As the U.N. Security Council weighs its reaction to North Korea's third and largest nuclear test, leader Kim Jong Un's government gave diplomats in New York something new to chew on.

Speaking at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, the North Korean official Jon Yong Ryong warned the gathering of international diplomats that his government was prepared to take action against South Korea.

"As the saying goes, a new-born puppy knows no fear of a tiger. South Korea's erratic behavior would only herald its final destruction," he said.

The remarks came on a day when South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak delivered his farewell address to the nation he will cease leading on Monday, when a new South Korean leader, Park Geun-hye, will take up the reins of power. Clearly, the North Korean leadership was hoping to see him off with a final goodbye kick on his way out.

But it was the second time in a week that North Korea has threatened military action, raising concerns in New York that Pyongyang is eager to stay on a path of confrontation for a bit longer. Last week, the North Korean government issued a similar statement warning the United States that it was prepared to take action if Washington pursues further steps to rein in its activities.

"If the United States makes the situation complicated by remaining hostile through the end we will have no choice but to take serial measures with more intense second and third response," the statement warned. It added that the interdiction of North Korean vessels "will be instantly regarded as an act of war and will lead to our relentless retaliatory strikes on their bases."

Last week, Reuters reported that North Korea has informed China, its most important ally, that is is preparing for a new round of missile launches or nuclear tests. The move suggested that Kim Jong Un, far from looking for a way to lower the temperature, was turning up the furnace.

But to what end?

North Korea's threats are unlikely to soften the Western response to its nuclear test. On Monday, the European Union agreed to impose a new round of sanctions aimed at further isolating North Korea from the international financial and banking communities.

Perhaps North Korea is hoping to scare China into blocking a new round of more intrusive U.N. financial and diplomatic sanctions being pressed by the United States and its Asian and European allies. In their preliminary discussion with Security Council colleagues, Chinese diplomats have urged their Western partners not to overact to the North Korean action. But some officials say that China, infuriated by North Korean's refusal to heed its calls for restraint, is now prepared to inflict some pain on its troublesome neighbor.

Some U.N. diplomats said they believe that North Korea is simply trying to strengthen its hand in its dealing with the United States.

"When a mischievous boy wants to get a girl's attention he will pull her pigtail," said one Asian diplomat who follows the issue. The main goal of the tough talk, the official said, is to scare the United States into re-engaging with North Korea. "I think the new leadership wants to show the Americans that they are capable of escalating."

George Lopez, a former member of a U.N. Security Council panel monitoring sanctions on North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, said Pyongyang's threats follow the usual pattern: "lots of bombast, lots of defiance, and then a moment of calm when they say let's talk."

But he said the world is confronting a country with a renewed level of self-confidence, brought on by a pair of highly successful ballistic missile and nuclear tests, within a very short time frame. "I don't treat this as bluster. They want to make a definitive statement that we are a power that needs to be dealt with," Lopez said.

"The United States is going to say we've been here before, but North Korea wants to present itself as having risen to a qualitatively different stage" in its military status.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

The U.N. Security Council this morning issued a statement that "strongly condemns" North Korea's detonation of nuclear explosives as a "grave threat" to world peace and pledged to immediately start negotiations on a legally binding Security Council resolution that would impose unspecified new measures against Pyongyang.

The council statement was read out by South Korea's Foreign Minister Kim Sung Hwan, whose government is serving as the Security Council's president for the month of February. Speaking on behalf of his country, Kim said the "nuclear test poses a direct challenge to the whole international community" and that Pyonygang "will be held responsible for any consequences of this provocative act."

The 15-nation council's action set the stage for another high-level U.S.-led effort to convince China to support a tougher Security Council resolution on Pyongyang's provocation. Western governments were hopeful that North Korea's open defiance of its powerful benefactor in Beijing would support fresh penalties against its leadership.

The blast on Monday comes about two months after Pyongyang launched a satellite into space in violation of U.N. resolutions and just weeks after the Security Council adopted a resolution expanding the list of North Korean individuals and companies subject to U.N. sanctions. Before the meeting, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, who negotiated that resolution with the Chinese, sounded an exasperated note as she prepared for a new round of negotiations. "We'll do the usual drill," said Rice.

Following today's meeting, Rice said the United States would seek to "augment" the range of financial and diplomatic sanctions on Pyongyang. "The Security Council must and will deliver a swift, credible and strong response by way of a Security Council resolution that further impedes the growth of [North Korea's] nuclear and ballistic missile programs."

Rice recalled that the Security Council had previously warned North Korea that it would undertake "significant action" against Pyongyang in the event of another nuclear or ballistic missile test "and indeed we will do so."

Any action in the council will require the backing of China, which has the power to veto any Security Council decisions. It remain unclear how far Beijing was prepared to go in punishing its neighbor.  China issued a statement that reiterated its previous call on North Korea "not to take any further actions that would worsen the situation" and counseling caution by Western powers not to overreact.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, a former South Korean foreign minister, also denounced North Korea, telling the Security Council: "I strongly condemn Pyongyang's reckless act, which shows outright disregard for the repeated call of the international community to refrain from further provocative measures. The test is a clear and grave violation of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council."

"I am profoundly concerned about the negative impact of this act on regional stability. It is deplorable that Pyongyang has chosen the path of defiance," Ban added. 

"This third nuclear test by Pyongyang is a serious challenge to global efforts to curb nuclear proliferation. The DPRK is the only country that has carried out nuclear tests in the 21st century. The authorities in Pyongyang should not be under any illusion that nuclear weapons will enhance their security. To the contrary, as Pyongyang pursues nuclear weapons, it will suffer only greater insecurity and isolation."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Last week, I asked a U.N. Security Council diplomat to give me a read out of China's reaction to the Houla massacre of 108 civilians during a closed-door session of the 15-nation council.

