➡ The article discusses a conference marking the 20th anniversary of the Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War, a proposal by former Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohammed. The author reflects on the lack of progress in criminalizing war over the past two decades, despite the ongoing conflicts worldwide. The author also critiques the current American administration’s role in promoting peace, arguing that despite some attempts at mediation, the U.S. has not shown itself as a strong supporter of peace or a reliable ally in the effort to criminalize war. The author concludes by highlighting that the majority of Americans prefer peace talks over war.

➡ The article discusses the disconnect between the American public’s desire for peace and the government’s continued involvement in wars. It suggests that despite voting for leaders who promise peace, the public often ends up with more war due to the influence of the military-industrial complex and financial interests. The author argues that real change won’t come from politicians or international institutions, but from a grassroots movement of citizens refusing to support war. The article concludes by expressing hope for a future where war is criminalized and global peace is achieved.

➡ The text discusses the power of a dedicated minority to bring about significant societal changes, using the abolition of slavery as an example. It emphasizes the importance of introducing the concept of ‘war as a crime’ into everyday vocabulary, similar to how we view rape as a crime. The author believes this could potentially change civilization’s course. The text also mentions the Corbett Report, a listener-supported platform offering various resources, including a subscriber-exclusive video.

Foreign. You’re listening to the Corbett Report. Welcome back, friends. Welcome back to another edition of the Corbett Report. I’m your host, James Corbett. Not, as always, coming to you from the sunny climes of Putrajaya, the administrative center of Malaysia here, here in September of 2025 with episode 482 of the Corporate Report podcast, War is a crime. Now, if you immediately and intuitively grasp the simple common sense ethical framework embedded in that concept, war itself is a crime, then congratulations, you’ve got the idea. And you can, of course you are invited to watch the rest of this podcast, but you can go on with your day because you already understand this.

However, unfortunately, I think most of the population still cannot wrap their minds around the concept of not criminalizing murder. Of course you can’t go out and murder your neighbor. Of course you can’t go and travel to a foreign country and just randomly murder someone. But if you put on a uniform, if you have orders from your commanding officer, if there is a president or a prime minister giving a stirring speech about why it is that you have to go over and murder someone in a foreign land, well, then it’s fair game, right? If you are at all troubled by that idea, then perhaps this presentation is for you.

So let me contextualize it. Why am I here in Putrajaya in Malaysia talking about this? It is because I was just invited to a conference that just took place yesterday as I’m recording this here in Putrajaya, on the 20th anniversary of the Kuala Lumpur initiative to criminalize the war. If you have no idea about that initiative, then I will of course provide links in the show notes. So please follow the link to the show notes to go and familiarize yourself with the material around that 2005 initiative and declaration. Long story short, back in 2005, the Prudana Leadership foundation, through its Global Peace Cooperation association, whatever it was called at the time, launched an initiative under the behest of former Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Dr.

Mahathir Mohammed, to at the very least put into words, formulate the concept that it is time to criminalize war, as in to make wars of aggression, illegal acts that will be prosecuted. Now, that in some sense, as I say, is a basic ethical principle simply extended to the realm of geopolitics. But it is, as I think you can understand, remarkably transgressive. Of course, remarkably transgressive at the time that it was first formulated and signed there in 2005, in the depths of the war of terror. No less transgressive today. In 2025, with bombings taking and drone wars and all sorts of things taking place all around the globe as we speak.

And of course, the ongoing genocide in Palestine unfolding before our very eyes. The concept of criminalizing war itself is still a bold and transgressive one. So I think we need to fill in the gaps in people’s understanding about this concept, what it means, where it comes from. So of course, as I say, the links will be in the show notes for you to explore the initial initiative and its declaration and how it came about and look into the signatories like Professor Michel Chasodovsky and the other people who signed that initial declaration. But I will also direct you specifically to a report that I filed on this idea in 2012, or was it 2013 for GRTV? It was under the title Criminalize War Clubs.

And again, you can go and watch that including which included my interview from 2012 with the former Malaysian Prime Minister Toon Dr. Mahathir. But in order to set the table for today and my presentation to this particular conference, I would like to start with the interview that I just recorded the other day with former Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammed. I had the chance to talk to him in his office. By the way, he’s 100 years old now and it’s remarkable that he’s still cognizant, cogent, limber, able to get around function, spearhead declarations and anniversaries and signings and all sorts of things, give speeches.

It’s quite remarkable. I had the chance to talk to him about this initiative to criminalize war, where it stands today, 20 years after that declaration was first signed and where we go from here. Hello, this is James Corbett of CorbettReport.com reporting for Global Research CA here in Kuala Lumpur in, in Malaysia. And today I’m talking to former Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammed. Dr. Mohammad, thank you very much for your time today. You’re welcome. So we are sitting here on the cusp of the 20th anniversary of the Kuala Lumpur initiative to criminalize war. I’m sure some of my audience knows about that initiative.

