Losing Faith in the UN

[Dreadsox]

By Secret Ballot, Libya Elected Chair of UN Human Rights Commission

United Nations (New York)

January 20, 2003
Posted to the web January 20, 2003

New York

Libya was elected today by secret ballot to head the top United Nations human rights panel - a break from nearly 50 years of tradition in which chairpersons are elected by acclamation.

During the selection of its officers for 2003, Ambassador Najat Al-Hajjaji was elected Chairperson of the Geneva-based Commission on Human Rights by a secret ballot of 33 countries in favour, with three opposed and 17 abstentions.

According to a Commission spokesman, the procedure - invoked today by the United States - can be requested to contest a nomination for the panel's chairperson. Explanations of vote are not allowed, as they are following public ballots.

Upon her election, Ambassador Al-Hajjaji said the Commission must affirm the universality, indivisibility and complementarity of human rights, and that it must send a clear message that it will deal with human rights in all countries - not just some of them - taking into account the different religious, cultural and historical backgrounds in the world.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, just back from his recent mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola, lauded the new procedure for early election of a Bureau, saying it was important for the Commission to demonstrate that it could manage with "wisdom, speed and restraint its procedural business so as to create the best possible spirit and conditions for addressing and resolving the many substantive issues on its agenda."

The Commission's procedural meeting took place this morning under a new rule intended to enable it to work more efficiently by having its Bureau in place well before the annual session begins. The panel's fifty-ninth session is scheduled for 17 March to 25 April.

Elected Vice-Chairpersons without a vote were Prasad Kariyawasam of Sri Lanka, Jorge Voto-Bernales of Peru, and Mike Smith of Australia. Chosen as Rapporteur, also without a vote, was Branko Socanac of Croatia.

 

[melon]

Not that I'm defending Libya at all, but do they have any known outstanding human rights violations?

I must admit that I'm unfamiliar.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

Good question.....

I am just thinking that Lockerbie is still pretty recent history....And I do believe that this terrorist act was sponsored by Lybia.

I could be wrong.

Peace

Tripoli easily wins vote U.S. demanded

PARIS The UN Commission on Human Rights elected Libya as its head Monday after the United States demanded and lost a vote against a country it has repeatedly condemned as a sponsor of terrorism.
.
After the United States insisted on a vote that would embarrass Libya's supporters, rather than permit a consensus decision, 33 countries voted for Libya. Three, including the United States, Canada and reportedly Guatemala voted against and 17 abstained, including seven members of the European Union who, while aghast at the nomination, did not want to offend the Africans nations that chose Libya to represent them, diplomats said.
.
The vote means that a country accused of abducting and torturing opponents of its regime, that has openly supported terrorist organizations such as the Irish Republican Army and is allegedly responsible for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, will preside over the meeting March 17 to April 25 at which the commission will survey the human rights situation around the world.
.
Usually the leadership of the commission is arranged by consensus and rotated among the UN's five geographical regions.
.
This year it was the turn of Africa turn, which the Libyan leader, Colonel Moammar Gadhafi, has assiduously courted with cash and political influence. Gadhafi sent troops into the Central African Republic to prop up the regime there, and threw his political support behind another strongman, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. He was a driving force behind the formation of the African Union, even paying off some of the debts of the old Organization of African Unity, which preceded the union.
.
Libya, still not fully free from UN sanctions that were imposed because of its alleged role in the Lockerbie bombing, was the only country nominated by the African bloc.
.
This year the United States insisted on a vote instead of a consensual nod for the first time since the commission was established in 1946 because, as the State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, Libya's "terrible conduct" should not be rewarded. The United States has only just rejoined the commission after losing its seat in 2001 over what was seen as its unilateral foreign policy.
.
Human rights advocates said that the election of a country that has not had a free election since Gadhafi seized power in 1969 put the credibility of the Human Rights Commission at stake.
.
It "poses a real test" for the body, according to Joanna Weschler, the UN representative for Human Rights Watch.
.
In the Libyan capital, Tripoli, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Hassuna Shawush, told Agence France-Presse that the vote was "a shining victory which gives back their rights to the oppressed peoples." He said it showed "historic world recognition that Libya has a clean sheet with regards to human rights."
.
This was not the view held by Human Rights Watch, which accused the Tripoli regime of arbitrarily locking up, abducting and assassinating political opponents, torturing and mistreating prisoners, and barring human rights investigators from the UN or non-government organizations.
.
Earlier, in a statement, Human Rights Watch said Libya's rights record over three decades had been "appalling." Amnesty International also has expressed concern that about 150 opponents of the regime facing trial in Libya later this month will not receive a fair hearing.
.
The Libyan representative to the Human Rights Commission, Najat Hajjaji, said in a speech after her election that she would rely on the body's collective wisdom and would avoid "as far as possible" making decisions on a personal basis. But diplomats feared the nomination could exacerbate tensions. Even before the secret ballot by the national delegates in Geneva, the Libyans accused the United States of trying to block the election out of "Zionist" motives. Tripoli easily wins vote U.S. demanded

