I do not care what Muammar Gaddafi says, even if he were to hallucinate, go mad and play chess or describe his country's youth as being “rats, filthy and hallucinating.” I do not even care if he were to shout out loud: “There is no going back. Move forward. Revolution. Revolution,” or if he were to sing “Inch by inch, house to house, home to home, alleyway to alleyway.” This is due to the fact that his term has almost expired and his stay in power is only a matter of time after the Libyan people rose to achieve their freedom and regain their dignity. The fall of Gaddafi's dictatorship and the end of Bashar al-Assad's regime will go down in history, even if they were to hang on to their positions endlessly. I felt the need to laugh and cry at the same time over the meetings of the Security Council. However, the extent of the concerns and the sadness generated by the images taken from the Arab streets, which were filled with blood instead of water, and the hospitals filled with the corpses of the dead whose lives were claimed by Gaddafi's forces and by Al-Assad's forces afterwards, forced me to mock this Council which is said to be the most important apparatus at the United Nations, and the one responsible for maintaining international peace and security in accordance with Chapter 7 of the United Nations charter. In 2009, Gaddafi attacked the UN from its platform, threw its charter aside and called for its amendment because it only brought “horror and terror instead of peace and security upon its member states from the Third World.” The positions of the Western governments during the Arab revolutions were “highly suspicious,” alarming and the object of many questions, although they were better and more courageous than the positions of the Arab countries and their dead League. The Western governments thus seemed to be behaving based on the way the balance tilted. Indeed, whenever it tilted in favor of the ruling regime, these governments humored it with dubious expressions, and whenever it tilted in favor of the demonstrators, they showed their support of people's freedoms and dignity. But whenever the situation was unclear, the language that was used remained “vague” and maintained a way back. Still, whichever way, these positions were more courageous than those of Arab governments that remained “silent” vis-à-vis the massacres and the blood being spilt in Libya and Syria. Why would Russia, China, France, Britain and the United States be permanent members in the Security Council and enjoy the veto right? Has the world forgotten the bloody history of these five superpowers, the horror of the slaughters they committed against mankind and their “imperialistic” behavior? Has the world forgotten what America did in Japan with the Hiroshima bomb? Has it forgotten its bloody massacres in Afghanistan and Iraq where the tears have not yet dried up, the wounds have not yet healed and the burns have not yet cured? What about Russia, its arrogance in the Caucasus and its war in Afghanistan? China and its oppression of freedoms and abolition of its people's human and civil rights? The ten other non-permanent members in the Council are Bosnia, Brazil, Gabon, Nigeria, Lebanon, South Africa, India, Portugal, Germany and Colombia. There is not enough room to go into the details, but I will recall the history of some of these states and the extent of their eligibility to become members in a Council that enjoys a legal authority and whose resolutions are binding to the governments of the members states in accordance with Article 4 of the United Nations' charter. The Council includes fifteen members. But is it possible for Bosnia to provide the Security Council with the number of those involved in the Srebrenica massacre? Does Gabon's history testify in its favor, knowing that it is a small African state with no amount of “exceptional” democracy and in which the Bongo family has been in power since 1967? As for Lebanon the Arab state, it is a small republic with “frail” institutions governed by sectarianism. It has previously gone though a bloody civil war and is based on a denominational democracy that is not building a state as much as it is obstructing the entire country. In regard to the position of the Lebanese representative at the Security Council, it can reveal the actual image of the country seeing how he rose up when it came to the Libyan case but retreated at the level of the Syrian one, although the humanitarian situations in both countries require the same treatment. What about South Africa, a state in which killing based on race is still a frightening headline until this day and where the security situation is still volatile? The history of this country is filled with racial conflicts and segregation between the white minority and the black majority, at a time when it previously witnessed mass exterminations and tragic chapters. As for Nigeria, it is an oil-rich country in which the majority of the population is poor. It is dominated by bloodiness and the international figures previously showed the size of the massacres committed against the citizens, in parallel to racial clashes that surface from time to time and are attributed to the government, not the people. Colombia on the other hand is the most famous worldwide for its drug lords, death militias and cocaine gangs which the government was accused of supporting. As for India, and despite its advanced steps on the international level, it has failed to resolve the Kashmir problem - which has been ongoing for years – in a peaceful way with Pakistan, and whenever it is unable to resolve its internal problems, it does not hesitate to export them to the outside. Finally, the colonial history of Britain and France is enough to answer any question. What is certain is that the Security Council was unable to gain the trust of the people in the East and the West, that Muammar Gaddafi's regime is bloody and Al-Assad's regime is brutal. These two “predators” must face the fate of the murderers in court and be isolated in solitary confinement. As for the Libyan and Syrian people, they have freed themselves from their fear complex and are about to topple the two oppressive fists. The Arab revolutions will be victorious thanks to the steadfastness of the honorable, not the resolutions of the Security Council or the “shameful” silence of the Arabs!
