In 2005, former Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad spearheaded the Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War. Now, on the 20th anniversary of the signing of that bold declaration, James Corbett joins an esteemed panel in Malaysia to discuss where the campaign to criminalize war stands today and where it is going in the future.
Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!
WATCH ON:Â 
 / 
 / 
 / 
 / 
/ 
 or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
SHOW NOTES
Perdana Global Peace Foundation
Tun Dr. Mahathir: The 2005 Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War
20 YEARS JOURNEY IN CRIMINALISING WAR: WHAT NEXT? (video of conference)
Transcript of James Corbett’s Speech at the “20 Years in Criminalising War” Conference in Malaysia, August 30, 2025
Good morning.
As mentioned, my name is James Corbett. I have a website called “The Corbett Report” at corbettreport.com. So, if you’re interested in more information, it will be there.
First of all, I’d like to thank the Perdana Global Peace Foundation and its trustees, and of course Tun Dr. Mahathir for the invitation to speak to you today.
As you know, we’re gathered here today to discuss the Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War and its 20th anniversary. But if we’re going to reevaluate that document and its significance from our standpoint here in 2025, then it’s worth our time to remember the context in which that initial declaration was made.
Let’s cast our minds back to 2005 for a moment and ponder the fact that that 2005 declaration was forged in the crucible of war. Not the War on Terror as the spinmeisters and PR salesman of the Western warmongers put it, but in the war of terror.
A war on an abstract noun, which, we were told, was meant to bring “Freedom” and “Democracy” to the Middle East, but was really about reshaping the Middle East in the interest of the strategists in Washington and Brussels and Tel Aviv.
That 2005 declaration came in the wake of America’s invasion of Afghanistan—a war which, as my reporting on “The Secret Lie That Started the Afghan War” has conclusively demonstrated, was waged under false pretenses, and as my reporting on “False Flags: The Secret History of Al Qaeda” conclusively demonstrated, was waged largely against a mythologized (and secretly supported) enemy.
That 2005 declaration came in the wake of the invasion of Iraq—a war perhaps even more egregious in its brazen illegality and wanton disregard for human life.
And that 2005 declaration came in the light of the specter of an invasion of Iran casting the shadow of World War III across the globe
And so perhaps in that context, in the wake of such madness, we can truly appreciate the moral clarity – the moral sanity – found in the Kuala Lumpur Initiative’s common sense declaration that “UNITED in the belief that peace is an essential condition for the survival and well being of the human race” we must affirm that “Since killings in peace time are subject to the domestic law of crime, killings in war must likewise be subject to the international law of crimes” and that “This should be so irrespective of whether these killings in war are authorised or permitted by domestic law”?
Imagine that: Murder is wrong. Murder in uniform no less so. A consistent moral principle, consistently applied. Who could possibly argue against that?
But, as you may have noticed, as difficult as it is to believe, that incredibly important ethical framework has not been adopted in the past 20 years. In fact, if anything, the initiative’s simple ideas are probably even more needed today than they were when they were first formulated.
Since that time we’ve seen: the destruction of Libya; the fracturing of Syria; the attack on Yemen; the bombing of Iran; a foreign-sponsored coup in Ukraine and the subsequent invasion of that country; and, of course, the ongoing genocide in Palestine
But I have been asked here today to talk specifically about the role of the current American administration in promoting peace around the world.
Hmmm. That’s an interesting topic. “The role of the current administration in promoting peace around the world.”
If we’re going to talk about the Trump administration and its efforts to promote peace, perhaps we should start by remembering how it was that Trump was swept into office this year.
On the campaign trail in 2024, Trump claimed that he would be able to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine on “day one” of his presidency.
He claimed, for example: “Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after I win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled.”
In fact, he didn’t claim this once or twice. He claimed it at least 53 times.
And throughout his campaign, he promised a quick end to the ongoing genocide in Palestine.
“Get it over with and let’s get back to peace and stop killing people,” he said in April 2024.
And candidate Trump even put himself up for the Nobel Peace Prize throughout the 2024 campaign.
“They gave Obama the Nobel Prize … He got elected and they announced he’s getting the Nobel Prize. I got elected in a much bigger, better, crazier election, but they gave him the Nobel Prize” he complained at one campaign event in Las Vegas.
And in November, shortly after winning the election, it was confirmed that at least one Ukrainian lawmaker had indeed voted for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
“It is my belief that Trump has made considerable contributions to world peace, and that he can make more in the future,” wrote Oleksandr Merezhko, a leading member of the Ukrainian parliament in his letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
So, since taking office, has Trump made good on these promises?