PARIS The UN Commission on Human Rights elected Libya as its head Monday after the United States demanded and lost a vote against a country it has repeatedly condemned as a sponsor of terrorism.
.
After the United States insisted on a vote that would embarrass Libya's supporters, rather than permit a consensus decision, 33 countries voted for Libya. Three, including the United States, Canada and reportedly Guatemala voted against and 17 abstained, including seven members of the European Union who, while aghast at the nomination, did not want to offend the Africans nations that chose Libya to represent them, diplomats said.
.
The vote means that a country accused of abducting and torturing opponents of its regime, that has openly supported terrorist organizations such as the Irish Republican Army and is allegedly responsible for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, will preside over the meeting March 17 to April 25 at which the commission will survey the human rights situation around the world.
.
Usually the leadership of the commission is arranged by consensus and rotated among the UN's five geographical regions.
.
This year it was the turn of Africa turn, which the Libyan leader, Colonel Moammar Gadhafi, has assiduously courted with cash and political influence. Gadhafi sent troops into the Central African Republic to prop up the regime there, and threw his political support behind another strongman, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. He was a driving force behind the formation of the African Union, even paying off some of the debts of the old Organization of African Unity, which preceded the union.
.
Libya, still not fully free from UN sanctions that were imposed because of its alleged role in the Lockerbie bombing, was the only country nominated by the African bloc.
.
This year the United States insisted on a vote instead of a consensual nod for the first time since the commission was established in 1946 because, as the State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, Libya's "terrible conduct" should not be rewarded. The United States has only just rejoined the commission after losing its seat in 2001 over what was seen as its unilateral foreign policy.
.
Human rights advocates said that the election of a country that has not had a free election since Gadhafi seized power in 1969 put the credibility of the Human Rights Commission at stake.
.
It "poses a real test" for the body, according to Joanna Weschler, the UN representative for Human Rights Watch.
.
In the Libyan capital, Tripoli, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Hassuna Shawush, told Agence France-Presse that the vote was "a shining victory which gives back their rights to the oppressed peoples." He said it showed "historic world recognition that Libya has a clean sheet with regards to human rights."
.
This was not the view held by Human Rights Watch, which accused the Tripoli regime of arbitrarily locking up, abducting and assassinating political opponents, torturing and mistreating prisoners, and barring human rights investigators from the UN or non-government organizations.
.
Earlier, in a statement, Human Rights Watch said Libya's rights record over three decades had been "appalling." Amnesty International also has expressed concern that about 150 opponents of the regime facing trial in Libya later this month will not receive a fair hearing.
.
The Libyan representative to the Human Rights Commission, Najat Hajjaji, said in a speech after her election that she would rely on the body's collective wisdom and would avoid "as far as possible" making decisions on a personal basis. But diplomats feared the nomination could exacerbate tensions. Even before the secret ballot by the national delegates in Geneva, the Libyans accused the United States of trying to block the election out of "Zionist" motives. Tripoli easily wins vote U.S. demanded

