The United Nations

        A quick mention of the UN Security Council, composed of fifteen member seats. Ten of these fifteen seats on the U.N. Security Council are held by rotating members serving two-year terms, the other 5 seats are held (permanently) by the five Permanent Members (US, UK, France, Russia, and China). Apparently a country's U.S. aid increases by 59 percent and its U.N. aid by 8 percent when it rotates onto the council. This effect increases (or threatened reduction) during years in which key diplomatic events take place (when members votes should be especially valuable) and the timing of the effect closely tracks a country's election to, and exit from, the council. Finally, the U.N. results appear to be driven by UNICEF, an organization over which the United States has historically exerted great control. This in polite circles would be called blatant bribery, the US Military Industrial Complex calls it an absolute necessity.

Establishing the United Nations

        To begin it was the secret society called the 'Council on Foreign Relations' (CFR) formed in year-1921 that wrote the United Nations proposal, handing it over to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Then on January 1, 1942, representatives of 26 nations at war with the Axis powers met in Washington to sign the Declaration of the United Nations endorsing the Atlantic Charter, pledging to use their full resources against the Axis and agreeing not to make a separate peace. At the UN founding conference in 1944, it was decided that the representatives of Britain, China, the Soviet Union, the United States, and "in due course" France would be the Permanent Members having the ONLY Nay/Veto Powers. It might be said the UN was to replace the old League of (Theives) Nations, this organization disbanded at the same period. BUT WAIT, golly, if Communist Russia and Communist China were the (TERRIBLE AXIS POWER)... why were they (GOOD BUDDY) members of the other THREE (GOOD GUYS)?

        The UN is an organization of countries that agree to cooperate with one another. It brings together countries that are rich and poor, large and small, and have different social and political systems. Member nations pledge to settle their disputes peacefully, to refrain from using force or the threat of force against other countries, and to refuse help to any country that opposes UN actions. Please at this point keep in mind the Veto Powers throughout this article that belong (only) to the five "Permanent Members", this veto (Nay vote) terminates anything in contention to the 5 Perm-Member Empire interests. I will ask you at the end of this article, should the "Veto Powers" of Super Power nations be abolished, such a vote by this elite be (only) a sign of strong objection?

        UN membership is open to any country willing to further the UN mission and abide by its rules. Each country, no matter how large or small, has an equal voice and vote (the vote little more than an objection of value). Each country is also expected to pay dues to support the UN. As of 2004 the UN had 191 members, including nearly every country in the world.

        The United Nations influence in world affairs has fluctuated over the years, but the organization gained new prominence beginning in the 1990s. It was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001. Still, the UN faces constant challenges. It must continually secure the cooperation of its member nations because the organization has little independent power or authority (over the 5-Perm-Member strict control). But getting that support is not always easy (if bribery fails, there is always more effective threats). Many nations are reluctant to defer their own authority and follow the dictates of the UN.

        The veto power is a power wielded solely by the 5 permanent members of the UN security council. It gives them the power to void any Security Council resolution, no matter what the supporting majority. This power is exercised when any permanent member enters a "nay" vote. (An abstention vote will allow the measure to pass).

        For the Security Council's five permanent members, voting "nay" is, indeed, tantamount to a veto, per a rule known as "great power unanimity." The word "veto" is nowhere to be found in the U.N. Charter, but the document does mention that Security Council decisions "shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members, including the concurring votes of the permanent members." So, if permanent members China, Russia, France, Great Britain, and the United States aren't unanimous in supporting a resolution, the measure dies. Even if the United States were somehow to coax "yeas" out of 14 of the 15 Security Council members—10 nonpermanent members serve two-year terms on the panel—a lone French "non" would nix the resolution's passage. (Remember... when the ruling elite intermarried between powers to insure stability among their power bases).

        A permanent member may also abstain rather than vote "nay," which preserves the resolution. Such a move lets a nation make its moral or political objections clear, while at the same time allowing the resolution to pass; four "yeas" and an abstention will do the trick, for example, as long as five nonpermanent Security Council members also are on board. (The Korean War was authorized with the OK of only four permanent members; at the time (to keep honor among thieves, they temporarily booted Russia and inserted a stooge as puppet), Communist China's seat was occupied by the exiled government of Chiang Kai-Shek, and the U.S.S.R. was boycotting the United Nations.)

        There's an esoteric maneuver to get around a threatened veto: invoking the obscure U.N. Resolution 377, also known as the "Uniting for Peace" Resolution. In early 1950, the United States pushed through the resolution as a means of circumventing possible Soviet vetoes. The measure states that, in the event that the Security Council cannot maintain international peace, a matter can be taken up by the General Assembly. (Give good indication of which top dog runs the show.)

