Top 15 Alfred-Maurice de Zayas Quotes

We citizens of supposedly democratic countries have a duty to protest, a duty to go out in the streets and condemn the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people. We must shout — as my generation did in the late 1960s and early 1970s – “if the government does not stop the Vietnam war, we will stop the government institutions”. Back then we shouted “Not in our name”. Vietnam was not our enemy. Today we must reaffirm that the Palestinians are not our enemies, and Israel cannot be our ally in any name, shape or form. If we ally ourselves with the State of Israel, we are ourselves guilty of genocide.

Instead of strengthening the United Nations Charter as the best hope of survival for humanity, and the only valid “rules based international order”, the collective West has systematically undermined the United Nations system of multilateral negotiation, and is playing really hard ball by a financially blackmailing the Organization and its specialized agencies.

The United States, Canada, Europe – what we know as the collective West – have turned their backs on the legal commitments undertaken 80 years ago to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and abandoned the over-arching values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the obligations undertaken pursuant to the 1948 Genocide Convention to prevent – not only punish – the crime of genocide.

The UN General Assembly remains the most representative and least intimidating forum where diplomats can exchange points of view and approaches, where they can craft viable compromises. But 79 years after the adoption of the Charter, new realities have emerged that are not properly reflected in the membership of the UN Security Council. Already in 2005 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan proposed in his report “In larger Freedom” an expansion of the SC from 15 to 24 members

The UN Charter, adopted on 24 October 1945, has not lost its relevance in the 21st century. In fact, we need the United Nations more than ever, because the Charter constitutes humanity’s only rules-based order, and its best hope to build a peaceful modus vivendi that will facilitate development and prosperity for everyone on the planet.

Experience in the United Nations and other international institutions illustrates how the vast body of international law with all of its treaties and protocols suffers from an acute bout of double standards, both in the interpretation and application of norms. As politicians and journalists invoke international law à la carte, widespread cynicism sets in, resulting in a significant loss of the authority and credibility of the institutions.

International law is by nature multilateral. Its ontology is universal and cannot be interpreted or applied selectively, today this way, tomorrow somewhat differently — or not at all. In some cases violations of international law are loudly denounced by the international community; in other circumstances, comparable violations are followed by a deafening silence. Indeed, the “crime of silence” implies tacit consent. Qui tacet consentire videtur. Individuals and States can thereby become complicit in the crime. If not legally, certainly morally.

Provocation is not an innocent act. It can amount to a tort or even a crime. In the UK the Public Order Act prohibits "abusive or threatening words or behaviour", specifically "to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence”. Provocation means conduct that induces another to a violent response – out of fear, anger or outrage. Whereas in international law there is an absolute prohibition of the use of force stipulated in article 2(4) of the UN Charter, some powerful countries concoct exceptions, e.g. by postulating a non-existent right of “pre-emptive” self-defence or the so-called doctrine of “responsibility to protect”, both scams intended to circumvent Art. 2(4). Recent armed conflicts in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine document a tendency to water down the prohibition of the use of force. This is facilitated by the compliant media and "quality press" that manage facts and narrative in an attempt to “legitimize” the use of force, e.g. by the US in Iraq, or to absolve the provocateur, e.g. by downplaying NATO's egregious provocations in Ukraine and elsewhere. It is surrealistic to claim that the use of force in Iraq was legitimate: It was naked aggression and a crime against humanity. Equally extravagant is to pretend that the invasion of Ukraine was “unprovoked”, although every Western politician does not miss the opportunity to refer to the Ukraine war as "unprovoked". Admittedly, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine constituted a grave breach of the UN Charter. But the provocations also violated article 2(4), which prohibits not only the use of force but also the threat thereof. As Professors John Mearsheimer, Richard Falk, Jeffrey Sachs and others have pointed out, NATO expansion was perceived by Russia as a hostile attempt at encirclement, hence an existential threat. Every attempt by Russia to defuse this menace by peaceful negotiation as required by article 2(3) UN Charter was rebuffed by the US and NATO. NATO's on-going provocations in Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere amount to geopolitical harassment in contravention of the letter and spirit of the UN Charter. It can be argued that provoking someone is more offensive that reacting aggressively to the provocation, because the provocation is deliberate, not accidental; the reaction thereof is ad hoc, lacking malice aforethought. Provoking means intentionally making someone angry, throwing down the gauntlet, inviting to a fight. Of course, retaliation should be proportional to the provocation. But we humans have this awesome tendency to overreact. Bottom line: Both the provocation and the retaliation are reprehensible. But the one who provokes bears greater moral responsibility. Provocation should be recognized as an attribute of the act of aggression and as such deemed in violation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

War is over, if we want it” was one of John Lennon’s best messages, next to “Imagine”. Why can't our generation see the relevance of the songs to the Ukraine war? Why can’t our leaders learn from Wilfred Owen and Erich-Maria Remarque? It is time to speak truth to power. But it seems that our leaders are hooked on war. They actually want war, not peace, because some of our “elites” in the military-industrial-financial sector are making billions in profits, and the revolving door puts the CEO's of banks and corporations into government, so that they can continue funnelling taxpayers' money into the monstruous military machine. These “elites” do not care about the lives of the Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and civilians who are being slaughtered in the name of geopolitics and self-righteousness. The mainstream media nurtures generalized herd mentality and “groupthink”, which effectively negates our common sense and leads us to self-censorship, when we realize that we are expected to accept the propaganda or take the consequences. We find our “comfort zone” in going along with those who pretend to love Big Brother. Of course, there are many alternatives to confrontational politics and war – namely dialogue and compromise, which certainly do not entail greater risks than our present military policies that generate perpetual war. Only a climate of patience and perseverance will allow humanity to advance from anarchy to peace, from hatred to mutual respect.

