Ebou, before proceeding with the gist of my argument. I would like to make a
few clarifications before proceeding.

1. The UN Security Council is responsible for security matters that are
deemed worthy of consideration.  However, the Secretary General does almost
always give the council his recommendations before a course of action is
taken.  These recommendations weigh heavily on the council's final decision.
Also, though only council members can vote on security matters, the rest of
the members countries are allowed to participate in the decision making
process.  In other words, state case for their respective positions in an
attempt to influence votes their favor.

2. The UN security council members are not the only ones that cast ballots to
determine who occupies the position of Secretary General of the UN. Every
country votes but I do recall hat the votes are weighted with some country's
votes counting for more.

Okay now to the gist of my argument:

Wilson was one of the last noninterventionist American presidents. But he was
also one of the founders of the premise behind the League of Nations, more of
a precursor to a Western alliance as opposed to the United Nations.  As Ebou
noted, the US was never formally a member. In 1946, the leadership, perhaps
learning from the folly of the Third Reich, realized the wisdom of joining
such alliances and leagues.  The writing on the wall was clear.  The USA was
no longer impervious to events outside it's borders, nor was it capable of
waging war and taking advantage of other countries without first getting the
stamp of legitimacy from some international organization.  This earlier
noninterventionist policy was also perhaps dictated by the World being a much
less global place at the time than it is today.  But with technology advances
and the like, this changed quickly. If Mr. Woodrow Wilson's lived in this
era, his stance would surely have been different.

Since then the US has shamelessly used it's heavy vote in the UN and
permanent membership in the security council to shape the rules that govern
World policy.  There is also a sub-alliance within the security council that
legitimizes the sometimes illegal acts of this great country.  Such alliances
and sub-alliances in organizations such as NATO and UN are what allows the US
to wield a big stick in the international political arena without fear of
condemnation.  This clearly shows that relationship between the US and the UN
as being a symbiotic one.  The US cannot do without the UN and vice versa.  Sp
ineless Annan, probably very conversant with the history of the UN and it's
skewed relationship with the US, should read between the lines call the bluff
of the senators that threaten to blackmail the UN.

Part of the UN Secretary General's job description is described as:

<<Equal parts diplomat and activist, conciliator and provocateur, the   Secret
ary-general stands before the world community as the very emblem of the   Unit
ed Nations.  >>

Note the words activist and provocateur.  Unlike his predecessors, he has not
been the provocateur or activist.  Instead he has chosen to take the safe
path out.  I find it interesting that very rarely do you find a reference to
Africa in any of Mr. Annan's writings or talks.  Instead he chooses to talk
about Burma, Indochina and far off places that don't really matter in the
grand scheme of things.  OK, I might be exaggerating here.  But isn't it
slightly troubling that this man has chosen, in the name of impartiality and
diplomacy, to effectively ignore his continent completely?

Kofi has nothing to lose.  The United States can threaten all they want, but
we all understand their reliance on this organization to avoid becoming a
pariah nation.  All of Africa and probablty certain member of the security
council would respect him more if he became more vocal about the plight of
the continent and used his position to at least attempt to influence change.
If he gets voted out of office while trying to do this, at least he tried to
make a differnce.  This, in my opinion, is much better than serving 20 years
in that position as a scared and lame lackey of the West not respected by his
colleagues or his very own people.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface
----------------------------------------------------------------------------