Well, he obviously has not ended the Ukraine-Russia conflict on “day one” as he promised at least 53 times as a presidential candidate.
He now claims that was said “in jest” and wasn’t meant to be taken literally.
And he hasn’t overseen an end to the Gaza genocide. As we know all too well, the slaughter of Palestinians continues and Netanyahu’s government is preparing its invasion of Gaza.
But, to be fair, we have witnessed some attempts at mediation and peace brokering since President Trump came into office in January.
We’ve seen Trump personally attempting to broker a deal in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, for example, and we’ve seen Trump coordinating a peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
And, as his supporters argue, he is turning US policy away from an expansion of wars and conflict and toward using deterrence as a method for preventing war.
For example, PolicyEast.com writes:
In his 2nd term as President, [Trump] is committed to ending the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Gaza war. The recent NATO summit 2025 signaled a shift in the US policy from escalation towards sustaining the deterrence. It reflects the realization under the Trump era that the continuous escalation is not a solution. Diplomatic off-ramp would be facilitated by the US in the Russia-Ukraine war as a last resort to end the war as it did in the recent Israeli-Iranian war.
Â
The war lasted for twelve days and ended with the US intervention. Though the analysts were skeptical of the US role, as it might expand the conflict. However, in the aftermath of Iran’s retaliatory strikes on a US base in Qatar, President Trump announced the ceasefire deal between Iran and Israel, lessening the severity of the escalation. In the post-conflict scenario, Pakistan’s premier Shahbaz Sharif lauded the decisive efforts put in by the US president in reaching a ceasefire deal between Iran and Israel.
This is . . . something . . .
But, given the US participation in the bombing of Iran this year, given the US’ months-long bombardment of Yemen, given the US brokering of billions of dollars in fresh weapons contracts for the Ukrainian conflict, given the US’ continued support for Israel in its waging of genocide against the Palestinians, I think it’s safe to say that the current American government has not shown itself as a staunch supporter of peace or a reliable ally in the effort to criminalize war
But maybe that’s the point. The American government may not be an ally in the quest for peace, but the American people do not want war.
Indeed, in Feburary 2024, at the height of the then-Biden administration’s push to arm and equip Ukraine for its war with Russia, a poll found that the overwhelming majority—a full 70% of Americans—wanted their government to push for peace talks between the two countries, not to support more war.
The BDS movement continues to reflect the American public’s (and the people’s of the world’s) anger at the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians. It has pressured Chevron into halting expansion of its Israeli-claimed “Leviathan” gas field in the Mediterranean. It has caused AXA insurers to completely divest from Israeli banks. It has prompted Puma to drop its sponsorship of the Israeli football association
And when Trump bombed Iran, even prominent members of the MAGA movement were quick to decry the move.
It’s important to consider that point a moment. Why would cap-wearing, flag-waving members of Trump’s political movement be so openly critical of the Trump administration’s warmongering? It’s precisely because they did not want MAGA to result in another warmongering administration like the neoliberal Biden or Obama administrations or the neocon Bush administration before them.
They thought they were voting for peace. But they got more war.
Trump has bombed Yemen.
Trump has bombed Iran.
Trump has been oddly unsuccessful at brokering peace between Russia and Ukraine, but he’s been remarkably successful at brokering weapons contracts for American military contractors to supply weapons to Europe so they can continue to arm Ukraine.
And of course Trump is still supporting his good friend Netanyahu in his quest to invade Gaza and dispel the Palestinians.
None of this is new, of course. We’ve seen this exact phenomenon play itself out before.
In 2008, just 3 years after the Kuala Lumpur Initiative was signed, the American people overwhelmingly voted Barack Obama into office in the hopes that he would not be George W. Bush. Obama even won the Nobel Peace Prize in the mere hope that he would not be George W. Bush.
But, immediately upon taking office, what happened? Not only did Obama dismiss the possibility of war crimes prosecutions for the war crimes that demonstrably occurred in the Bush-era War of Terror, he committed to an expansion of the war in Afghanistan; he expanded the war of terror into Pakistan with drone bombings, he spearheaded NATO’s illegal invasion of Libya; he oversaw the years-long insurgency that tore Syria apart; he presided over the rise of ISIS; and, in an egregious assault against that commonsense ethical framework embedded in the Kuala Lumpur Initiative, he created a so-called “disposition matrix,” i.e., a presidential kill list that presumed to grant authority to the president of the United States to kill anyone he wants anywhere on the planet, including even American citizens.
