The devastating battle between Israel and Hamas has proved once again the ineffectiveness of the 15-member United Nations Security Council (UNSC) which is mandated to ensure international peace and security.
But that mandate has not helped either in resolving some of the longstanding civil wars and military conflicts worldwide, including in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Haiti, Kashmir, Western Sahara and Myanmar, among others.
Meanwhile, over the years, the United States (US) has faithfully protected Israel, its strongest ally, by exercising its Veto—and twice during the current war in Gaza, undermining the call for an immediate ceasefire.
At the same time, both China and Russia, have exercised their vetoes to protect North Korea which continues to fire its ballistic missiles in violation of UNSC Resolutions. As a result, the UNSC has remained paralysed—and neither Israel nor North Korea has heeded any of its warnings.
But the politics of the most powerful body at the UN also has both its serious and its lighter side.
During the height of the Cold War (1947-1991) between the United States and the Soviet Union (USSR), and particularly in the 1960s and ‘70s, the UN was the ideological battleground where the Americans and the Soviets pummeled each other —metaphorically speaking—either on the floor of the cavernous UN General Assembly (UNGA) Hall or at the horse-shoe table of the UNSC.
Perhaps, one of the most memorable war of words took place in October 1962 when the politically-feisty US Ambassador Adlai Stevenson challenged Soviet envoy Valerian Zorin over allegations that the USSR, perhaps under cover of darkness, had moved nuclear missiles into Cuba—and within annihilating distance of the US.
Speaking at a tense UNSC meeting, Stevenson admonished Zorin: “I remind you that you did not deny the existence of these weapons. Instead, we heard that they had suddenly become defensive weapons. But today—again, if I heard you correctly—you now say they do not exist, or that we have not proved they exist, with another fine flood of rhetorical scorn.”
Implied arrogance
“All right sir”, said Stevenson, “let me ask you one simple question. Do you, Ambassador Zorin, deny that the USSR has placed and is placing medium and intermediate range missiles and sites in Cuba?” “Yes or no? Don’t wait for the translation: yes or no?”, Stevenson insisted with a tone of implied arrogance.
Speaking in Russian through a UN translator (who faithfully translated the US envoy’s sentiments into English), Zorin shot back: “I am not in an American Courtroom, sir, and therefore, I do not wish to answer a question that is put to me in the fashion in which a prosecutor does. In due course, Sir, you will have your reply. Do not worry.”
Not to be outwitted, Stevenson howled back: “You are in the court of world opinion right now, and you can answer yes or no. You have denied that they exist. I want to know if …I have understood you correctly.”
When Zorin said he will provide the answer in “due course”, Stevenson famously declared: “I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over.”
Meanwhile, at the UN, virtually all the Big Powers are engaged in the spying game, including the US, the Russians (and the Soviets during the Cold War era), the French, the Brits, and the Chinese—and none of them can afford to take a “holier than thou” attitude.
The UN was a veritable battleground for the US and the now-defunct Soviet Union to spy on each other. The American and Soviet spooks were known to be crawling all over the building—in committee rooms, in the UNSC chamber, in the press gallery, in the Secretariat and, most importantly, in the UN library which was a drop-off point for sensitive political documents.
The extent of Cold War espionage in the UN was also laid bare by a 1975 US Congressional Committee, named after Senator Frank Church (Democrat-Idaho) who chaired it while investigating abuses by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
The evidence given before the Church Committee included a revelation that the CIA had planted one of its lip-reading experts—a Russian lip-reading expert—in a press booth overlooking the UNSC chamber so that he could monitor the lip movements of the Russian delegates, as they consulted each other in low whispers. Obviously, there was nothing sacred in the corridors of power at the UN. The debates and resolutions in the UNSC are mostly on peace and security. But it also had its moments of levity.
Ambassador Jamil Baroody, the longstanding Saudi envoy to the UN (1945-79) and described as the one-time dean of the UN diplomatic corps, was a “colourful maverick” known for his mile-long speeches.
Longest 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. So, whenever he held forth at UNSC meetings, the 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 UNSC and said: “Mr. President, I noticed 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 remained uncomfortably trapped in his seat.
For long now, there have been four strong contenders for Permanent Seats in the UNSC – Germany, India, Japan and Brazil – with Africa also insisting on two Permanent Seats with Veto Powers. But during a discussion on reforms in the UNSC 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, in a slip of the tongue, he urged Member States to ensure Permanent Membership to the “Islamic State”—which is really one of the extremist organisations operating out of the Middle East. This made many delegates uncomfortable, even though it was clear that he was referring to the OIC.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is officially known as the Islamic State (IS).
Whenever the UNGA or the UNSC holds a meeting, the speeches of the 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 UNSC and 193 in the UNGA.
Moment of hilarity
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 (EAM) when he read out the Portuguese delegate’s speech, instead of India’s, before an aide intervened and he turned to his own text.
With the mikes on, an embarrassed EAM whispered to his UN ambassador: “Should I read it from the beginning?”. The ambassador said, “Yes, you can start again”.
[IDN-InDepthNews]
This article contains excerpts from a book on the United Nations titled “No Comment – and Don’t Quote Me on That”—authored by Thalif Deen, Editor-at-Large at the Berlin-based InDepth News (IDN) service. A Fulbright scholar with a Master’s Degree in Journalism from Columbia University, New York, he twice (2012-2013) shared the gold medal for excellence in UN reporting awarded by the UN Correspondents Association (UNCA). He is a former News Editor of the Daily News.