PARIS The UN Commission on Human Rights elected Libya as its head Monday after the United States demanded and lost a vote against a country it has repeatedly condemned as a sponsor of terrorism.
.
After the United States insisted on a vote that would embarrass Libya's supporters, rather than permit a consensus decision, 33 countries voted for Libya. Three, including the United States, Canada and reportedly Guatemala voted against and 17 abstained, including seven members of the European Union who, while aghast at the nomination, did not want to offend the Africans nations that chose Libya to represent them, diplomats said.
.
The vote means that a country accused of abducting and torturing opponents of its regime, that has openly supported terrorist organizations such as the Irish Republican Army and is allegedly responsible for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, will preside over the meeting March 17 to April 25 at which the commission will survey the human rights situation around the world.
.
Usually the leadership of the commission is arranged by consensus and rotated among the UN's five geographical regions.
.
This year it was the turn of Africa turn, which the Libyan leader, Colonel Moammar Gadhafi, has assiduously courted with cash and political influence. Gadhafi sent troops into the Central African Republic to prop up the regime there, and threw his political support behind another strongman, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. He was a driving force behind the formation of the African Union, even paying off some of the debts of the old Organization of African Unity, which preceded the union.
.
Libya, still not fully free from UN sanctions that were imposed because of its alleged role in the Lockerbie bombing, was the only country nominated by the African bloc.
.
This year the United States insisted on a vote instead of a consensual nod for the first time since the commission was established in 1946 because, as the State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, Libya's "terrible conduct" should not be rewarded. The United States has only just rejoined the commission after losing its seat in 2001 over what was seen as its unilateral foreign policy.
.
Human rights advocates said that the election of a country that has not had a free election since Gadhafi seized power in 1969 put the credibility of the Human Rights Commission at stake.
.
It "poses a real test" for the body, according to Joanna Weschler, the UN representative for Human Rights Watch.
.
In the Libyan capital, Tripoli, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Hassuna Shawush, told Agence France-Presse that the vote was "a shining victory which gives back their rights to the oppressed peoples." He said it showed "historic world recognition that Libya has a clean sheet with regards to human rights."
.
This was not the view held by Human Rights Watch, which accused the Tripoli regime of arbitrarily locking up, abducting and assassinating political opponents, torturing and mistreating prisoners, and barring human rights investigators from the UN or non-government organizations.
.
Earlier, in a statement, Human Rights Watch said Libya's rights record over three decades had been "appalling." Amnesty International also has expressed concern that about 150 opponents of the regime facing trial in Libya later this month will not receive a fair hearing.
.
The Libyan representative to the Human Rights Commission, Najat Hajjaji, said in a speech after her election that she would rely on the body's collective wisdom and would avoid "as far as possible" making decisions on a personal basis. But diplomats feared the nomination could exacerbate tensions. Even before the secret ballot by the national delegates in Geneva, the Libyans accused the United States of trying to block the election out of "Zionist" motives.

 

[sharky]

Yep this is lame. but keep two things in mind.

1 -- just because Libya has control of the chair position doesn't mean that Libya has control. the chair position is not that powerful, just like the UN really doesn't have that much power.

2 -- is terrorism bad? hell yeah. but I'm sure that as we are looking at Libya, their people are looking at us and thinking "what about the U.S.?" We're one of the few first-world nations that still has the death penalty. We're trying to start a war that most other first-world nations don't support. Is Libya worse? yep. but are we innocent?

[hmmm.....i seem to be playing devil's advocate. sorry. really, I don't support this appointment. but this is not a cut and dry issue]

 

[Popmartijn]

Sharky,

I agree with you here. Libya is hardly a model country and their track record doesn't bode well for the UN Human Rights Commission. But many other countries aren't innocent either. If only countries are applicable to be chair when they have no reported violation then very few countries could fill the position. So I say: "All power to Luxembourg!"

C ya!

Marty (who doesn't know about the Human Rights situation in Luxembourg)

P.S. I do find it a bit ironical that the USA gets snubbed by a voting they demanded.
P.P.S. On the other hand, why did the EU-countries abstain from voting?

 

[elfyx]

Absolutely

Lets see..

The UN wants to impose the global taxation of all people to empower itself, erode national sovereignty, and fund itself apart from membership dues.

The UN wants the forfeiture of private ownership of property.

The UN wants to erode parental rights and control every child.

The UN wants to impose global gun control, and eliminate the right to bear arms.

The UN wants to fortify its:
* International Criminal Court,
* International (unelected) Executive Body, a system with little to no checks and balances, and
* International police and military forces

The UN wants to control your reproductive rights.

The UN wants to control world finances, and consolidate the world into three currencies: The Yen, Euro, and Dollar, under a debit system.

This amongst others atrocities. The UN is the framework, established by the global power-elite, for the coming socialist [One World Government, New World Order, Global Economy, Globalization, or whatever else you want to call it].

So, yes, to answer I have lost faith in the UN, not to mention the vast majority of our political, financial, educational, and religious leaders

 

[nbcrusader]

Not that I'm defending Libya at all, but do they have any known outstanding human rights violations?

I am not aware of any, but I believe Libya improved its track record after 1986.

 

[theSoulfulMofo]

Are these the same Libyans that were after Doc in Back to the Future?

