridis. There we go, that's his picture. And you all know Tassiridis was a Greek philosopher, and he is the one who argued for the trap theory. Now, there are those who believe in it, there are those who do not. It's beside the point. The idea that his argument back then, that when, when a rising power is challenging Syrian power, most likely conflict will ensue. That's what the, the trap theory, the Thucydides talks about. And that's to tie it to this highway of the 21st century versus the 20th century. So this where my concern for how we going to be behaving, because we already seeing signs of it. What you're seeing now when it comes down to American foreign policy, it's a reflection of that chaos that exists. That's like the last stage of the— when, when, when a sitting power is about to go down. It's the reality. Saddens me, it's my country. But at the same time, uh, when it comes down to right, what's right, there is no, no Uh, you, you, you can't be cherry-picking because there is either right or wrong, nothing in between. Well, I'll do a little bit of right, but I'll do a little bit of wrong. No, no, it doesn't work that way. Doesn't work that way. And this is why I want to leave you with, uh, uh, uh, is that together— this is why I like this community, guys, and I count only on your support for all this and so forth. So, uh, together we can create a world Yeah, yeah, you and I, we can create a world where justice and truth prevail. That's why they're trying to silence this channel. You're all aware of this now. So a world where our countries, you know, when I say our country, my country, your country, all our countries individually, you know, stands on the right side of history. There's no ifs and buts, you know. And it's because, like I said, in your own capacity, in my own capacity, we cannot remain silent. We can't. You don't have to change things forcefully. What? No, no, no. But you can also remain silent. So, oh, we must not let— we must not let our voices Be silent. You know, when I hear those comments sometime, or read comments, some nasty ones, they just trying to discourage me from— you know, I've seen the worst in my life. You know, this kind of stuff, it's, it's nonsense to me. When you see tactics, technological tactics now from this platform here, trying to silence this channel slowly. I ain't gonna stay silent, you know. So thank you all for watching here, and I count a lot on your support because you part of this community standing up for what's right. Doesn't matter who, what's right. So let me say my thanks to the channel supporters and members. As I promised at the beginning, I want to give shout out to new channel supporters Uh, let me first— oh no, not this one. Uh, let me first share this with you for those who wants to support the channel. What I'm gonna give my thanks, uh, give shout out to a new channel supporter by the name Straight Path. I, I like that screen name. Thank you for becoming a channel supporters. And I also want to say thank you to those who bought me coffee. I'm gonna start with Mr. Habib Saleh. Thank you for so much for buying me coffee, truly appreciate it. Uh, the next person is DG OEI, so thank you so much for buying me coffee. Uh, next person is Richard, thank you very much Richard. Uh, Drag 88, thank you so much for buying me coffee. And the last person I'm gonna give shout out to is, uh, Hong Wong, thank you very much for buying me coffee, truly appreciate it. And thank you all, and please hit that like button. I know, I know YouTube is going to try to delete it. It is what it is. So, okay guys, I am gonna sign off here and go prepare some other stuff for you for next few days. And as always, remember, geopolitics impacts your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, guys. Bye-bye.