It is time to label NATO a "criminal organization" within the meaning of articles 9 and 10 of the Nuremberg Statute and judgment. NATO's raison d'être expired when the Soviet Union ended and the Warsaw Pact was dismantled. In a desperate effort to self-perpetuate, NATO invented enemies so that it could justify its continued existence. It embarked on a series of expansions aimed at encircling Russia, although Gorbachev had voluntarily withdrawn Soviet forces precisely in order to “give peace a chance”. NATO attempted to usurp the functions of the UN Security Council and its exclusive authority over the use of force under the UN Charter. NATO's eastward expansion – in flagrant violation of internationally binding commitments made in 1989, 90, 91 by George H.W. Bush and his Secretary of State James Baker – constituted since 1997 and continues to pose a threat to international peace and security within the meaning of article 39 UN Charter. Today the continuing megalomania of NATO’s leaders goes as far as pretending to expand to Asia and Africa. NATO member states have engaged in naked aggression against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, they have illegally intervened in the Middle-East, committed abhorrent war crimes and crimes against humanity hitherto in total impunity. More recently, NATO is at the source of Ukraine’s egregious violations of the Minsk Accords (as recorded by OSCE), which eventually triggered Russia’s invasion. To claim that NATO is a “defensive” alliance is preposterous – its credo is not defence, but provocation, bravado, bullying, and new-style imperialism. NATO may still throw all of humanity under the bus.

The Ukraine end-game becomes more dangerous by the day, and many experts in the US realize that Ukraine cannot win. Nevertheless, NATO and EU escalate further at the expense of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives, sacrificed on the altar of US and NATO expansion. The Western indifference to death reminds me of Madeleine Albright’s cynical assessment that toppling Saddam Hussein was worth the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tihL1lMLL0). Some in the Biden administration pretend that they can still snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat. At best we can hope for a frozen conflict, which, alas, can break out into renewed hostilities. At worst, we face nuclear Apocalypse. The long-term consequences of the conflict are not limited to Ukraine. The question arises about the viability of existing international institutions like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, which have allowed themselves to be hijacked by the US for its geopolitical agenda. NATO’s policies have seriously damaged our faith in the system of international law, diplomatic law and international criminal law, which functioned – albeit with difficulties -- before the orgy of treaty-violations, sanctions regimes and blockades that have upended Rechtssicherheit, international trade, supply chains and rendered the sustainable development goals unattainable. The use of indiscriminate weapons including drones, cluster bombs and depleted uranium have done long-term damage to international humanitarian law. Another US fantasy: the piecemeal absorption of Ukraine into NATO, which Russia will counter, because it cannot allow the use of Ukrainian territory as a springboard for renewed proxy wars. It seems that the US, not Russia, has deliberately thrown the Westphalian system of law and diplomacy out of the window.

In order to help the rule of law evolve into the rule of justice, we must demand our right to access to information, we must adopt a Charter of Rights of Whistleblowers, demand transparency and accountability from our governments, and ensure that Parliaments revisit obsolete laws that perpetuate injustice. We must remain vigilant to ensure that the rule of justice is built day by day and that our courts and tribunals apply the existing legislation in good faith and not in the service of corporations and special interests, who do not want rights – but only privileges.

Considerable responsibility for the corruption of the rule of law is borne by the corporate media that systematically dis-informs the public about the facts and imposes a “managed narrative” that essentially cripples any chance for an objective debate. Over the past decades the corporate media has engaged in brazen propaganda to create a false “perception” of the law, including international law, that is very distant from any conception of justice. By suppressing information, dis-informing and whitewashing, the corporate media has become complicit in the war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen etc. The media has even attempted to create an impression that the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, which the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan repeatedly called an “illegal war”, actually was a “just war” in keeping with the UN Charter

The brave new world of market fundamentalism promises endless progress and seduces many through virtual pleasures, a festival of consumerism, digital gadgets galore, fast lanes and fast tracks to everywhere and nowhere, the illusion of doing more with less. One day, however, we may wake up with a heavy spiritual hang-over, realizing we have entered the dystopian age of conformism, of mass surveillance and consequent self-censorship, burdened by a sense of not coping with those things that really matter, enveloped by a paralyzing meaninglessness, seemingly unable to escape, condemned to the anesthetizing panem et circensis imposed by the Zeitgeist. We may think we can check out of the New World Hotel to join the dissident ranks, but it may be too late to exit — because there may not be anywhere for vagabonding misfits to go.

Several UN special rapporteurs have repeatedly demanded transparency and accountability for crimes committed in Guantanamo. More recently, they have addressed the specific demand to President Biden that he immediately close Guantanamo. But of course, closing Guantanamo is not enough. The crimes committed there must be investigated, as I already demanded in one of my own press releases back in 2016. Days ago marked the 19th anniversary of the opening of this modern-day Gulag at Guantanamo, where over 700 detainees have been tortured and incarcerated under inhumane conditions