 

[Dreadsox]

Are these the same Libyans that were after Doc in Back to the Future?

 

[elfyx]

Are these the same Libyans that were after Doc in Back to the Future?

that was hilarious mofo!

 

[sharky]

No those were the mean bombing Libyans after Doc. the Libyans today are nice and fuzzy and warm. [btw, I rode in a real DeLorean about six months ago...there was no flex capacitor].

Elf-- interesting rant about the UN and why you don't like it. I disagree with most of what you said and highly doubt that you realize how much power the UN truly doesn't have and how they don't really advocate alot of that. Bfut interesting rant none the less.

 

[hiphop]

Re: Absolutely

Lets see..

The UN wants to impose the global taxation of all people to empower itself, erode national sovereignty, and fund itself apart from membership dues.

The UN wants the forfeiture of private ownership of property.

The UN wants to erode parental rights and control every child.

The UN wants to impose global gun control, and eliminate the right to bear arms.

The UN wants to fortify its:
* International Criminal Court,
* International (unelected) Executive Body, a system with little to no checks and balances, and
* International police and military forces

The UN wants to control your reproductive rights.

The UN wants to control world finances, and consolidate the world into three currencies: The Yen, Euro, and Dollar, under a debit system.

This amongst others atrocities. The UN is the framework, established by the global power-elite, for the coming socialist [One World Government, New World Order, Global Economy, Globalization, or whatever else you want to call it].

So, yes, to answer I have lost faith in the UN, not to mention the vast majority of our political, financial, educational, and religious leaders

Do you mean this serious?

If yes, sorry to say, but you?re an idiot.

The UN can?t be more than its member states.

The UN is a tool, a mechanism in the hand of its member states.

Learn to read.

 

[melon]

People like to demonize the UN, but overlook the WTO. I always found that to be the most amusing. Moral of the story: if something is supposed to happen, it will happen.

Melon

 

[elfyx]

UN

Elf-- interesting rant about the UN and why you don't like it. I disagree with most of what you said and highly doubt that you realize how much power the UN truly doesn't have and how they don't really advocate alot of that. Bfut interesting rant none the less.

Well, I think what I meant to stress was what the UN *wants*, and I realize they are not fully empowered to do all the things I mentioned. So, yes, I do have a good idea of how much power the UN doesn't have. I do respect your difference of opinion though! As for the UN not advocating these things, that's a different story. At worst its downright a full endorsement, and at best much of what I listed can be made possible through interpretation of what they want.

The UN wants to impose the global taxation of all people to empower itself, erode national sovereignty, and fund itself apart from membership dues.

The UN has been pushing to free itself financially through a global taxation system since the late 70s. In the recent March 2002 World Conference the UN released its draft report for the proposed High Level Panel on Financing for Development.

In it, are plans to create an International Tax Organization, which would tax fossil fuels at the wellhead, as well as international financial transactions (the Tobin tax). There is currently a Resolution pending in Congress calling for U.S. Support of the Tobin Tax (HConRes 301).

In it, as well, are plans to create an Economic Security Council, under which will be incorporated all agencies and organizations that have any influence over the international economy.

This declaration was approved by the heads of state of over 150 countries.

http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/globaltaxation.htm

The UN wants the forfeiture of private ownership of property.

All I've got to say about this is here:
http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htm

The UN wants to erode parental rights and control every child.

"Every Child is Our Child" - Official motto of UNICEF

That's just downright creepy. My child is definitely NOT in any way, shape, or form, even under the guise of "brotherhood" the child of UNICEF. The only entities my child "belongs" to are God and his/her parents. Period.

Any critical analysis of the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child would condemn the measure, as it erodes parental rights, and place government between parent and child. In it are sweeping and overly-vague statements that every child has a right to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion," "privacy," "rest and leisure," and much more.

Article 13 states: "The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice."

Fortunately, only the US and one other country (can't remember exactly right now) are the only nations not to ratify this Convention. Am I the only one who thinks that the Convention, if ratified, would emancipate children from parental authority, and give government intervening authority? Are rights being granted to children that they might be used against Parent's wishes? Well, I'm not the only one. The Family Research Council and Focus on the Family are but two of many organizations that think so too.

The Children's Rights Convention "challenges the dichotomy between the privacy of the family and the public domain of the State and its instrumentalities. The Convention disaggregates the rights of children from the rights of families and constitutes children as independent actors with rights and with respect to both parents and with respect to the State." - Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Jose Ramos-Horta, speaking at the Child Rights Congress

http://www.getusout.org/un/articles/global_child.htm

The UN wants to impose global gun control, and eliminate the right to bear arms.