The diplomat paused for a moment, then confessed to being totally unable to recall what was said.

It was probably something about the need to pursue a peaceful outcome to the conflict and the importance of respecting sovereignty and letting the Syrians work it out themselves, the diplomat surmised. The same thing, in other words, that China says about virtually every crisis that comes before the Security Council.

China has largely weathered the Syrian diplomatic crisis, which has brought it into direct conflict with the Arab world, by drawing as little attention to itself as possible and letting Russia take the heat for sheltering President Bashar al-Assad from Security Council pressure.

But the effort to remain under the radar will be tested this month as China begins its month-long stint as Security Council president, a role that began Monday with an obligatory council presidency press conference that focused mostly on Syria.

In the briefing, China's U.N. envoy, Li Baodong, expressed concern about this "horrible thing" that happened in Houla, assured reporters that China has no "intention to protect anybody" in Damascus, and said the perpetrators, whomever they may be, need to be held accountable.

But when pressed about next steps in the council, Li quickly returned to script.

"We respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria and also we respect the choices made by Syrian people," he told reporters. "What we really want to see is that the sovereignty of that country can be safeguarded and the destiny of that country should be in the hands of the people of Syria."

Translation: The Security Council should keep its meddling in Syria to a minimum, resist U.S. and European calls for the imposition of U.N. sanctions, and set aside more time for special envoy Kofi Annan to convince the Syrian government and the opposition to start talks on the country's future. "We have to line up behind Kofi Annan," Li said.

In February, China joined Russia for the second time in vetoing a resolution condemning Syria's crackdown on demonstrators. The resolution, which was backed by the Arab League, also demanded that the Syrian government begin negotiations on a transitional government.

China faced intense criticism in the Arab world in the weeks after the veto, prompting Li to undertake a high-level visit to the region to explain China's position in the council and try to sooth Arab leaders' anger, according to council diplomats. Still, the anger has focused most sharply on Russia, and the launch of Annan's mediation effort has provided Beijing with an opportunity to throw its weight behind a diplomatic initiative with solid backing from the Arab League.

But with the Annan plan on the ropes and China, alongside Russia, standing in the way of tougher Security Council action, it is going to be increasingly difficult for Beijing to continue to keep its head down and avoid damage to its diplomatic standing in the region.

"I think China's reputational damage in the region, so far, has been limited,' said Salman Shaikh, a former U.N. official who serves as director of the Brookings Doha Center. "In economic terms, its trading volumes continue to rise and will do so markedly over the next decade or so. Its relations with the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] are now strategic.... It is difficult to say how damage is being done with regard to Arab public opinion. While Chinese flags are being burned regularly in Syria, the rest of the Arab street, I believe, is focused on Russia. For now, at least, Moscow is deflecting serious Arab public wrath."

But Syria still poses a long-term challenge for Chinese policymakers, who desperately want the crisis to end peacefully but are at a loss about how to promote a workable alternative in the event that the Annan plan unravels. "There is also something deeper at play here," Shaikh added. "China has struggled to find a narrative that fits with the Arab Awakenings. The so-called ‘Chinese Model' of economic reform but not political opening -- which has been stressed by fallen Arab dictators in Tunisia and Egypt and now by President Assad in Syria -- no longer fits with the desires of Arabs who also want political change and democratic political systems. For this reason, China will continue to tread wearily."

Indeed, the crisis has caused increasing concern in Beijing, which is worried about its long-term relations with Persian Gulf sheikdoms that have rallied against Assad as part of a broader push to counter the influence of their prime regional rival and Damascus's chief ally, Iran.

American and European policymakers have tried to play on this very anxiety by pushing China to break ranks with Russia, which has deeper economic, military, and intelligence ties with Syria.

Back in April, "there was a glimmer of hope among Western diplomats that China could be persuaded to change positions," said Richard Gowan, an expert on the United Nations at New York University's Center on International Cooperation. "The reality is that the Chinese gain far more in terms of diplomatic tactics by staying closer to the Russians," particularly on Iran, which has become more vital to Beijing than it is to Moscow because of China's energy needs.

"If the Russians are worried about losing Chinese support on Syria, the Chinese are worried about losing Russian support on Iran," Gowan explained. "There is a sort of Chinese fear that if they were to make a shift on Syria the Russians would undercut them on Iran. The two powers are locked together in the face of Western criticism on both issues."

Indeed, Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President Vladimir Putin pledged to increase their cooperation at the United Nations during a summit meeting in Beijing on Tuesday. "Both sides oppose external intervention into the Syrian situation and oppose regime change by force," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin told reporters earlier in the day.

For China and Russia, the best way to prevent those scenarios is to keep the Annan plan alive.

"What happened in Houla is definitely a setback for the effort to solve the crisis in Syria and it has caused colossal damage to Kofi Annan's mediation effort," said China's U.N. envoy, Li Baodong. "What should we do? Should we back off? Or should we surge ahead, march on?  We have no choice. We have to support him."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Diplomats, by trade, are not naturally funny people.

And the lofty "permanent representatives," as the most senior U.N.-based ambassadors are called, are often among the least funny.

They can come across as a bit too earnest, overly confident, even pompous, and they are usually pitching a cause that doesn't translate well into snappy one-liners. While they may possess masterful negotiating skills they're rarely quick enough on their feet to parry a lethal jab from a hardened comic. And frankly, how does one offer up a riposte when the national honor has been mocked?

But every season, there they are, lining up for appearances on Comedy Central's The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, confident that they can take advantage of a massive audience that could never be reached through a U.N. press conference.

But they commit comedy at their own peril.

