“The Woman's Voice” Asks the Leaders of Thought: What of the Secrets of the United Nations? With Dr. Karim Azkoul

Dr. Azkoul received his university education between Paris, Berlin, and Bonn, ending with a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Munich. He is the author of the book “Reason in Islam.”

He began his working life in teaching. From 1947 his name came out into the international arena, upon his joining the Lebanese delegation to the United Nations, where his talents and qualifications found the setting in which to crystallize and show their substance...

He represented Lebanon in all the sessions of the General Assembly and was elected chairman or rapporteur of a large number of councils and bodies. Readers may remember that he was summoned twice to New York this year, to take part in the Security Council's deliberations on the Palestine question...

And in the halls of the United Nations, how many a bold cry has Dr. Azkoul raised in his speeches and debates! We recall among them his honorable stands in defense of human rights, the freedom of the press, and the Palestinian cause. He is, then, the best man on whose opinion to rely in what concerns the United Nations.

We shall try here to touch in particular on this side of his life, and to put the questions likely to enlighten Arab public opinion on the subject.

Q — There is no doubt, Dr. Azkoul, that you have learned much and experienced much from your years in United Nations circles. Would you tell us first of the personal impressions you have carried away of the characteristics of international work at the United Nations?

A — Perhaps the impression that has left the deepest mark on me is that strong sense of the multiplicity, variety, and divergence of points of view on any subject laid before the international community. The simplest of proposals sometimes stirs up such interpretations, constructions, doubts, and objections as would never have occurred to anyone at all. For every delegate looks at it from a particular point of view, in the shaping of which the delegate's own mentality has joined with his country's interests and the intellectual, social, economic, and political conditions prevailing in it. Nor should we be misled by the similarity of positions in some cases: those very similar positions are reached, in the case of each delegate, by considerations peculiar to him, varying or differing from the considerations that influenced others. This is what makes joint international work an arduous, complicated, exhausting operation, demanding much creative power, much patience and endurance, and much art in shrewdness and wisdom. For the unified result hoped for from joint international work must pass through this raging sea of variety, multiplicity, and difference of points of view, and overcome it in the end. This truth puts an end to the astonishment of the great mass of people, who so often ask: why do the delegates differ so? For the real wonder is not in their differing, but rather in their agreeing.

Q: It appears, then, that there are benefits to be reaped by one who has had the chance of experience and work in the ranks and corridors of the United Nations. What, in your view, are the most important of these benefits?

A — No doubt work under such conditions yields abundant benefits, but I should like to confine myself to mentioning three intellectual benefits reaped by whoever has been schooled in this work.

First — the conviction that there exists such a thing as the international spirit. For the tremendous effort expended in the bodies of the United Nations on the subjects dealt with is decisive proof of the existence of a tremendous desire for understanding, cooperation, and harmony. And this in turn is decisive proof of the existence of a general international spirit from which this desire springs; and from this conviction of the existence of the international spirit

follows the sense of a duty to draw inspiration from this spirit in our international work, and to work within its requirements.

Second — the spirit of tolerance, forbearance, and mutual accommodation in dealing with the differing points of view and opposing positions we run up against in our international work. This spirit, which has learned to see as natural the difference, multiplicity, and clash of points of view, leads us to accept them without adopting them, to resist them without hating them, and to shape our positions in a manner that permits peaceful coexistence with them (excepting positions contrary to right, to law, and to the Charter).

Third — the international sense, which makes us alert beforehand to the effect that the idea we declare, or the proposal we put forward, or the act we perform, will have upon the other states that may be affected by it; we anticipate the possible reactions and reckon with their consequences, and so we amend and modify the idea or the proposal or the act in the light of those consequences, or make the necessary preparation to meet them.

Q — These benefits are such as to influence a delegate's mentality and his position on the various questions laid before him. To what extent, then, are the representatives of states at the United Nations bound by the views of their governments in voting on international problems? And what usually happens when the two points of view conflict?

A — It is natural that a delegate should be bound by his state's instructions, because he represents it. The truth is that a delegate who contents himself with expressing his personal opinions carries no weight and no influence in the world organization, because what matters to the representatives of the other governments is the positions of his government, not his own positions, however great his personality may be.

But there are cases in which the delegate cannot obtain instructions from his government, or in which those instructions are general and do not serve the purpose, or are built upon considerations that have changed in the course of the debate. Moreover, most instructions concern the manner of voting and do not go beyond it to the manner of arguing for the point of view the government adopts. In all these cases the delegate is left to himself, to his responsibility, to the mental powers he possesses, to the boldness he has acquired, and to the moral virtues that adorn him. There remain, however, his state's general policy, its traditional course, its systems and laws, and its general intellectual and spiritual tendencies, from which he must draw inspiration in what he says or in what he keeps silent about. If, on the other hand, his government's instructions do not agree with his personal opinion, he must first try to persuade it of his point of view — and governments attach great importance to the opinion of their delegates. If it is not persuaded, then he must either submit to the duties of his office — for it represents his government, not himself — or resign, if the demands of his conscience impose that upon him.

Q — How can a small state stand out and make its voice heard at the United Nations, in view of what is commonly said about the domination of the great powers over this organization?

A — There is no disputing that the great powers hold a special position and a great influence at the United Nations. But it is necessary to distinguish among the various fields of United Nations activity in order to show the extent of this influence and its relation to the role that the small states can play. The field in which the great powers exert their strongest influence is the political field, because the question of peace and war is bound up with the responsibility

of these great powers — a responsibility which the Charter of the United Nations itself has acknowledged as theirs. In such a case it is difficult for a small state, acting alone, to play an important part in this field. Yet the small states, if they agree among themselves, can influence the positions of the great powers and bring about an important change in them, as has sometimes happened with the Asian-African bloc, or the bloc of the Latin American states, or the two blocs together.

As for the other fields, and especially the social, cultural, economic, and legal fields, the role of the great powers, contrary to what is commonly believed, is very small. Here, in these fields, the small states occupy a distinguished place. What qualifies a particular small state to play an important part in these fields is the fulfillment of two conditions. The first: that it stand at a high level of progress and advancement in its intellectual, cultural, and civil conditions. The second: that its delegates be men of intellectual and moral superiority, in addition to wisdom, shrewdness, and experience.

If these two conditions are fulfilled, those states will play a distinguished part in these fields.