UN forces have already been used to disarm civilian populations in Haiti, Kosovo, and Somalia

In 1995, a report entitled Our Global Neighborhood written by the Commission on Global Governance (CGG) called for civilian as well as international disarmament programs.

In it, "Militarization today not only involves governments spending more than necessary to build up their military arsenals. It has increasingly become a global societal phenomenon, as witnessed by the rampant acquisition and use of increasingly lethal weapons by civilians -- whether individuals seeking a means of self-defense, street gangs, criminals, political opposition groups, or terrorist organizations."

I hope I am not the only one bothered that I constitute a security threat if I own a firearm for self-defense. Here "self-defense" is lumped with "criminal, gangs, and terrorists."

The NRA has become aware of this issue, has investigated its implications fully, and has now formed a firm political stance against it.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/02-11-2002/vo18no03_gungrab.htm
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/02-11-2002/vo18no03_firearms.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst071601.htm
http://www.gunssavelife.com/un2.htm

The UN wants to control your reproductive rights.

1. UN Population Fund
2. UN Fund for Population Activities

China's "one-child" policy of governmental authority over your reproductive rights is heavily endorsed, funded, and even "awarded" by the UN.

I'll quote here: "in 1983, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities gave an award to Communist China's Qian Xinzhong for having "implemented population policies on a massive scale." The Chicago Tribune reported that as a result of government policy: "Thirty-eight percent of Chinese women of child-bearing age have been sterilized.""

This amongst others atrocities. The UN is the framework, established by the global power-elite, for the coming socialist [One World Government, New World Order, Global Economy, Globalization, or whatever else you want to call it].

The power-elite in this world are a fact of life. Very powerful individuals, political organisations, financial institutions, tax-exempt foundations, councils, think-tanks, committes, corporations, and other entities are pushing HARD for globalization. Think international finance. Think WTO. Think World Bank. Think international corporate intersts. Think the Carnegie Endowment Fund for International Peace. Think the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Think the Trilateral Commission! Think the Council on Foreign Relations! Tell me THEY don't have any political clout! Globalization, in one form or another, is coming. In my opinion, it is far more collectivist in nature, than not..

Do you mean this serious?

yes, and I should clarify, once again. These are agendas the UN WANTS, FUNDS, and will ultimately carry out if given the opportunity.

If yes, sorry to say, but you?re an idiot.

I don't know why you had to insult me? I was just stating my opinions. I am well read and researched on the subject. A differening of opinions does not necessarily preclude that one or the other is an idiot, and can be stated much more civilly.

The UN can?t be more than its member states.

Yes, I agree. But that doesn't negate the fact that its power comes from treaties and conventions. Once a treaty, convention, resolution, or other diplomatic document is agreed upon and signed, it is accepted that ratifiying members uphold the terms agreed therein. In order to do this, state laws are usually changed or enacted to agree with the new treaty. If a member state decides to not uphold the agreement, or pulls out of a treaty, depending on the political circumstances involved, measures are put into place to force compliance. Think sanctions, or even war. We are doing these very things with IRAQ and N. Korea right now, under *UN Resolutions*

Learn to read.

??? I can point you to some very well documented books that form much of my opinion on the UN... An expose, a textbook (us-biased unfortunately), and even the charter itself. This is my opinion, and I am well read on the subject. Have I more to learn? Yes. Could my mind change? Perhaps, with good debate and further research! Your remark, though, isn't appropriate.

So, yes, to answer I have lost faith in the UN, not to mention the vast majority of our political, financial, educational, and religious leaders

I think, perhaps I may be doing a disservice by personifying the UN too much. I had always believed that the UN was a good thing. I dream of a better world united together. I had always hoped, and once believed, that the UN was the embodiment of those goals. Unfortunately, I just don't see that any longer. As whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said, the UN is a tool. But who uses that tool? Who exerts the influence? Yes, I guess I *have* lost faith in our political, financial, educational, and religious leaders.

I would like nothing more than to be wrong, but I just don't see it.

 

[Dreadsox]

Re: UN

I don't know why you had to insult me? I was just stating my opinions. I am well read and researched on the subject. A differening of opinions does not necessarily preclude that one or the other is an idiot, and can be stated much more civilly.

You have made an excellent case above! What you said here is very true. There is too much of htis going around lately.