Ask Switzerland's U.N. ambassador Peter Maurer, who got skewered by the Daily Show's faux news reporter John Oliver over his country's neutrality during World War II. ("Mr. Ambassador, is that neutral anger, or real anger?") Or Nassir al-Nasser, Qatar's then U.N. ambassador, who got visibly tense when Oliver challenged his pronunciation of "Qatar" and asked him what his country was doing to de-stabilize the Middle East. ("I'll just pause now to gauge the tension. Yep, that's tense; that is very tense indeed.")

Then there's the big screen, where the South Park creators have made a habit of lampooning U.N. officials or diplomats, including Hans Blix, the former U.N. weapons inspectors, who was thrown into a shark tank by Kim Jong Il in Team America: World Police and torn to pieces for a laugh.

But you get the point.

No one is a choicer prey for a comic than a diplomat, particularly one that speaks with a foreign accent, represents a country with a funny name, and can't take a joke.

But not everyone falls victim.

Remember how the British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, playing Ali G coaxed the former Egyptian U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali -- "the geezer" he called him -- to say, and spell out, the French word for human excrement -- "merde." But Boutros Ghali prevailed by playing along, offering his opinion on the funniest language -- "maybe Arabic" -- and patiently explaining why Disneyland can't become a U.N. member: "it's not an independent state."

Susan Rice emerged relatively unscathed in her bout with Stephen Colbert, but not before he got in a zinger about the effort to contain Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs. "Excuse me for interrupting you, but I enjoy it," Colbert said. "Iran is still working toward a nuclear weapon. [North] Korea got their nuclear weapon. I'm just as scared of both of these people. How are we stopping them? I mean, I know sternly worded letters are the bread and butter of the U.N. But maybe we should start typing them in all caps to let them know that we are really angry."

Last week, the Palestinian U.N. envoy, Riyad Mansour, tried his hand at sitting with Oliver, in a skit entitled "Who wants to be a member of the U.N.?" Mansourplayed along with the jokeas Oliver set some "preconditions" for the interview. "First this entire interview must be conducted with the 1967 vocabulary. Is that groovy with you?"

"Groovy? It is agreeable with me. Yes," Responded Mansour.

It moved onto a negotiation over who would control the studio's thermostat. (Thanks to Mondoweiss for the transcript.)

John Oliver: "...is it hot in here?"

Riyad Mansour: "It's fine."

John: "So you're not hot? Because I'm definitely hot."

Riyad: "I am not."

John: "OK, look, Ambassador, I think before we do anything, we are gonna have to come to a provisional status agreement on the temperature in this room."

Riyad: "If you want to lower the temperature, it's fine with me."

John: "But who's going to control the thermostat?"

Riyad: "The thermostat ... should be shared by all of us."

John: "Don't even think about dividing this thermostat."

Riyad: "We will not divide the thermostat, but it should be accessed by all those who cherish it and think that it is a holy place that should be accessed to everyone."

John Oliver [voiceover]: "After three and a half hours of laborious negotiations, we finally came to an agreement."

John: "We agree that at an unspecified time in the future, we will announce a summit to discuss the possibility of discussing a negotiation towards an agreement on temperature. Yes?"

Riyad: "Yes."

John: "Shake hands for the camera. Thank you, Ambassador, this is a historic day."

Riyad: "Yes indeed."

So, how did Mansour fair for the first half of the program? He remained on message, keeping the focus on Palestine's bid for U.N. membership. And he didn't lose his temper. It helped that Oliver went a little easy on him, avoiding any awkward questions about suicide bombers or rockets from Gaza. So, let's see how he did in the game show portion of the interview.

John: "Hi Riyad where are you from, Riyad?

Riyad: "I'm from Palestine."

John: "Palestine? I've never heard of that. Ok, so question number one: What does U.N. stand for?

Riyad: [Long pause] "United Nations."

John: "That's correct. That's correct, Ryad, Congratulations. That's great. So, how do you think it's going so far?

Riyad: "We're doing good."

John: "Ok... It's the bonus round. You've come all this way. Now do you take what you've won so far ... or do you take what's inside the mystery box"

Riyad: "I take what's inside the mystery box."

John: "He's going to go for the mystery box. Ok good luck. [Opens box and removes a card with the verdict.]

John: "Riyad, oh I'm sorry it's a veto from the U.S."

Riyad: "If we're vetoed once well come back again."

John: "That's the spirit. He'll come back again, next time."

Indeed, if there's a comic willing to poke fun at him, he probably will.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

The Interpreter blog at the Lowy Institute, a Sydney, Australia-based foreign policy think tank, today announced its four finalists for the Madeleine Award, which recognizes foreign policy practitioners’ “use of symbol, stunt, prop, gesture or jest in international affairs.” The award, which Turtle Bay wrote about earlier this week, honors Madeleine Albright’s use of the brooch to send political messages to enemies and allies.

This year’s winner is the late Richard C. Holbrooke, Albright’s principal partner and rival for influence in President Bill Clinton’s foreign policy team. In a conversation with writer Jonathan Alter, Holbrooke employed a ruse in Dayton, Ohio to break a deadlock in landmark peace talks among the key Balkan leaders. “After the talks broke down, he instructed the US delegates to leave their luggage curbside so that the Serbs, Muslims, and Croats would think the US was departing,” Alter wrote. “That would have meant a humiliating defeat for all sides. The brilliant bluff worked and the parties returned to the table.”