Some of my audience might not know. So can you explain what that initiative is and how it came about? Well, this was many years after the end of the Second World War and we read reports about how many people were killed, how much damage was done during the war. And we think that the killing people in order to solve conflicts between nations is not the way to go. There are other ways. There, there are peaceful ways like negotiation Arbitration or even referring to a court of law. That is proper, civilized way of solving problems of conflicts between nation.

But we still believe many people, the big powers still believe killing people is the way to solve problem. And they must know that they fought and killed millions of people. At the end, everybody suffers. The winners and losers also suffer. So that is not the way of solving conflicts. Negotiation means you have the same result as going to war. You either win or lose, or you is not satisfactory. But nobody was killed and no damage is done. I mean, we consider ourselves civilized and yet we are still very primitive in the sense that conflicts are solved today by killing people.

So that is why we launched the movement to make war a crime, criminalize war. But I must say that it’s very difficult going. Not many people subscribe to this. People still think of building huge military forces and preparing for war. You know, in one sense, I think it’s such a simple idea that I think everyone understands. Killing is wrong, murder is wrong. I think most, almost everyone understands that. But for some reason people think that it is different when you put on a uniform and you do it for your country. Can you tell us about that? What do you think is that disconnect that people have? There is an effort to glorify war.

They don’t talk about the killing, the damage, the pain and the wounds that are inflicted during war. They talk about the glory of war. People get medals, get titles because they fought a war. But war is about killing people. What’s the good of getting medals if you are a dead man anyway and the whole country is damaged, millions of people are killed. I mean, it’s not glory, glory, but. But they glorify war. Putting on uniforms and marching and showing how great they are. Yes, when you march it looks grand, but when you are fighting, it’s just about trying to avoid the enemy’s bullet.

Because if you don’t kill the enemy, the enemy will kill you. That is what they believe in. So you must kill the enemy. You know, he has done nothing wrong to you. He has not done anything against you. But you are required to kill. And now the way of killing is so efficient that we can wipe out 100,000 people with just one bomb. Just imagine a war where people use nuclear weapons. The whole world will be depopulated. No living creatures will survive. That is what war is about now. And yet people are still prepared for war.

They have these nuclear warheads and they are looking forward to testing the new weapons. And they have to find some place where they can test the new Weapons. So they are provocative. They think that war is the solution. War is not a solution. Dr. Mahathir, you have been a world leader. You’ve talked at the highest levels to people from all around the world. How many people have you talked to that understand and share your point of view and are willing to make the kind of public declaration that you are on this? Most leaders do not talk about war, but they prepare for war.

When we talk to them, they don’t talk about the need to have peace in the world. They talk about stability and all that. Yes, that is good. But even at the expense of losing stability, of disruption of war, they still prepare for war. And when they prepare for war, eventually they will have war. Now that we’re at 20 years from the initial declaration, what has changed? Has there been any progress? I think things have gone worse. Nowadays we have big powers supporting war. And this genocide in Gaza, it is a crime. Everybody knows it’s a crime.

The whole United nations is against it. And yet, because of veto power, the United nations is helpless. And so the killings go on despite the wishes of the world, is for peace. Everybody wants the ceasefire. But one country this time, it is the United States, applies the veto and the killing goes on. That is thun. Dr. Mahathir Mohammed, the former Malaysian Prime Minister, on the concept of criminalizing war. So it was in this context, from this simple but remarkably transgressive idea, formulated and proposed and foisted onto the world stage by a world leader, that we recently had this conference here in Putrajaya, marking the 20th anniversary of that declaration and taking a time for solemn reflection about where we stand.

Obviously, as you no doubt have been able to ascertain, the idea of criminalizing war is no closer today than it was 20 years ago. So what does that mean? Where do we go from here? Well, that was, of course, the entirety, the entire point of the conference that I attended, and the video, from what I understand, is being put up on the Perdana Global Peace Foundation’s YouTube channel. So I will direct you there and provide the links when they become available. But in the meantime, let’s listen to my presentation to this conference. And I was asked to, at this conference to speak specifically about the current American administration’s role in promoting peace around the world.

That’s an interesting topic for me, as you might imagine. So I took my own interpretation of that question and what it means and fit it into the framework of this idea of criminalizing war. So without further ado, here’s my presentation to the 20th anniversary conference on the Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War. Good morning. As mentioned, my name is James Corbett. I have a website called the corbett report@corbettreport.com so if you’re interested in more information, it will be there. First of all, I’d like to thank the Berdana Global Peace foundation and its trustees and of course Tun Dr.

Mahathir for the invitation to speak. 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 re evaluate that document and its significance from our standpoint here in 2025, then it is 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 the PR salesman of the Western warmongers put it, but 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 has 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 three 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 peacetime 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 authorized or permitted by domestic law.

