The UN and Iraq

The unanimous vote in the UN Security Council condemning Saddam Hussein was welcome, but it brought back memories of dull international conferences I have sat through. UN procedures were presumably well conceived, but they still seem odd. For months the Council thrashed things out, arguing about details such as whether "and" should be replaced by"or". Normally when a vote is finally taken, that's it. There was a historic precedent for sounding a discordant note. At the final plenary session of the San Francisco conference which created the UN, when a unanimous final vote was orchestrated to demonstrate unity of purpose, Gromyko caused a stir by saying that one clause ran counter to the Soviet constitution.

At the UN Security Council meeting on Iraq, the order was changed. First a vote was taken, and, since it was unanimous, that should have been the end. Instead, each council member made a speech saying what his country thought the resolution to mean. These statements were very repetitive, but there were also significant differences, allowing a country to say later that it was going by its interpretation of the resolution. In a way, the vote was a charade, because many countries, notably Syria, did not explain their motivations or reservations. No one dared bring up the question of Israel and its multiplying of settlements in the West Bank,as described in "Swallowing all before them" (The Economist, 11/2-8/02). In consequence, it was generally thought that the US had imposed its will and its way.

In reporting on he speech by President Bush to the United Nations, we expressed admiration for the ingenious teleprompter which allowed him to speak as though extemporaneously. This time I was impressed by the little audiophones which just hang on one ear, allowing the delegates to listen to translations through one ear and the original through the other. It looked as though some of the delegates do not know English, which would seem to be a prerequisite for work at the UN.

Ronald Hilton - 11/9/02