Peace

 

[hiphop]

Ok, elfyx, sorry for that offensive statement of mine. Didn?t want to bash you- your last explanation of your thoughts seems a little deeper, but anyway, in my very humble opinion you miss the point.

Anyway, to quote you:

"Yes, I agree. But that doesn't negate the fact that its power comes from treaties and conventions. Once a treaty, convention, resolution, or other diplomatic document is agreed upon and signed, it is accepted that ratifiying members uphold the terms agreed therein. In order to do this, state laws are usually changed or enacted to agree with the new treaty. If a member state decides to not uphold the agreement, or pulls out of a treaty, depending on the political circumstances involved, measures are put into place to force compliance. Think sanctions, or even war. We are doing these very things with IRAQ and N. Korea right now, under *UN Resolutions*"

The treaties and conventions are created with the member states! I strongly disagree with your view that the U.N. is a kind of world power elite. Like I said, the U.N. is an instrument in the hands of member states, just like the IMF (partly) is an instrument in the hands of the worlds strongest financers/ ministers.

You can find the world power elite somewhere else: its a loose mix of a few very rich actors, businessmen, investors and bankers on the global scene, who act with politicians (jumpin jacks) to fulfil their (mostly "economic" - no, financial) goals. Now, the politicians themselves use military, police and journalists (second row jumpin jacks).

The funny thing is that this global power elite is very flexible. I don?t think you will find any document, or actual "group" who meets anually and decides how the world should be ruled... this happens under very different circumstances. A phone call there, some millions into the hand of (insert fav here), loose, flexible, you know. I?m thinking of ppl like... ah, just take a look at Forbes.

Flexibility is very important, because we live in a fast paced world. Take a look at the former italian "Propaganda due" to get a clue of how a system like that works (without me saying that the world power elite is organized in a lodge, that would be an unusual conspiracy theory).

"Propaganda Due, or P2, is a secret masonic lodge that Licio Gelli joined in 1966, later to become its Venerable Master. P2 is neo-fascist, but in Italy during the 1970s, this did not preclude conspiracies with anarchists, leftists, terrorists, and the CIA. Gelli holds dual Italian-Argentine citizenship, and was connected with Italian police and intelligence agencies, as well as with the Mafia, financiers, and the Vatican. By March 1981, his string was running out. Police raided Gelli's villa in Tuscany and photographed a list of nearly a thousand "members" of P2. Many important Italians were on it -- top businessmen, bankers, 30 generals, 38 members of parliament, 4 cabinet ministers, former prime ministers, intelligence chiefs, newspaper editors, TV executives, 19 judges, and 58 university professors."

Just an example for your vision of global power elite. Now, lets go to take a look at the real power elite.

As each country tried to make its own financial system as attractive as possible to foreign capital, the range of financial instruments mushroomed. Today there are some two hundred different types of financial instruments, some of which have only the most remote and indirect relationship to the real economy.

While some of these instruments were created by banks and other financial agencies, or even by corporations or individual billionaires, the bulk of the paper used in the financial system has been supplied by the states themselves in the diverse forms of debt they recognize.

Public debt of the rich countries has become the main instrument for the domination of financial capital over productive capital.

Only two years ago, the volume of international money transactions devoted to financial operations was fifty times greater than the volume of money devoted to the circulation of goods. Today, the ratio is eighty to one.

At the same time, the worldwide erosion of social welfare benefits, in countries where they exist, is a particularly serious aspect of this trend. The drive towards "profitability" for social welfare, pensions, health care and, in many countries, education, is having disastrous consequences for the poorest layers of the population.

Who is circulating all that money? The U.N.? Come on. The regular budget of the U.N., not including peace keeping missions, is $ 1,3 billion per year. World military expenditures, f.e. ? some $800 billion a year ? would pay for the entire UN system for more than 65 years.

The U.N. is a fulfilling body, its not a government. The treaties and conventions are created in the will of certain member states, depending on the issue. And the U.N. Secretary, highly respected Kofi Annan, doesn?t have power over all the U.N. organizations. Many of them are specialized agencies with their own board of directors. The U.N.s main goal is not to pass resolutions on Iraq or whoever. This is possibly one of the duties of the security council, but the United Nations means much more. The only state worldwide which is not part of the U.N., is the Vatican. The U.N. got 191 members.

Go to take a look at:

http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart.html

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch3/ch3.htm

http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch5/ch5.htm