The top runner-ups include Israel and the United States. Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, apparently sought to humiliate Turkey’s ambassador during an official meeting by seating him in a chair that sat lower than his own and placed an Israeli, but not Turkish, flag on the table. The prank roiled Israel and Turkey relations and forced Ayalon to issue and apology. “Israel later went after a much bigger target, snubbing US Vice President Joe Biden,” wrote Graeme Dobell, the creator of the Madeleine Award. “As the Veep’s plane touched down in Israel as part of the effort to get peace talks going, Israel announced plans for the 1600 new Jewish homes in east Jerusalem. The Haaretz headline called it `the slap heard around the world.”

Not to be outdone, the Obama administration demonstrated its own ability to inflict “protocol induced pain” by snubbing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on repeated occasions. “The Biden backlash began with the Vice President turning up 90 minutes late for a dinner” with Netanyahu,” Dobell writes. “But the real US snub-upmanship came when Netanyahu headed off to Washington two weeks later for talks with Obama….No dinner after the White House meeting, no statement and not even a photograph of the two leaders together. Take that. The Haaretz judgment was that the Israeli leader left 'America disgraced, isolated, and altogether weaker'.

China’s armed forces also made its way on to the top list by stealth. With U.S.-China military relations chilled, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates set off to China to try to warm things up. “And what better welcome than a jet test: the first flight of China’s new stealth fighter,” Dobell writes. “President Hu Jintao and other civilian leaders gave their American visitors the impression that they were unaware that the test had been conducted only hours before they received Mr Gates at the Great Hall of the People,” Dobell writes. “Or as Gates happily told reporters later while taking in the grandeur of the Great Wall: 'The civilian leadership seemed surprised by the test.' Memo to the PLA: The point about symbolism, much less stunts, is that you need to be clear about who the message is aimed at.”

Which is why China, apparently, remains a runner-up.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

China has escalated a campaign of pressure against the U.N.'s chief sanctions enforcers, blocking the reappointment this month of a U.N. arms investigator who discovered Chinese bullet shells in Darfur, Sudan, in violation of a 6 year-old U.N. arms embargo.

Beijing's action could undermine the independence of numerous panels of U.N. experts responsible for enforcing U.N. sanctions and arms embargoes, according to former U.N. arms experts and diplomats. One top council diplomat called China's behavior "deplorable," saying it sends a troubling message that any U.N. expert who delves into China's role in the illicit arms trade may lose his job.

The dispute places another harsh spotlight on Chinese diplomacy at a time when President Hu Jintao is preparing to hold his final high-level summit at the White House on Wednesday with President Barack Obama. It also highlighted how China's expanding global interests, including a burgeoning small arms trade in Africa, are colliding with some U.S. priorities at the U.N. Since 2001, China has supplied Khartoum with 72 percent of its imports of small arms and light weapons, according to Sudanese customs data cited by the Small Arms Survey.

Investigations into arms trafficking have increasingly focused on China, rather than countries in the former Soviet Union, including Russia, whose nationals sold massive numbers of surplus weapons to African clients in the 1990s.

While Beijing has worked constructively with Washington on many high-priority U.N. issues, striking agreements on tough U.N. sanctions resolutions against North Korea and Iran, it has sometimes impeded efforts to ensure those very same measures are actually enforced. And it is only one of many countries that have resisted the U.N.'s requests for help in tracing the illicit import of weapons into Africa's conflict zones.

China's colleagues in the council, including the United States, have urged Beijing to avoid a confrontation with the panels, arguing it will needlessly expose itself to greater public criticism. But Chinese officials have reacted furiously when U.N. inquiries into sanctions violations have criticized or embarrassed China.

In recent months, Chinese diplomats have expressed growing impatience with numerous U.N. arms panels after they drew attention to the import of Chinese ammunition and assault weapons in several African conflict zones under U.N. arms embargo, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, and Sudan.

None of the panels' investigators has accused China or its arms manufacturers of violating U.N. sanctions, saying it is more likely that African governments or arms brokers that purchased Chinese weapons legally have illegally transferred them to armed groups in violation of U.N. regulations. Still, Beijing has been highly defensive in response to questions about the arms' origins, and provided limited responses to requests for information aimed at tracing the export history or origin of Chinese weapons.

The U.N. panel responsible for enforcing a 2004 arms embargo in Darfur, Sudan, encountered Chinese opposition late last year, after it circulated a report claiming that Chinese ammunition had made its way into Darfur, and in some cases, had actually been used in skirmishes against U.N.-African Union peacekeepers.

The report, first reported by Turtle Bay, does not accuse China of directly violating the embargo, which prohibits the import of weapons into Darfur, but allows China and other arms suppliers to sell weapons to the government in Khartoum. Nonetheless, China initially threatened to block the renewal of the panel's mandate, a move that would have effectively ended the enforcement of sanctions in Darfur. It relented under pressure from the United States and Britain, but it has succeeded in blocking the report's publication. In the past, such reports were routinely made public.

On Jan. 7, China ratcheted up pressure on the panel, placing a hold on the renewal of the panel's arms expert, Holger Anders of Germany, who provided the most detailed case that Chinese munitions had been smuggled into Darfur. Council diplomats said the hold effectively constitutes dismissal, and the U.N. secretariat has already begun a search for an arms expert to replace Anders.

A Chinese diplomat had previously challenged Anders' findings in a written statement as insufficiently supported by evidence, and questioned the panel's professionalism. Exasperated, Anders snapped backed. "He took some ammunition he had found in the field from his pocket and he threw it on the table: `You want evidence? Here's the evidence,'" Anders told the Chinese delegation, according to an official familiar with the exchange. "The Chinese were very offended. They said this is unacceptable."

The U.S. declined to comment on the cases. While Germany's U.N. ambassador, Peter Wittig, declined to comment on Anders' predicament, he said, "Part of the effectiveness of the U.N. sanctions system is the monitoring boards, and the group of experts -- they are supposed to be independent. And that independent advice and expertise is part of the whole set up, and we value that highly, and we would want to assure that this independence remains intact."

