|
|
|
|
  |
 |
 |
 |
|  |
Canada & the UN > Newton Bowles Reports
Speakeasy: Eighteen a Day Comédie humaine. Or if you prefer, divina comedia. Welcome to the United Nations Fifty-third annual General Assembly, the magnet that draws together 185 governments. Who's left out but the intransigent Swiss, and even they send a voyeur. Why do the 185 set foot on this ambivalent territory? While the U.S. citizenry like the U.N., their Byzantine government is cool at best. The U.N. is their baby, after world war gestation. Oh bewildering America, embrace your offspring! To what can we compare this pageant? Miss Universe? Not fair. Most who ascend the U.N. podium are gentlemen of a certain age, although this time the 180 speakers during the opening debate included 13 women. More relevant, perhaps, is the announcement at this Assembly that Greece has proposed holding a cultural Olympics, an idea welcomed by UNESCO and the International Olympic Committee. An intriguing thought: Hollywood vs. Bolliwood?* Who could compete with Disney? Kruschev would have been a shoo-in in his time. But why change the game? This show is unique. Here we had 26 Heads of State, one Crown Prince, one Vice-President, 15 Prime Ministers, 125 Ministers of Cabinet rank, 11 Ambassadors (and one distinguished "Observer"). Said the Foreign Minister of the Netherlands at this Assembly: "I realize that I am speaking to the greatest multilateral organization of all time and from a rostrum where have stood almost all the great statesmen since the second world war." This is not a frivolous affair. And yet, why all this talk? One hundred and eighty speeches? Ho hum, say the inveterati: political boiler-plate. To what end? The quick answer is: the end-game is to keep talking. At least this is a sort of safety valve for the volcanic pressures of our day. And the public spectacle is only one face of the Assembly. Informal meeting and greeting help to keep the lines open. In this the U.N. is unique. Talk: too much and not enough. How can talk lead towards solutions, actions? (I am referring here to the "general debate" which is held during the first two weeks of the Assembly. After that, most work is done in the six "Committees of the Whole," with the Assembly convening in Plenary on some issues from time to time, and again at the end-- September to December-- to make formal plenary decisions and conclusions.) World leaders come and go. Can there be a better use of this annual summitry? An idea being tested in this Assembly and in other gatherings (notably ECOSOC) is to set aside a couple of days for "high-level" (political, management) consultation on major issues, one at a time. Secretary-General Kofi Annan last year proposed that the G.A. should do this, and this year it did, beginning this session with a two-day "high-level dialogue" on globalization. What's new was not only substance but also practice, round-table and panel discussions to minimize fixations and to facilitate the meeting of minds. Globalization of the world's economy permeated this Assembly, especially its Second Committee; and I will discuss it in a separate section of this report. I will also take up the nuclear threat in a separate section on disarmament. The "high-level dialogue" showed how the "general debate" may become more useful. Enough of preamble. Who said what this (1998) year? I am always stumped by how to report this debate. Rather than doing a thematic story like last year, I will revert to smattering. My sampling-- a sample, not a summary-- is no more omniscient than I am. |
