According to certain definition, international law is a set of legal rules and regulations that govern relations between sovereign states (the state) and or individuals in an international cross border framework. A State may indicate its agreement and obligatory position in such a relationship in several ways, and specifically in accordance with any final codified provisions of the/a treaty that legislates for such. A treaty being the/a written instrument that is utilized internationally for legal governance for most sovereign agreement. The most common ways include definitive signature, ratification, acceptance or approval and accession. Relations may be bilateral (between two States) or multilateral (between several States).
International law, on a theoretical basis, makes it possible to reach a consensus in the face of a dispute and to settle it amicably. But very often, some Western countries equate it with their policies of aggressiveness and imperialism. This leads one to think and ask questions about the usefulness of this international law since the big countries may not respect such. It appears that it may only be the developing countries that, with a naive and illusory approach to the theoretical definition of international law, that preserve peace, a humble scale and humanity.
The West and International Law
According to the English writer and playwright, Harold Pinter, “the invasion of Iraq was an act of banditry, an act of flagrant state terrorism, and proof of utter contempt for international law.” The majority of Western countries have different views or a different interpretation of the law. International law is an abstract and multi-faceted subject that serves their aggressive agendas. This allows them to unilaterally impose their wills on the false pretext of defending the world order. And if we were to question the origin of this world order and the sponsors of its defense, no one would be found. In fact, this system exists only to satisfy their will to pull by force, wars, destabilization movements and massacres. It is a pretext to spread terror and ignominy against the population because of interests. Once the targets are reached at nearly 80%, the sponsors of these massacres pose as firefighters to extinguish the fire (s) they have lit. These scenarios continue today.
In the course of history, we have studied the evolution of our world and of the wars that have unfolded. The most prominent are wars of religions that continue to be responsible for the decline of our civilization. In reality, these religious wars are only profit wars for some people who have and continue to manipulate and kill if necessary in the name of peace. These people never mention their interests which nevertheless override international law. It could be argued that since the international explosion and saturation of “international treaty agreements” post-world war 2 that the “World Police or New World Order” are in full force and effect and fully operational across the globe. It could also be argued that the “world Police of today are none but the United Nations. An organization that if supported on a sovereign basis are a very welcoming club. However if resisted may be considered as a “rogue” operation and outcast. Former president of the United States, George Bush senior some circa 40 years ago publicly stated and inferred that the “New World Order” (NWO) was a condition of evolution as we know it and could not be stopped in any event or at any cost. Was this former president clairvoyant or capable of seeing into the future?? We think not. We believe he, as one of the founding members leaders, was just charged with sowing the seeds within the public domain of the inevitable conception, transformation and growth of the NWO as we know it today- the United Nations or International Law in its finest form.
The UN and international law
In reading the role, description and achievements of the United Nations from its inception to the present and future, many people appear to appreciate the role of the United Nations in bringing peace and stability to the world. But others contradict this definition and the missions of the UN. For the latter, this organization was created to maintain peace between the last powers that participated in the Second World War in order to harmonize their efforts and protect their interests. All the other member countries are only extras with noble titles. And despite the illusion of these titles and the honors they have been awarded, they have no decision-making power. Members with veto power are those who can decide the fate of all mankind. These members are the USA, France, China, Russia and the United Kingdom. At the time of the creation of the permanent members, the former Soviet Union had imposed China to try to counterbalance the Westerners. 2 What is the relationship between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council?
From the outset, the five members had more or less balanced relationships. The relations of force are the same, very destructive, and the France of General De Gaulle played to balance the forces, which allowed him to have a diplomacy very developed.
France’s accession to NATO officially shifted the balance it displayed in a unipolar movement.
Whilst both NATO and the UN superficially to the common man appear to be a great peace keeping and culturally assisting entities, to the sceptics and lesser nations regarding participation of and as a part of these organizations it could be construed as the immoveable object meeting the unstoppable force or dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t.
During the war in the Falklands in 1986, we witnessed the war alliance for an umpteenth time. The United Kingdom and the US allied themselves to defeat Argentina. The defeat of the former Soviet Union eventually caused the end of the bipolar world and the confirmation of the unipolar world as well as the development of proxy war and destabilization, religious fundamentalism. We can cite the war in Yugoslavia, the wars in Iraq, Libya, Chechnya, Sudan, Côte d’Ivoire, and etc.
In conclusion of everything mentioned above, we can say that international law / international relations do not exist. These are the words behind the imposition of the will of others on the nations.
Can Africa become a permanent member of the UN?
Africa can play a major role, balance and efficiency as a permanent member of the United Nations. For this, it will need at least 2 permanent seats on which African states would turn at fortnightly pace. At first, the choice of these two states cannot be essentially determined by the quantity of inhabitants but rather by the wisdom, the will to practice an independent policy specific to Africa, and the development of the inter-state economy on the needs of the countries, regions and all of Africa.