China's spokesman, Yutong Liu, declined to comment on the matter, saying, "I don't think I have any comment for you now." Anders declined a request for comment.

China has long been uneasy about the U.N.'s imposition of sanctions to coerce countries to change their behavior, but it has yielded to U.S. pressure to impose such measures to restrain proliferation of nuclear weapons, or to prevent the flow of small arms into conflict zones. It has also sought to limit the severity of measures targeting allies such as Sudan, Iran, and North Korea. Last year, it blocked for more than six months the release of a U.N. panel report suggesting North Korea may have supplied Syria, Iran, and Burma with banned nuclear technology.

But China has been growing increasingly assertive. Chinese diplomats also clashed late last year with a separate panel probing arms smuggling in Ivory Coast. That panel placed China and several other countries on a list of countries that "have given incomplete responses" to requests for information, according to an official familiar with the report.

China was one of several suppliers of small arms and light weapons to the government of Laurent Gbagbo in the Ivory Coast. But those shipments stopped after the U.N. Security Council imposed an arms embargo on the country in 2004. Still, U.N. arms investigators have discovered hundreds, and possibly thousands, of Chinese Type-56 assault rifles in the arsenal of the rebel Forces Nouvelle. According to an unpublished report, the vast majority of rifles have had their registration numbers ground off, raising suspicion that they were smuggled into the country after the imposition of sanctions.

The inspectors, however, found a handful of rifles with serial numbers still intact and asked China to help trace them to Chinese arms manufacturers. China replied by saying that most of the rifles had markings inconsistent with those of Chinese manufacturers, suggesting they were copies, and that others had been sold to a third country. But they did not reply to a request for information about the third country, and the arms inspectors are not convinced the weapons are copies.

During the panel's presentation of its evidence late last year, a Chinese diplomat, again reading from a prepared text, accused the panel of lacking "100 percent proof" that the weapons came from China, and scolded the experts findings as "unprofessional. It could have been written by young students."

"They were very, very insulting," said one official familiar with the exchange. "It was an arrogant reaction to stop the experts from what they call naming and shaming China. They want to act like a big country that has the right, through its veto, to intimidate."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Ban Ki moon has never been known as a straight talker.  But tonight he seemed to reach new heights of circumspection, seemingly declaring his intention to run for a second five-year term as secretary general without actually saying so.

The revelation was buried in an official U.N. readout of a New Year's day exchange Ban had with South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak. In it, Ban  offers his best wishes to the South Korean president-- the only leader to be so honored-- underscoring the importance the U.N.'s South Korean secretary general continues to place in maintaining close ties with the government that helped promote his rise to the world's top diplomatic job.

Ban's readout--which was issued Saturday evening without fanfare and while most of the press corps was on holiday -- seemed innocuous enough on first glance. Ban praised Seoul for its "active contribution to the work of the United Nations, including through an increase in overseas development assistance and greater participation in peace operations, as well as to global efforts to address climate change and promote green growth," according to the readout. Ban also lauded Lee for his "successful" hosting of a G-20 summit and for South Korea's continued "economic and social development" in 2o10.

For good measure, the readout notes that  Ban and Lee discussed the crisis on the Korean peninsula.  Ban -- who has been seeking a mediation role there since his first months as secretary general-- said he appreciated Lee's recent decision to try to resolve the nuclear standoff through the resumption of six-nation political talks, a move that effectively sidelines the U.N.  Still, Ban appeared hopeful, offering once again to "provide any assistance, as appropriate, in facilitating peace and stability in the region in close coordination with the concerned countries."

But down in the final sentence of the readout, Ban's office blandly notes that the "secretary general looks forward to the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit to be hosted by the ROK[Republic of Korea], an event which would significantly contribute to strengthening the global nuclear non-proliferation regime." A careful reader will recall that Ban's first five-year term expires at the end of 2011, meaning he would need to be reelected in order to attend the Korean summit as secretary general.

Although Ban has signaled for months his intention to run for a second term, he has been declined to publicly announce his plans. Pressed on his intentions last month during a year-end press conference, Ban appealed for patience but said he would make his intention known soon. I'm not sure whether this counts.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

The Russian government called today for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council to try to ease a standoff between North Korea and South Korea, and launched an initiative to enlist U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki moon's support in trying to calm tensions between the  Korean rivals.

The move came as South Korea prepared for an artillery drill on an island near the North Korean border. North Korea said it would retaliate against the south if it proceeds with the drill, which was delayed today because of poor weather.

The United States, which is in the presidency of the Security Council, has backed the south's plan to carry out a military drill. At Russia's request, it has scheduled a Security Council meeting for  Sunday morning at 11 A.M.

The Russian initiative comes nearly a month after North Korean troops opened fire on Yeonpyeong Island on November 23, killing four South Korean nationals. South Korea recently announced plans to carry out a live artillery drill in the waters southwest of Yeonpeong between December 18-21.

Russia began criculating a confidential draft statement to Security Council. The draft, which was obtained by Turtle Bay, calls "on all parties concerned to excercise maximum restraint" and stressed the need to undertake steps to de-escalate the conflict. It also requests the U.N. secretary general dispatch a special envoy to Seoul and Pyongyang to "consult on urgent measures to settle peacefully the current crisis situation in the Korean Peninsula."

"We are seriously concerned about possible further
escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula," said Russia's U.N. envoy Vitaly I. Churkin,
according to Reuters. The situation there, he added, "directly affects the national
security interests of the Russian Federation."

Ban, South Korea's former foreign minister,  has long sought a role in mediating the dispute on the Korean Pensinsula. But he has faced resistance from the key powers  -- including China, the United States and Japan -- managing stalled political talks with North Korea.