        Security Council is an important division of the United Nations that contains five permanent members — the United States, Britain, China, France, and Russia — and ten rotating members. It is often called into session to respond quickly to international crises. Any permanent member can exercise a veto over a resolution before the Security Council. (This comes in handy when a major player like US Military Industrial needs regain control of a wayward puppet such as Saddam or make war in Libya.)

The UN Relationship Within The Iraq Crises

        Under UN resolution 687. The ceasefire agreement of April 1991 also established a UN special commission, Unscom, whose role it was to dismantle the non-nuclear arsenal and to assist the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in dismantling Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Additional responsibilities included preventing so-called "dual use" exports with NBC or ballistic missile potential from reaching Iraq. (And when things aren't going well such as fake search for WMD in Iraq, the IAEA scientist-inspectors may be displaced with a stacked vote from the smaller Security Council.)

        Unscom was charged with monitoring Iraq's compliance with the UN resolution. Sanctions were imposed until such a time when the inspectors could certify that all NBC programs and their component agents and equipment had been destroyed. Unscom was forced out of Iraq in 1992, when mobs attacked the weapons inspectors. They did return, but were denied access to various buildings and in 1997 Iraq expelled all US inspectors. The reason was soon to become clear as to why Iraq found US 'inspectors' were more involved in gathering information having nothing to do with weapons.

        In December 1998, Unscom pulled out of Iraq amid complaints of obstruction by Iraq. Meanwhile, Baghdad claimed that the body was little more than a front for US spies (with some justification; Pres-Bush replaced valid IAEA scientist inspectors with covert-CIA agents, later confirmed by the US, UN and former inspectors). A compromise was negotiated, the inspectors returned and were again barred from certain sites.

        Unscom was disbanded and replaced in December 1999 by the UN monitoring, verification and inspection commission (Unmovic) funded by limited sales of Iraqi oil. Resolution 1284, which set up Unmovic, specified that if Iraq cooperated with the new inspection team for 120 days, sanctions would be suspended and then lifted. Iraq rejected the plan as a "criminal resolution" (later proven more a resolution of rampant corruption) that would "transform Iraq into a protectorate governed from outside with Iraqi money".

        The then US president, Bill Clinton, warned he would carry out a military attack on Iraq. A diplomatic struggle to avert war ultimately failed, amid claims that Iraq was holding information back from the UN and allegations backed by Unscom scientists that it had weaponised VX nerve gas - something Baghdad had always denied. In October 1998 Iraq ceased all cooperation with Unscom (later finding no WMD or Factories to back up these claims was a let down of sorts). It resumed in November but in December warning IAEA scientists if they didn't get out they might be killed, and before the US Congress voted their unneeded Unconstitutional "Resolution" for bombing Iraq, the bombing began.

        For its part Iraq claimed Unscom was full of spies. Mr Ritter told BBC Panorama in 1999 that "the US killed Unscom" and had hijacked its listening equipment for various uses - including choosing bombing targets for Desert Fox - though these allegations were denied by the Unscom chief, Richard Butler. I might add at this point, Scott Ritter testimony after all allegations and charges were finally analyzed, turned out with Hans Blix to be the relative few who had been correct from the beginning (a nicer way of saying everyone else was proven to be habitual liars.)

        On November 18, 1999 a team of about 30 weapons inspectors, led by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and the director of the IAEA, Mohammed el-Baradei, returned to Baghdad to begin Unmovic's work. (It was after Hans Blix implied it was unlikely that any WMD would be found to any extent, that the Bush Admin began character assassination of Blix, and then Blix indicating in more graphic terms, that he didn't care for Bush.)

        Under Resolution 1441, the UN had given inspectors the right to go anywhere at any time and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" it will face if it does not cooperate. The teams must report back to the security council on January 26 and inform it of their progress.

        Iraq allowed the inspectors to carry out their work and later submitted a 12,000-page dossier detailing military programs and so called "dual-purpose capabilities" - civilian projects that could have a military application. When fully analysed, it allowed the inspectors to make fresh searches for banned weapons. However the US government warned that any perceived failure by Iraq to make an honest declaration could be seized upon by the US and its allies as a trigger for war. (The interesting part of this Iraq report concerning nations and governments that originally sold Iraq WMD and Bio/Chem, was removed from the report given to all other nations but the 5 Perm Members.)

        Unmovic and the IAEA hoped that the dossier would tell them what happened to the small numbers of Iraqi weapons that were not found in previous inspections, as well as explaining new developments since 1998 that had been highlighted by US and British intelligence. Much of this Intelligence was described later as useless, and suspected to be fabrications that led on wild goose chases into locations that provided absolutely no weapons or factories producing same. ( IAEA Hans Blix did complain that US/Brit Intel given them to follow up was totally worthless, the most important finding was a fire truck, suggesting the Intel was to waste the Weapons Inspectors time.)

