UN Walk Out on Ahmadinejad nothing more than quid pro quo

Tom Smith (April 25th, 2009)

A debate over the aptness of political stunts at the United Nations should justifiably be in full flow over the walkout of western diplomats during a speech by the Iranian leader in Geneva. The merits over this tactic have to be questioned, not least given that this is meant be the world’s fairground for free speech and political contest, but as the British Ambassador admitted, the walkout was pre-arranged and co-ordinated, off stage in a back room, off camera, with no public say.

The credibility of the UN being questioned is the subject of a different and all together longer but essential essay for another time. Nor am I too preoccupied with the blasé relationship the elites in the Western diplomatic corps have when it comes to deciding who they sit and listen too. Especially as it was these same elites that sent him the invitation in the first place, but then to plan a staged walkout in an effort to embarrass an entire nation wreaks of a moral superiority. An odour that is all too familiar back in Tehran and one which Mr Ahmadinejad is an expert in espousing back home, no doubt with a slight tone of ‘I told you so’ about it. I think most of the Western liberal enlightened populations represented by the diplomats would feel uncomfortable with such grandstanding.

My subject for today is horse-trading and doing it on a global political scale. The points I raise above about the suitability and execution of such a tactic will no doubt occupy many; but as is so often the case, the why is the hardest question to answer and the answer may scarily put the other issues in the shade. Why and how could such a rare and co-ordinated act be pulled off? This is where I should insert a joke about how many diplomats it takes to change a light bulb, but getting agreement and co-ordination on this scale, in front of camera is impressive. What could compel such unity and action?

Now as far as one word answers go in International Relations, this is high on the list as one of the worst. The worst because of its past abuses and misuses raise all manor of conspiracy theories; however with such pitfalls noted I do bravely venture to proffer the justified, impartial and reasoned answer of Israel.

The guilty parties who marched out the hall were in the main European delegates who, when you consider that The US, Israel, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and New Zealand had all boycotted the conference in protest at Mr Ahmadinejad's appearance in the first place; this accounts for the European Union and the other usual suspects of the Western world. The EU as a useful or respected political body in its own right is always hot topic in Washington but in Tel Aviv the EU is seen as becoming more of a credible vehicle for foreign engagement, especially when it comes to Israel’s backyard.

The EU has its name (if nothing else) stamped all over the issues that concern the Israeli hawks that demand so much attention as part of ‘the Jewish lobby’, namely Palestine and a nuclear Iran.

Given this backdrop, two possible motivations stick out for this ill judged stunt, one is that the EU is playing good cop, bad cop with Iran over its nuclear proliferation, this instance being the rather petulant bad cop. Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector and author of Target Iran, amongst others have raised eyebrows at the EU’s prominent role in these negotiations and the warm embrace they have given Tehran in Brussels. If this approach is the carrot, than the walkout was the stick to scare Tehran with further isolation if continued co-operation is not forthcoming with the next round of IEA inspections.

Such motivation would have, to some extent, come into the planning but perhaps more realpolitik is the strong concerns of Israel that make this act a nod and a wink to their hawks. The EU needs to keep Israel sweet for its engagements in Palestine and a strong showing against Israel’s ‘other problem’ seems very much like quid pro quo.  The Obama administrations open hand of friendship towards Iran, is an enormous opportunity for fresh dialogue on these issues but such new approaches come at a cost.

The walkout doesn’t seem to provide any direct political cover or capital unless I am too jaded to acknowledge that this was a moral stand on the issue of racism, as was mooted.  The likelihood is that the motives surrounding this stunt are much more complicated and far reaching than proselytizing on the evils of racism which is in fact much better suited to the meek styling of the UN itself and the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Thomas Smith is completing a PhD at Royal Holloway, University of London titled, The Global Jihad. Thomas.smith@rhul.ac.uk