Here is a copy of the Russian draft statement

Draft Press Statement of the President of the Security Council

 The Members of the Security Council have
considered in an emergency meeting of the Council on 18 December 2010 a
dangerous aggravation of the situation in the Korean peninsula. They
heard a briefing by _____________________.

The Members of the Security Council called
upon all parties concerned to exercise maximum restraint and to avoid
any steps which could cause a further escalation of tension in the
Korean peninsula and the entire region.

The Members of the Security Council stressed
the need to undertake efforts to ensure a de-escalation of tension in
the relations between the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea, resumption of dialogue and resolution of all
problems dividing them exclusively through peaceful diplomatic means.

The Members of the Security Council
requested the Secretary-General of the United Nations to dispatch
without delay his special representative to the Republic of Korea and
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to consult on urgent measures
to settle peacefully the current crisis situation in the Korean
peninsula.

The Members of the Security Council also
requested the Secretary-General of the United Nations to stay in close
coordination with other countries concerned in this regard.

 Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

As Ban Ki-moon finalized his preparations for his visit this week to Beijing, one of his top advisors, Sha Zukang, traveled to China to present an award to a retired Chinese general who had authority over troops that fired on unarmed civilians during the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown.

Sha, the U.N. Undersecretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, presented the World Harmony Award -- a glass plaque cut in the shape of a dove -- to former Chinese Defense Minister, Gen. Chi Haotian, in honor of his unspecified contributions to world peace, according to a report in Chinese state media. The World Harmony Foundation, a private charity headed by a Chinese businessman named Frank Liu, established the award.

It was unclear whether Sha appearance at the award ceremony was a gesture aimed at showing understanding for China's troubled human rights legacy. China has faced more intense scrutiny of its human rights record since Liu Xiobao, a jailed pro-democracy advocate who participated in the Tiananmen Square protests, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. But Ban responded to the Nobel announcement by issuing a statement that implicitly questioned the wisdom of the Nobel committee's selection for the prize, and he has been reluctant to publicly raise concerns about the house detention of Liu's wife. In a meeting Monday with Chinese President Hu Jintao, Ban didn't even mention human rights.

Some officials said that Sha, a fervent Chinese nationalist, may have been engaging in a bit of pro-Chinese freelancing, or simply doing a personal favor for a wealthy businessman who has provided financial support to U.N. causes. Sha's office declined to comment, referring calls to the organizers of the award ceremony, The World Harmony Foundation, which did not respond to requests for comment. Officials in Ban's office said they were unaware of Sha's participation in the event. "This is the first we've heard of this," Martin Nesirky, the chief spokesman told Turtle Bay. "I don't have further comment for now."

U.N. officials said there is no specific rule prohibiting U.N. staff from presenting an award on behalf of a private charity. Staff rules, however, require employees "uphold and respect the principles set out in the Charter, including faith in fundamental human rights." They prohibit U.N. employees from accepting instructions from any government or from any other source external to the organization." The rules also require staff "avoid any action and, in particular, any kind of public pronouncement that may adversely reflect on their status, or on the integrity, independence and impartiality that are required by that status."

Still, the award ceremony amounted to another awkward incident for Sha, who has struggled to make the adjustment to life as an international civil servant. It also reflects poorly on Ban. Last month, Sha garnered international notoriety after criticizing the U.N. secretary general under the influence of alcohol at a U.N. retreat. The story was first reported by Turtle Bay.

Gen. Chi, a recipient of China's People's Hero award, served as the Chief of the General Staff of the People's Liberation Army during the Tiananmen crackdown, which led to the killing of as many as 3,000 civilians. Chi has publicly defended the military operation, but has denied giving the order to open fire on unarmed protesters.

"As PLA chief of staff he was present at a series of key meetings on the crackdown but he isn't recorded as saying anything," Andrew J. Nathan, a professor of Chinese politics at Columbia University. "He evidently was one of the key officers implementing the crackdown orders but I can't distinguish from these materials what specific role he played within that small group."

"I have no idea who the World Harmony Foundation is, but I suppose they represent the deft hand of the Propaganda Department in extending China's soft power," Nathan said. "I suppose this is a response to the Nobel Peace Prize."

The World Harmony Foundation was established in 2004 to "promote the ideals and principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration," according to a statement on the group's web site. It is "dedicated to building Cultures of Peace and Sustainable Environments for all people."

Since 2005, the group has periodically organized ceremonies to ring the Harmony Bell for Peace, which was fashioned out of ammunition donated by the Chinese government and scrap metal collected by Chinese school children. It is trying to raise funding to build more bells.

Top U.N. officials, including former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and Deputy U.N. Secretary General Asha-Rose Migiro, have rung the Harmony Bell of Peace in ceremonies. In 2008, the group claimed that its founder Frank Liu was selected by an aide to Sha, Guido Bertucci, selected by a top aide to be a spokesperson for the U.N. Global Forum, a unit that promotes better public administration. There is no reference to Liu at the forum's website.

The organization has contributed money to previous U.N. causes, including a commitment to fund a 2009 U.N. concert organized by the U.N.'s public affairs and peacekeeping departments and a private group, the CultureProject. In a July 2009 letter to Liu, published by Inner City Press, the U.N. Undersecretary General for Peacekeeping Alain Le Roy, thanked Liu.