At present, African economies are not developing to meet their needs. Today, everything is done according to the needs of the West, which creates a great
disproportion and the increased development of poverty. In a word, some African leaders are there only to satisfy the imperial orders and extend for this purpose the duration of their power. They do not see the suffering of their people and therefore do not try to find solutions by taking advantage of the expertise of the member states and, if necessary, at the international level with the friendly states of Africa. The last point is to put one or several African research centers to accompany this ambitious development. These research centers will be open to anyone who loves Africa and who wants to contribute.
For the nomination of these two countries, Nigeria, South Africa and the Black Francophone African countries may be temporarily abstained for the beginning because they need to reform beforehand. These comprehensive reforms, which must be political, economic and social, are necessary for the follow-up of the populations of these countries.
Nigeria is one of the most populous countries in Africa that has based more than 80% of its economy on agriculture and accordingly was rich and prosperous; he was the exemplary country par excellence. Its development attracted the lust of Africans, some Asian states and even Europe and the United States. Nigeria was exporting its agricultural products all over the world.
And then they discovered oil deposits. This discovery, which was supposed to be a plus for this country, produced the opposite effect. Today, Nigeria has become unable to feed its own population, as its food self-sufficiency has become a distant memory. This country has imported GMOs, non-organic foods and seeds that destroy soil fertility and open the door to many diseases that kill the population.
It is well known today that during the conflicting elections in Côte d’Ivoire in 2010, the victory of former president Laurent Gbagbo was disputed by current president Alassane Ouattara. During the proclamation of the results of these elections, before President Alassane Ouattara was forcibly put in place by France, former French President Nicholas Sarkozy telephoned former president of Nigeria Jonathan Goodluck every day. All this happened as if he refused to acknowledge the victory of the president-elect. In one day the number of these telephone calls could range from 7 to 9. This scene that is happening in the 21st century is more than ridiculous. If it were German Chancellor Angela Merkel or the former President of the United States, would he be able to afford to call?
Following these phone calls, the former Nigerian president had behaved as if he declared war on Cote d’Ivoire instead of seeking compromise to maintain peace there. He even forgot to mention to Nicholas Sarkozy the 40% of weapons of French origin that were in the hands of the terrorist group Boko Haram.
Africa wanted to call for permanent headquarters (s) at the UN and to this end, the proposal of successive French governments to support Africa was very favorably received by Africa. The French governments would have influenced the leaders of Nigeria and South Africa by promising to support them in obtaining a permanent post at the UN. But it is clear that if this were to happen, France would benefit from this windfall to weigh more during the votes of the UN by influencing the opinion of these African countries as they wish as it always did before and after the “independence. And taking a look at the events that took place in the 2005 presidential elections in Togo and those in 2010 in Côte d’Ivoire, maybe Africa should not accept this French aid with as much eagerness. The votes of the French-speaking countries would therefore be on the instruction of the French government and would therefore not serve the interests of the continent. Maybe the UN should be renamed as the United Continents!!! As the term “Nations” does not appear to be represented on a fair and reasonable basis.
We are of the opinion that the two permanent seats should return to Africa and that it is up to the African countries themselves to come together to choose the first two countries of the continent. At the outset, the Francophone countries of Black Africa, Nigeria and South Africa could vote, but not as candidates for the reasons mentioned above.
We would have liked Algeria to be one of the candidates. However this country, although it cannot be compared to France, is about to become so. According to newspaper Le Parisien of 23 January 2013 during the terrorist attack in In Amenas, Algerian Prime Minister Abdelmaleck Sellal declared 32 terrorists from northern Mali, including 29 assailants killed and 3 arrested. 38 hostages are killed and 5 have disappeared. Among the assailants were “eleven Tunisians, three Algerians, one Mauritanian, two Nigerians, two Canadians, Egyptians and Malians”. Two months before the start of the French military intervention in Mali, terrorist leader Mokhtar Belmokhtar was one of the founders of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). Four months before the terrorist attack in Algeria, he left Al-Qaeda to create his own group. His Lieutenant Mohamed El Amine Benchenab known to the intelligence services was killed during the attack. The know-how that Algeria demonstrated during the terrorist attacks of 2013, without
external aid, the effectiveness and bravery of the Algerian people have shown that African countries need to work and cooperate together. If Algeria had not responded quickly, perhaps the situation would have become as in Iraq, Syria and other countries where terrorists control the resources found on the land they export to Western countries. As President Putin said in October 2015, 16 Western countries trade with terrorists. They buy terrorist products far below their real values and thus contribute to the development of the terrorism they claim to fight.
“Cmdt Prouteau co-founder of the Gendamerie Nationale Rapid Intervention Group in France (GIGN) mentioned the extremely difficult circumstance of any intervention in this complex with so many crackpots ready for anything and possibly worse. Always Cmdt Prouteau then let us stop the expenses, let the families mourn their dead, and thank the Algerian military that there are only about forty deaths among the hostages, whomever they may be. Many survivors thanked them for intervening; “It could have been even heavier!”
