Search form

Comments (2)


Petru Dumitriu July 14, 2013

If ambassador Gharekhan gave that answer to the journalist, one must take it seriously, because it is a bit intriguing. In reality when a UN body adopts a resolution there are three categories of statements. 1) General statements, which ought to refer the substance of the matter under discussion. 2) Explanations of vote before the vote, and 3) Explanations of vote after the vote. The explanations obviously offer indications on the reasons that determined a certain position on the draft. If yes, no, or abstention, why so? The explanation before the vote has the additional possible function to influence the vote of the other parties. The explanation after the vote does only have the role to put on records the reasons. From that light, the statements should reflect, and be in harmony with the voting positions. It is unlikely that a serious declaration says one thing, and the vote says the opposite. It is not pure silk diplomacy, it is lack of seriousness. However, the Indian diplomacy is very serious, and ambassador Gharekhan a very skilful diplomat. If what the author says is true, it should be put in the context. I do not know the context, but I may assume that for instance India voted for in favour of the resolution 678 (1990) on the terms imposed to Iraq, while it made a statement deploring the necessity of an intervention under Article VII of the Charter. And, by the way, there are no „resolutions pushing for war”. Usually, the UN pushes for peace; the UN interventions are not „wars”. Yet, journalists may push for simplifications and approximations.

Mary July 16, 2013

Could it be, Petru, that the Ambassador was giving a personal opinion to Menon? I wonder.

Leave a comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Scroll to Top