"Your support is of enormous importance to us," Le Roy wrote. "We are pleased to invite you to our Departmental Conference Room, where you will be given a complete situational briefing on the activities carried out by our peacekeeping missions around the globe. In addition, we would be pleased to offer you a tour of the Department's situation center where our staff monitors developments on the ground 24 hours a days, seven days a week."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

It can be tough for a politician from a little country to capture the world's imagination when heavy hitters like Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad show up at the U.N. General Assembly bearing flashy initiatives and monopolizing the attention of the world media. But Bhutan's Prime Minister, Jigmi Y. Thinly, took a stab at it on Monday with a proposal to save the world's downtrodden with a dose of happiness.

Speaking at the U.N. summit for the promotion of the Millennium Development Goals -- a set of eight targets for eliminating hunger, illness, and extreme poverty around the world -- Thinly urged his foreign counterparts to adopt happiness as the ninth official goal. "I hear some laughter," he said after making his announcement. "I see a lot of smiles."

Happiness, it seems, has a long history in the Kingdom of Bhutan. Forty years ago, the Bhutanese King Jigme Singye Wangchuck decided that "conventional" approaches to raising the standard of living of his poor subjects simply wouldn't do. "Having pondered the meaning and purpose of development and being dissatisfied with the aimlessness of prevailing models, our king's understanding of his innermost yearning of his people inspired him into conceiving the development philosophy of Gross National Happiness," Thinly said.

Wangchuck's idea of tracking GNH instead of GDP has attracted enthusiastic followers, and not just in Bhutan. A group of economists and social scientists has tried to develop metrics for measuring national happiness, and even conducted global surveys to rank the world's countries. President Sarkozy of France also took up the cause recently, suggesting that happiness was a more important indicator of success than nominal economic growth.

The Bhutanese Kingdom defines happiness as "a state of being that is realized through a judicious equilibrium between gains in material comfort and growth of the mind and spirit in a just and sustainable environment. It is not about asceticism and denial." Thinly said that Bhutan is eager to work together with other countries to develop a "set of elaborate and precise metrics" for happiness that can be applied to the world's poor.

It's not likely to be a standard that will please everyone. The Bhutanese leader lashed out against corporations and the media writ large -- who "thrive on reckless consumerism." But in an effort not to make the world's big powers too unhappy he stripped out a line from his original written speech that criticized the "voracious" consumption practices of the U.S., China and India.

"It does not demand much imagination and intelligence, indeed, to understand that endless pursuit of material growth in the world with limited natural resources within a delicately balanced ecology is not sustainable," he said. "The so called wealth we have created are in fact illusory, and that being unreal, they disappear often, without a trace, like the jobs, homes, saving, investment, and more. The only things real are the psychological, emotional, and environmental costs."

Boy, that doesn't make me feel very happy.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

UPDATE: Sha Zukang's highly undiplomatic toast to Ban Ki-moon in the Alps last week raises questions about China's diplomatic commitment to the United Nations, according to senior U.N. officials. Diplomats wonder whether the incident will spur Beijing to take the organization more seriously, and to send its best and brightest to serve at the world body.

"This raises questions about whether China is a mature power," said a senior U.N.-based diplomat. "The Chinese need to think about this."

Three years ago, China put forward Sha for a top post in the U.N. Secretariat, even though the Chinese diplomat had little interest in serving in the international organization and had developed a reputation for creating public controversies.

U.N. officials described Sha as a smart, hard-working colleague. But they said he struggled to make the transition from an ardent Chinese nationalist to an impartial international civil servant. One official recalled an initial meeting with Sha at which he introduced himself by saying, "Please call me Sha: it means King in Chinese."

Sha's tenure at the United Nations has coincided with Chinese attempts to increase its commitment to U.N. affairs. China had once refused to participate in U.N. peacekeeping operations; it is now sending thousands of peacekeepers to serve in missions from Haiti to Lebanon. Chinese diplomats also played a role in prodding Sudan to accept a U.N.-African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur.

In recognition of China's growing importance, Ban agreed to China's request to hire Sha to become the U.N. undersecretary general for economic and social affairs. But Sha has struggled to fit in, and his relations with colleagues seem to have been less than collegial. Sha claimed in his inebriated toast that he suspected Ban had tried to force him out of his job.

U.N. officials say that it will not be easy for Ban to fire Sha even if he wanted to. Ban needs China's support for his expected bid to serve a second term as U.N. secretary-general. They also say that Sha will resign only if forced to do so by Beijing. A more likely scenario, according to an U.N. based diplomat, is that Sha will serve out the final year of his term as Ban's undersecretary. "We've put up with him for three years; we can put up with him for another one," said one U.N. official.

Asked today if Ban was considering getting rid of Sha, a U.N. official declined to speculate, saying simply: "Mr. Sha has apologized. Beyond that, I don't have any further response to your question."

--------------------------------------------------

Original Post: Sha Zukang, the U.N. undersecretary general for economic and social affairs and the organization's most senior Chinese official, offered U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon a toast last week at a retreat in the Alpine resort town Alpbach that degenerated into an intoxicated rant against the United Nations, the United States, and his boss, Turtle Bay has learned.

"I know you never liked me Mr. Secretary-General -- well, I never liked you, either," Sha told Ban at a dinner attended by the U.N.'s top brass, according to a senior U.N. official who attended the event. "I didn't want to come to New York. It was the last thing I wanted to do. But I've come to love the U.N. and I'm coming to admire some things about you."

The blunt dinner remarks -- which came after Sha had a few drinks -- prompted U.N. officials to approach Sha and try to coax him into putting down the microphone, according to a U.N. spokesman and several U.N. sources who were there. It didn't work. Sha continued a lengthy speech, in which he also expressed his antipathy toward the United States. "It was a tribute gone awry," said a second senior U.N. official who was at the dinner. "It went on for about ten or fifteen minutes but it felt like an hour." Ban was described as having smiled and nodded awkwardly during the Sha rant, but he allowed the dinner to continue.

