Sunday Times 2
The UN: Where diplomacy is 97% alcohol and 2% protocol
UNITED NATIONS – – A former US ambassador to the United Nations once provided an amusingly light-hearted definition of diplomacy: 97 percent alcohol, 2 percent protocol and one percent Geritol, a multi-vitamin drink probably meant to energise negotiations.
But diplomacy at the UN is much more than socialising — even as receptions and cocktail parties take place every day — until the COVID-19 pandemic brought the world body to a virtual standstill temporarily suspending the routinely heavy drinking, mostly duty-free.
Last week’s 11-day old fighting between Israelis and Palestinians shifted the spotlight to the UN Security Council (UNSC) which came under heavy fire for its refusal to condemn the violence in Gaza City or call for an immediate ceasefire.
A Security Council meeting in progress. Pic courtesy United Nations
The primary reason was the rejection of draft resolutions by the veto-wielding United States during the Council’s closed-door sessions. As a result, the resolution never reached the Council during its open session. But if it did, it would have triggered a US veto — perhaps its 46th aimed at protecting Israel.
As Ambassador Geraldine Byrne Nason of Ireland said last week “conflict is raging, resulting in utterly devastating humanitarian impact but the Security Council has yet to utter a single word publicly.”
She complained that Council members had a collective responsibility for international peace and security. “It is high time the Council stepped up, broke its silence and spoke out.”
With its traditionally serious agenda of maintaining peace and security, the Security Council is the world’s only political body with a mandate to declare war and peace. But when tensions die down, it also has had its moments of levity — raising laughter in the august chamber.
Ambassador Jamil Baroody, the longstanding Saudi envoy to the UN (1945-79), described as the dean of the UN diplomatic corps, back in the 1970s, was a “colourful maverick” known for his mile-long speeches.
In its obituary, the New York Times described him as a UN “landmark” who was known for his shouting matches — while holding the distinction of making one of the longest speeches in the history of the world body, perhaps second only to the long-winded Fidel Castro, who held the General Assembly spellbound for nearly five hours back in September 1960.
So, whenever Baroody held forth at Council meetings, the then US ambassador was known to slip out of the chamber and return at the tail end of his speeches.
When Baroody once noticed the American envoy returning to his seat, he turned to the President of the Security Council and said: “Mr President, I notice the honourable US representative was not in the chamber when I spoke. So, I am going to read my statement all over again for his benefit”. The US envoy, this time, remained trapped in his seat, amidst loud laughter.
For long now, there have been four strong contenders for permanent seats, with no veto powers — Germany, India, Japan and Brazil — with Africa insisting on two permanent seats with vetoes, which is deemed a virtual non-starter.
But during a discussion on reforms in the Security Council in 2019, one delegate made a strong case for a permanent seat for the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the largest single coalition of Muslim countries at the UN.
Perhaps the OIC was right in seeking a permanent seat on behalf of over 1.9 billion Muslims worldwide — much more than China, a permanent member, with a population of 1.5 billion, and India, aspiring for a permanent seat, with a population of 1.4 billion. But in an obvious slip of the tongue, the OIC delegate urged member states to ensure permanent membership to the “Islamic State” – which really is one of the extremist organisations operating out of the Middle East.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is officially designated as the Islamic State (IS). And the very notion of permanent seat to the Islamic State triggered both smiles and laughter in the Council chamber.
Meanwhile, whenever the General Assembly or the Security Council holds a meeting, the speeches of delegates are routinely distributed no sooner the speaker begins his address.
These speeches, marked “check against delivery”, are left on the desks of all member states, 15 in the Security Council and 193 in the General Assembly.
So, there was a moment of hilarity when the Indian Foreign Minister picked up, not his speech, but a speech made by an earlier speaker and began reading it.
Iftikhar Ali, the UN correspondent for the Associated Press of Pakistan (APP), who covered that meeting, told me it was a monumental faux pas by the Indian External Affairs Minister as he blindly read out the Portuguese delegate’s speech, instead his own, before his ambassador intervened to help rectify the error.
During the debate on security and development, a subject on which most delegates made identical speeches, the Indian minister mistakenly read the wrong speech for about three minutes before India’s envoy to the UN Hardeep Singh Puri, pointed to the right speech lying in a stack of papers in front of the minister.
With mikes on, an embarrassed minister whispered to his ambassador: “Should I read it from the beginning”? And the ambassador advised: “Yes, you can start again”.
The Indian minister really read Portuguese foreign minister Luis Amado’s speech, without realizing his mistake, as the first portion was about development and security, the theme of the Council’s debate.
As the minister continued, Ali said, a couple of lines was definitely out of sync: “On a more personal note, allow me to express my profound satisfaction regarding the happy coincidence of having two members of Portuguese Speaking Countries, Brazil and Portugal, together here today,” the minister said, which was incongruous for an Indian minister’s speech.
(This article was adapted from a book on the UN titled “No Comment and Don’t Quote Me on That.” Authored by Thalif Deen, a Senior Editor based at the UN, the book is available on Amazon and at Vijitha Yapa Bookshops in Sri Lanka. The link to Amazon via the author’s website: www.rodericgrigson.com/ no-comment-by-thalif-deen/)