Opinion Podium for mavericks

Similarly,Castro’s four-and-a-half-hour anti-America tirade can be waved away as mere sensationalism. Castro stood behind the podium dressed in military uniform,decked out with a pistol holster (he was asked to leave his pistol behind at the door). Was this not to display that The General was addressing them? Bay of Pigs was the talk du jour,but Castro’s speech did not touch upon it. That was left to take place on the sidelines.

The importance of the assembly lies as much in what is not said about the pressing issues of the day. Take the Khrushchev shoe banging incident for example. A Philippines delegate asserted that the peoples of the Eastern Europe had been “deprived of political and civil rights” as the Soviet Union had “swallowed” them up. This made a great splash,but there was no talk of the Union. Khrushchev later confided,“It was such fun! The UN is sort of a parliament,you know,where the minority has to make itself known,one way or another.”

Then there was Hugo Chavez a few years ago: “Yesterday,the devil came right here… the president of the United States… The stink of sulphur is still hanging around the table in which I stand in front of.”

The Assembly has,for the past four years,been the Ahmadinejad Show. In his 2007 address he said: “Some seek to rule the world,relying on threats,while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger.” This was in the same speech where he once again called for the “annihilation of Israel”.

While this year the most pressing issue that the UN faces is that of nuclear non-proliferation,there was no talk from Ahmadinejad on the nuclear issue. Yet,within a week Ahmadinejad for the first time in the Islamic Republic’s history sits in front of the international delegation to talk of the country’s nuclear programme.

What then explains this trend? Why do these “despots”,“tyrants”,“bad boys” skirt around important issues? Propaganda analysts maintain that remote communities,communities with a heavily censored press though lacking basic facilities,have access to news. Thus,the orator needs to ensure that the bite-sized information he transmits and which will be repeatedly played is in keeping with his policies. Such that those who tune in hear “the advertising jingles and political slogan which either desire to shape their social and economic reality or which in fact they already do so”.

Note the role media plays in this as well. The much hyped “terror council” snippet is said within this context: “Sixty-five wars broke out after the establishment of the UN and the Security Council… The Security Council since its establishment did not provide us with security but on the contrary provides us with terror and sanctions.”

So what use is the General Assembly then,critics ask.

The GA still remains the concert of nations. What happens on the sidelines is the real deal. On the sidelines of the GA the Security Council met to discuss nuclear non-proliferation and Resolution 1887 was passed.

Bernard Gwertzman of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations maintains: “In this era of international relations,we may need to start thinking less about formal international treaties and agreements and much more what you might describe as coordinated national policies.”

So as far as the General Assembly goes,maybe we should just sit back and enjoy the show because the real transactions of international politics are taking place all around it.

alia.allana@expressindia.com