        Many military and political analysts predict that President Bush would attack Iraq no matter what the latest wave of inspections uncovers, and President Saddam had so far cooperated with the UN in order, perhaps, to avoid a confrontation he would almost certainly have lost.

        Mr George Bush has said he is committed to "regime change", but later qualified that by saying if Iraq abandoned NBC programs it would signify that the regime had changed - so opening up the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the crisis. ( Bush-Admin statements claiming they knew exactly where Iraq WMD and Factories were, also claim they chose WMD charges because they all agreed to this one charge, proved as worthless as Cheney later in TV interview admitting Osama bin Ladin had nothing to do with 9-11.)

        Hans Blix later explained that of all the intelligence reports they received from both British and American agencies, all it accomplished was to have them running around in useless and unproductive circles. Hans Blix also saying that he had given Bush no reason to believe any stockpiles of WMD existed. Roger Hill a Unscom inspector said, "a lot of information we were given was provided to us by the Americans, however it was either out of date, incorrect or it was completely false and designed to take us down the wrong path." As a UN official, Mr Blix did not name Britain and the US. But there was no doubt who he had in mind when he said there was no evidence that Saddam had continued with his banned weapons program after the 1991 Gulf war. A former UN inspector, Bernd Birkicht, 39, said he believed (unaware that most of 'suspect' intelligence came from an Office of Special Plans Agency Rumsfeld had set up in the Pentagon) that the CIA had made up intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to provide a legal basis for the war. "We received information about a site, giving the exact geographical coordinates, and when we got there we found nothing. Nothing on the ground. Nothing under the ground. Just desert." He said the so-called decontamination trucks which figured in satellite photographs presented to the security council were fire engines.

        Scott Ritter said, "they knew it, (a) because of their own access to intelligence information, and (b) because of the work of the weapons inspectors. In October of 1992, I personally confronted the C.I.A. on the reality that we had accounted for all of Iraq's ballistic missile programs. That same year they had an Iraqi defector who had laid out the totality of the Iraqi biological weapons program and had acknowledged that all of the weapons had been destroyed. The C.I.A. knew this. There were several periods of dramatic time, but the most dramatic one is the December 1998 period right before Bill Clinton got on national TV, talked about the threat of W.M.D. and said he is launching an air campaign, 72 hours of bombardment called Operation Desert Fox. No, Saddam did not kick the inspectors out. Actually, what was happening at that point in time is that the Iraqi government was complying with every single requirement set forth by the Security Council and the inspectors. They were cooperating with the inspectors, giving the inspectors access, in accordance to something called the UN “modalities of sensitive site inspections.”

        In 1998, the inspection team went to a site. It was the Baath Party headquarters. It was like going to Republican Party headquarters or Democratic Party headquarters. The Iraqis said, “You can't come in – you can come in. Come on in.” And the inspectors said, “The modalities no longer apply.” And the Iraqis said, “If you don't agree to the modalities, we can't support letting you in,” and the Iraqis wouldn't allow the inspections to take place. Bill Clinton said, “This proves the Iraqis are not cooperating,” and he ordered the inspectors out. But, you know, the United States government ordered the inspectors to withdraw from the modalities without conferring with the Security Council.

        Regarding the disarmament UN resolution, Scott Ritter said, within months of this resolution being passed – and the United States was a drafter and voted in favor of this resolution – within months, the President, George Herbert Walker Bush, and his Secretary of State, James Baker, were saying publicly -- not privately, publicly -- that even if Iraq complies with its obligation to disarm, economic sanctions will be maintained until which time Saddam Hussein is removed from power. That is proof positive that disarmament was only useful insofar as it contained, through the maintenance of sanctions, and facilitated regime change. It was never about disarmament. It was never about getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. It started with George Herbert Walker Bush and it was a policy continued through eight years of the Clinton presidency and then brought us to this current disastrous course of action under the current Bush administration.

        As it turns out, what may have changed Saddam Hussein from a CIA asset into a great danger, was neither WMD or invasion of Kuwait. In fact shortly before this, Saddam began distancing himself from US ties just as in late 1970s he had removed leaders in Iraq with ties to Russia. Saddam decided to no longer accept the US dollar as Int'l-Note of exchange for Iraq oil, instead insisting on the EURO dollar. Anyone familiar with the Check-Kiting scheme we call FIAT economy used in America, know we (absolutely must) keep the US dollar as Int'l-Note of exchange. Germany after WWI used a scheme very similar to the US government economic-model, when investors made a run on the German treasury, afterward it took a wheelbarrow of money, to buy a loaf of bread.

