Ebou, I think what you said here also echoes what the individual who sent me the private email said, that there is a reason that the Secretary General position is given to people from developing countries because essentially, it is the super powers who ultimately control what transpires at the U.N. The following point you raise is interesting, you said that: "the power arrangements within the UN framework ought to be redesigned for that body to generate any credible results of substance." This I think, is the essence of this whole exchange. The question then becomes, who is going to spearhead this need for a new organization of the U.N? I still say that while Anna cannot do this singlehandedly, at least, he can at least make an attempt to have such an agenda for a well needed change if the U.N is to have any future, even if he fails at it. It is a resignation to accept that this is the way things are that I find unacceptable. Clearly, Annan will need the backing of the members of the U.N that are deemed the "small fry" by the big guys, and I think that there is already a realization of the problem and voices raised about this problem. I listened to an interview on Public Radio with Thabo Mbeki last night in which he mentioned that up to his point, there has been a sort of "apartheid" directed at some of the member countries, and especially African countries, so I think that despite the odds, I still believe some changes can be brought about, the question is, how does one go about it. Jabou Joh In a message dated 9/8/00 11:48:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes: << There is a gross dissonance that exist within the rarified language and the explicit ideals of the UN Charter. For example, the Articles 10-14 of the Charter gives the General Assembly power to ONLY make recommendations to the Security Council. The UN Security Council has the ultimate jurisdiction to make any decision, regardless of any debates or recommendations of the General Assembly. Once a political matter is before the agenda of the Security Council, there is nothing the General Assembly can do about again. Therefore one can justifiably argue that the UN is de facto a government of the five permanent members. I will even forgive one's stretch of reality callng it "dictatorship" of the US by other means. Also the inherent contradictions of the UN, especially that between national sovereignty and the executive performance of the UN organization is a perennial albatross that paralyzes the office of the Secretary General. This is why I argue that Mr Koffi Annan is strictly limited to the use of rational persuasion and prudent formulation of agreements that are already mandated by the Security Council, and blessed by the US of course. Greetings. Ebou _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 and remember to write your full name and e-mail address. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------