Regarding nuclear technology, Africa will need it to defend itself against raptors because it is the only weapon that makes them fall back. Africa needs to defend itself because if it is attacked in any manner, most of these terrorist attacks are only made for the destabilization of the political, economic and social order or an alternative agenda.
The destabilization of Mali
The republic of Mali was said to be one of the poorest in the world. We will say that hospitality and living together are assets of this people. His first President of the Republic, the late Mr. Modibo Keita, was eliminated at a very early stage because he was too non-conforming.
Our goal here is not to justify the military coup d’état of Captain Amadou Sanogo but to understand what had actually happened and continues to happen in Mali. Were the assassination of the former Libyan leader and the destabilization of that country planned together? Would it be possible that among the recruited and paid mercenaries who served in Libya, some would have the mission of annexing Mali? And if so, who would it benefit and for what purpose?
Indeed, the coup of Captain Amadou Haya Sanogo in March 2012 was surprising for terrorists who annexed Mali on instructions and support from some Western countries. Strangely, when Captain Amadou Sanogo ruled the country
he occupied by terrorist movements, there were intelligence services from 16 foreign countries among which there were Gulf countries on the spot. One could question why this interest in Mali? Is it no longer one of the poorest countries in the world? Would they know something the Malians would not? Would it be the Malian subsoil resources?
Some national and international newspapers relayed at the time certain stories of a hidden agenda, one of which was the red berets against green berets. In our humble opinion, it is deeper than that and Mali should be careful not to par take in a contrived situation.
Instead of the Malian government opening an in-depth investigation to understand what had really happened, they simply threw Captain Amadou Haya Sanogo into prison. Would it not be more important to know the reasons for this kind of atrocity and the countries involved so that this does not happen again? It appeared the government was entertaining such suspicious activity. The evidence is that terrorist attacks continue to take place on their territory. And for what reason do they (the government) not accuse Captain Sanogo of conspiring and instead rely on the telling this story of red berets against the green berets?
The Burkina Faso
Albeit and undoubtedly the land of honest men, some of the leaders have been the gravediggers of the well-being of men of great value throughout Africa. This has been done by positioning themselves as the allies of certain European countries, thus destabilizing certain countries. Through them, the West initiates resistance to certain values that disadvantage countries economically and entail social and political risks. Former President Mr. Blaise Compaore has been “the baker of wars and blows in Africa”. To name but a few examples, weapons and logistical liaison for the destabilization of Sierra Leone, Liberia, Côte d’Ivoire, etc. These weapons originate in the European countries that sent them to Burkina Faso. The latter country was in charge of sending them to conflict zones in Africa. To thank President Campaore for his loyal service, he remained for more than 27 years in power. The country ended up fed up and the people rose up. After the marches, realizing that nothing could stop the will of the people, the French government had hurried to exfilter it to protect it. The former arsonist, agent of arms trade, logistics and destabilization takes refuge in Cote d’Ivoire.
The attack in Burkina Faso the same year, only a few months after the inauguration of the new President Kabore, considered as a terrorist attack that
caused several deaths not only slowed down and scared the new president but also renewed The defense agreements. Basically, this has allowed the country to be subjected again to the imperial force as it has been and continues to be so far.
A few years ago, the West was telling us that Colonel Gaddafi’s Libya supported, armed and financed terrorism, and that the civilized world must fight this ignominy with all its strength! Today whom uses weapons, finance, brings logistics and supports terrorists of a similar image as reported in Libya if not the UN? “They are fighters of freedom” who slaughter women, children and old men. What remains of human civilization?
At the beginning of the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), almost every country in the world had appreciated the institution’s objective and dreamed of equal justice. But the world quickly became disillusioned with the propaganda that was to be this justice for all. Instead, the ICC seems to be established to punish recalcitrant leaders, those who do not want to be subjected to the dictatorship of the West. The proof is that the ICC has not tried any member of the Security Council. Their satellite countries, do they not commit war crimes and crimes against humanity? It must be deduced that some developed lesson-giving countries make use of brute force to dominate this world. It is for this reason that the former French President General De Gaulle called the UN “machin” and the ICC was created on the image of the world’s biggest cartel, the UN.
Dr. Mehenou Amouzou received his Master in Business from the European Advanced Institute of Management, also a Certificate in Finance and Investment in Paris, France. He completed his Post Graduate Work in Political Strategy, International Relation and Defense Strategies and earned his Ph.D. in Finance.
CONTRIBUTION TO THIS ARTICLE:
Raymond Bernhard West; Fundacion Paraiso Sin Fronteras; Mr. Paul Kokou Amouzou; Mr. Morgan Lewis, Amouzou Nkrumah Production & Mme Dominique Mazarin.