        The sequence of events then leading up to American government alliance with Iraq is as follows. There is now documentation that proves during the altercation of the US government with Iran in the later 1970s, beginning after our (ally) the Shah in 1980 died of cancer, oil interests forced America into a political war with Iran. This resulted in allying with Iraq by dropping our "Terrorist Supporting Nation" listing/embargo on Iraq, an action that legalized the sale of WMD materials to Iraq... immediately after a trip by Rumsfeld to Iraq for this purpose. To be more specific, the US government set up Saddam, removed our embargo against Iraq making WMD sales illegal, and with full knowledge and US Spy plane/satellite intelligence, condoned Saddam using all these materials to poison gas both Iranians and Iraqi civilians. After this and with foreknowledge, sent a diplomat advising Saddam we would not interfere with his invasion plan against Kuwait.

        It is now documented that the US government also set up the "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden. Also as late as 1979 President Clinton invited Taliban leaders to Washington-DC discussing oil/gas pipeline with UNOCAL oil, and in 2001 President George Bush still courting Afghanistan Taliban regarding Caspian Basin Oil/gas pipeline through Afghanistan. Both Presidents also involved and continuing a multi-million dollar aid package with the Afghan Taliban, until just before America went to war in Afghanistan. These are not disputed assumptions, these are documented facts. Colin Powell spoke out against this aid to the Taliban, complaining that the Taliban permitted Osama bin Laden terrorist training bases in Afghanistan.

        The United Nations from 1990-98 had destroyed according accepted record's approximately 90% of Iraq "WMD", was this less capable than the Bush Administration. Reminding everyone the Bush Administration found none of the materials and factories they had previously reported knowing both the quantity of WMD-Stockpiles and almost exact location's they were located. Also are there no global problems regarding the ecology, economy, and societies of mankind, as Bush and his administration are in greater part unwilling to face. The rest of the world are working on these problem areas, and they are problem areas, why shouldn't we join the rest of the world. Just perhaps, understand, there are people wiser than Bush, and with greater moral stature than his administration. It is past time to (end) the "Veto Powers" of Super Power (5-Empire's) in the United Nations, and make the UN truly the Worlds "United Nations." In truth, isn't it time for all nations and peoples to attempt finding common ground and rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

        Some parts of this presentation are from article or radicals not of this author, used for purpose not as identified belonging to myself, and only for offering free background on the organization of the United Nations.

        Because the United Nations is controlled by five (5) Super Power Empires, what is predominately accomplished by this agency is an abomination, not the fault of the other 190-controlled member-nations. This United Nations is only another tool of the Rothschild New World Order, using men of greed and little moral or ethic character, these for wealth and power selling themselves and those they represent into an evil few have an odicum of discernment nor knowledge.


        Another similar agency used by Super Power Empires is NATO, the 26-member nations are Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom (meaning Britain), and the United States.
        Much like the UN totally under control of Five-Empire members, NATO is essentially a 'strong arm' operation to legitimize retaliatory action against a former asset having become independent along with ambitious, and as such a threat.
        When this is done as an extra legal right of Super Powers it is announced as a NATO operation, however when illegal and immoral actions are called for, in this case the NATO is secretly refereed to as "Stay Behind Armies".
        These after WWII and during the Empire 'Cold War' were said needed to thwart invasion by future Russian Armies, however these covert armies never saw or fought a Russian Army, but like graduates of the Ft Benning, Georgia "School of The Americas" used to train military/paramilitary of foreign-regime's, did find in their separate countries time to murder their own countrymen for False Flag blame against Communism, Socialism, Rebels, Marxist's, and today Islamofasisterrorist (spelled dissident citizens) rebelling against Death Squad, Caravan of Death, Dirty Little Wars, and sundry methods of controlling a nations citizen population and resources.

        How many Americans are aware today that the United Nations is in charge of (your) unknown number of Historical Sites and Federal Reserves, in treaty signed by President Richard Nixon and ratified in 1973? As a result of a UN treaty called “The Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,” these sites come under the jurisdiction of the United Nations’ Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Such designations have been the source of major debate as to whether the UN has infringed on sovereign American territory. However, the debate may be about to rage even hotter, because Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced his selections of 14 more sites to be considered for nomination by UNESCO as World Heritage Sites.

        The problem with this new form of protection is that we the US-Government have already set aside and protect these sites, is the Uniten Nations supposedly more honest than the US-Government? The issue lies in UN program mandates and implementation and how these programs link to other treaties and agreements, which, if accepted by Congress, could lead to direct loss of sovereignty. When an international treaty or agreement is signed, we agree to the terms and conditions of the agreements, and by default we have ceded a portion of our national sovereignty in order to meet those terms and conditions. And while the agreements do not specifically state that the United Nations has direct sovereignty, they do permit “partnerships” and other forms of cooperation between the US and the UN that provide the UN access to the sovereign policy decision making process of the United states in direct conflict with the Consititution of the United States.... so good night twinkle toes.

FAIR USE NOTICE:    This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
| Return to Top | Back to Index of Articles |