Murder is wrong . . . unless you’re the president, according to the President of the United States.
So, in short, in 2008, too, the people voted for peace. But they got war.
So, what is the disconnect? Why does a country that prides itself on its “democracy” continue to engage in wanton warmongering against the wishes of its own people? Why has a “Make America Great Again” movement that was supposedly interested in stopping America from acting as the policeman of the world and sending troops abroad for foreign wars of aggression turned into a “Make Israel Great Again” movement that is fostering wars abroad?
More to the point, why does seemingly EVERY American administration pursue a remarkably similar foreign policy no matter who is voted into office?
There can be only two possible answers to that question: either by some remarkable coincidence everyone who is voted in as president of the united states is a secret warmonger who never reveals their true nature until they’re sitting in the Oval Office, or it isn’t the president who is really calling the shots.
Assuming the latter possibility is the more likely answer, then if the president isn’t calling the shots, who is in charge?
Well, we’ve known since President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in his farewell address in 1961 that the military-industrial complex has “unwarranted influence” over the politicians and that the rise of this sinister lobby will lead to the “disastrous rise of misplaced power.”
And beyond the direct corporate military-industrial interests, there are of course financial interests. There’s always plenty of money to be made by unscrupulous financiers in times of war.
So, that leaves us with the question: if we want an administration that conforms to the will of the people and pursues peace, how do we counter these entrenched interests?
It’s tempting to say that in order to retake the government of America (or any other country) back away from these special interests and deliver it to the people, we will need a supra-nataional body to steward over these nations.
After all, if a powerful, centralized control structure has been taken over and used contrary to the wishes of the people, then how else can that structure be put back into line than by the authority of an even greater, more powerful, more centralized control structure?
But if that is what we are advocating, we must ponder whether we have really learned the lessons of the last 20 years of bloodshed and war
Have we learned the lesson that any institution with the power to enforce a regime of international law will be the very first institution that the warmongers will seek to subvert, subsume or eliminate?
Let’s never forget that the United States used the various United Nations resolutions against Iraq and against Saddam Hussein as pretext for its sanctions, bombing and eventual invasion of that country
Let us never forget that the path to NATO’s bombing of Libya was paved by the UN Human Rights Council in a special session in February 2011 where they invoked the “responsibility to protect” and adopted a resolution without a vote
Let us not forget that the International Criminal Court has almost exclusively dealt in indicting African leaders, with the exception of its arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin. And let us not forget that the ICC’s attempts to bring justice for the genocide of the Palestinians has been so far successfully thwarted and suppressed by Israel and its ally on the UN Security Council.
Perhaps, then, when we are looking for the fundamental shift in society that is going to have to take place if we ever want to criminalize war, we are looking in the wrong place if we’re looking to the ballot box—voting in Barack Obama or Donald Trump or whatever politician comes along promising peace. And perhaps we’re also looking in the wrong place if we’re looking to these supranational entities to bring about peace.
The real criminalization of war will almost certainly not take place as a top-down movement. It will not result from the conspiracy of high-level political leaders behind closed doors. It will not happen at a large scale institution.
It will happen when the bottom-up movement of people crying out “Enough!” becomes unstoppable. When the people realize that the power to direct humanity’s fate lies not in the hands of the bureaucrats, the warmongers, the politicians, the financiers and the military-industrial contractors but in our hands
In a strange way, perhaps the Trump administration has actually contributed to the promotion of peace in the world by helping to remove the scales from the eyes of those voters who have up to this point still believed in the power of voting or in the power of international institutions to achieve peace.
By continuing the war agenda, he has demonstrated once again that the idea of waiting for a political savior to end the wars is a failed strategy.
It is now time to organize as citizens. To boycott. To protest. To refuse to fight. To make it impossible for the war machine to function.
Once we realize that the war machine runs on the fuel of our participation, we start to recognize that our withdrawal of support for that war machine will be the only thing to stop the machine from functioning.
Such a goal may seem far off from today, but until we start conceptualizing it, until we start cheerleading for it, until there is support for this idea from the grassroots, it will never happen
On the contrary, when this idea has been promoted and it has caught on with the public and there is a groundswell of support for it, nothing will be able to stop it.
Victor Hugo famously observed: “No army can stop an idea whose time has come.”
But when the initiative to criminalize war has prepared the way for global peace, there will be no army left to try to stop it.
Let us pray that that day comes sooner than later.
Â