Imagine that murder is wrong, murder in a 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 initiatives 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’ve been asked here today to talk specifically about the role of the current American administration in promoting peace around the world. That’s an interesting topic. The role of the current American administration in promoting peace around the world. But he’s nominated for peace Noble. I’ll get to that. Well, all right, okay. 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 earlier 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, I don’t do a Trump impression, sorry, 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 a 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, Policy East.com writes, quote in his second 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. That war lasted for 12 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 the US Base in Qatar, President Trump announced the ceasefire deal between Iran and Israel, lessening the severity of the escalation, end quote. All right, this is something, but given the US Participation in the bombing of Iran this year, given the U.S.

s months long bombardment of Yemen earlier this year, given the US Brokering of billions of dollars in fresh weapons contracts for the Ukrainian conflict, given the U.S. s 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 is the point. The American government may not be an ally in the quest for peace, but the American government, people by and large do not want war.

Indeed, in February 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 peoples 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 PUNA 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 for a moment. Why would cap wearing, flag waving members of Trump’s own 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 Bush or Obama administrations, or, sorry, 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 three 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 near home 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 from he presided over the rise of isis. And in an egregious assault against that common sense ethical framework embedded in the Kuala Lumpur initiative, he created a so called disposition matrix that is 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 more war. So what is the disconnect here? Why does the 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’s really calling the shots. Those are not mutually exclusive possibilities. But assuming the latter possibility is the more likely answer, then the question is, 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 this question. If we want an administration that conforms to the will of the people and pursues peace, how do we counter those 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 supranational body to steward over these nations. After all, if a powerful centralized control structure like the American government has been taken over and used contrary to the wishes of the American 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’s 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 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’s 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’s 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’s 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. And let’s not forget that Trump’s bombing of Iran earlier this year, as well as Israel’s bombing of Iran, was facilitated by the IAEA and its interestingly timed declaration of sanction against Iran for its supposed violations of their nuclear commitments.

Perhaps then, when we’re looking at the fundamental shift in society that is going to have to take place if we ever want to truly criminalize war, we’re 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 but failing to deliver on 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 meeting behind closed doors and behind the public’s back.

It will not happen at a large scale, unaccountable institution thousands of miles from the people it claims to speak for. 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 politic, 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.

Trump has demonstrated once again that the idea of waiting for a political savior to end the wars is a failed strategy. It’s 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 it from functioning. Such a lofty goal may seem far off 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’s pray that that day comes sooner than later. Thank you. All right, friends, that was my presentation to the conference. And as I say, I will be putting the links to all of the information surrounding this conference, the initial declaration, the Perdana Global Peace foundation, etc.

So you can explore all of that information to fill in the dots and come to your own conclusions about the value of a declaration like this. But I think I understand certainly the cynicism, the doomsterism that pervades topics like these. This will never, ever change anything is what I imagine 99% of the audience might be thinking at this point. But I think it is at the very least important to keep in mind the dramatic, incredible civilizational turns that have taken place because a dedicated and tireless minority have worked for those changes to come about. The abolition of slavery is something that would not have been imaginable, even thinkable to people in the generations before that change took place.

But afterwards, it’s unthinkable that open slavery would be encouraged or allowed except in Libya after the NATO bombings. Having said that, I think someone who articulated the reason, the purpose, the merit of an initiative like this was the moderator of the panel that we had a panel discussion that we had after the presentations at the conference. I think he put it quite well when he articulated what it is that we’re really doing here and why it’s important. So we got introduced war is a crime into the vocabulary of every man, woman, child, adult, so that, you know, it becomes very clear.

It’s like now, if you talk about rape, people know it’s bad, you know it’s criminal. It cannot be done. So that vocabulary has to be introduced, because until now, as Tantri has said, as the Malay saying goes, when they talk about war is a crime, the response is mute. It’s, as he said, all right, it’s mute. In a thousand languages. There is no response, no adequate response to challenging the fact of people who initiate and continue. War and war crimes. Important words. An important concept. A simple concept, but a very, very important one. And one that could potentially change the course of civilization.

At any rate, if it’s never articulated, how will we ever get from here to there? So I thank you for your time and attention in today’s podcast. As always, if you are interested in more information, the links will have all of the links and resources that I have mentioned today so that you can get caught up to speed on these issues. Having said that, I think that’s going to do it for today. I am going to spend the remaining hours here in Malaysia, hopefully recording a subscriber exclusive video for all of you out there so that all of you subscribers out there so that you can see a little bit of Malaysia.

But that’s going to do it for today. Thank you for your time. James Corbett CorbettReport.com Looking forward to talking to you again in the near future. The Corbett report is 100% listener supported. Join the Corbett Report community to become a member and log into corbettreporteport.com to read the subscriber newsletter featuring my weekly editorial, recommended reading and discounts on Corbett Report merchandise. And once a month a subscriber exclusive video. Sign up today@corbettreport.com members and help support this independent.
[tr:tra].

See more of The Corbett Report on their Public Channel and the MPN The Corbett Report channel.