U.N. officials said that Sha realized that he had gone too far, and that he spent much of the following day out of sight. "Sha Zukang was deeply apologetic when he met the Secretary General in person early the following morning at his own request," said Farhan Haq, the acting deputy U.N. spokesman, in a statement to Turtle Bay. "He said that he had risen to speak the previous evening because he felt that recent criticisms of the Secretary General had been unfair and that he wanted to set the record straight. However, Sha told the Secretary General that he realized that the way that he spoke, coming as it did after he had had a few drinks, was inappropriate, as it went too far. He was also aware that his statements had embarrassed and irritated other senior advisors."

Sha did not respond to a request for comment made through his office.

The incident is likely prove to be highly embarrassing for China, which put forward Sha's name in 2007 for the top U.N. post of U.N. undersecretary general for economic and social affairs. China had also played a central role in promoting Ban's selection as secretary-general, and is expected to back him for a second term. Chinese diplomats have privately defended Ban's stewardship of the organization, citing criticism of Ban as unfair.

But the episode can hardly prove helpful to Ban, whose leadership has come under fire from a number of departing top officials, including Inga-Britt Ahlenius, the former Swedish chief of the U.N.'s internal oversight division.

Sha has long had a reputation as a pugnacious diplomat, a Chinese nationalist with a high-pitched voice and a short temper. A diplomatic colleague, Wang Guangya, China's former U.N. ambassador, described Sha to me as the "John Bolton of the Chinese Foreign Ministry." In a 2006 interview with the BBC, Sha told the United States to "shut up" about China's military buildup.

Sha, 62, began his career in the Chinese foreign service about four decades ago, as a young Chinese diplomat who had escaped the student purges of the Cultural Revolution, landing a plum assignment in 1960s London. He rose to the top ranks of a Foreign Ministry that has become increasingly assertive in recent years, serving in Colombo, Sri Lanka; New Delhi, India; and Geneva, Switzerland. He has also served as a head of China's department of arms control, in the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

Few Chinese officials have been more combative in public than Sha. In that same 2006 interview with the BBC, Sha offered a highly emotional defense of China's military, economic, and diplomatic rise. Sha warned that China would not budge on its claim to Taiwan and that it would use military force to defend China's interest. "No force in the world can shake Chinese nation's determination to achieve unification of my great motherland," he said. "For China one inch of the territory is more valuable than the life of our people; we will never concede on that."

Questioned about former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's expressions of concern about China's military buildup, Sha responded: "It is better for [the] U.S. to shut up, keep quiet. China's military build up is not threatening anyone … we are not fighting anywhere, we are not killing the innocent people anywhere in the world today. But look what they are doing today. So we have to be careful, careful to make sure no one in the world can harm China."

Sha was hired by the United Nations in July 2007, making him the top Chinese official in the U.N. Secretariat. Sha has a reputation as a sometimes charming, smart, and humorous personality, but one with a volatile streak. Frustrated that attendees at a U.N. conference last year refused to take their seats, the exasperated official raised his hands in the air, repeatedly beat his gavel, and angrily announced: "This is really unique; now I'm deeply impressed by this uniqueness. And it is so unique that many of you have to sit and many of you have to stand behind making noises," he complained. "I know … I'm offending everyone, which I do not care at all."

The trouble at Alpbach began when U.N. officials arranged for a cocktail reception for senior officials. The organizers asked the U.N.'s senior male officials to mix drinks for their female counterparts, as a symbol of the greater number of top women in the traditionally male dominated organization. Ban acted as one of the main bartenders.

Following the reception and a dinner, top U.N. officials were offered an opportunity to make some remarks. Sha took the microphone and that said that while the "wine affected me a little … I want to say something that's on my mind," recalled a senior U.N. official.

Sha said that while he had not initially liked Ban or the U.N. all that much, noting that he had been forced to take his job, he had grown to respect him. He said that he appreciated Ban's persistence, his hard work ethic, and his stubbornness. But he also reflected the tense nature of their relationship. "You've been trying to get rid of me. You can fire me anytime; you can fire me today," he said, according to the senior U.N. official.

Sha's colleagues, including Catherine Bragg, a humanitarian relief official, tried to approach Sha to persuade him to calm down. But Sha continued. At one stage, Sha singled out a senior U.N. official, Bob Orr of the United States, and said "I really don't like him: He's an American and I really don't like Americans," according to the senior official. But he then went on to credit Orr for delivering a commendable speech at the U.N. conference on climate change in Copenhagen, in which Orr praised Ban for taking a courageous stand and laying the groundwork for progress on global warming. "He was right," Sha said, according to the official.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Friday's U.N. Security Council statement condemning the March sinking the South Korean warship Cheonan, but not fingering the culprit, may look like another example of the grubby compromises required to close a deal here.

But it could have been a lot worse. In the final stages of the closed door negotiations of the text, North Korea's veto-wielding champion, China's U.N. envoy Li Baodong, sought to gut the statement of any language that even hinted at North Korean responsibility, diplomats familiar with the talks told Turtle Bay.

China's efforts on behalf of North Korea reflected Beijing's concern that its nuclear-armed neighbor might respond provocatively if it were confronted by a direct charge of committing an act of war. So, China dedicated weeks of its considerable diplomatic firepower to lessening the sting of the U.N. response.

For instance, China proposed replacing four references in the statement to the word "attack "-- as in the Cheonan suffered an attack -- for the milder words "incident" and "act," those officials said. The watered down language would have made it easier for North Korea to suggest, for example, that the Cheonan had been split in two by accident.

So, instead of condemning the "attack which led to the sinking of the Cheonan," the Chinese wanted to condemn the "act which led to the sinking of the Cheonan." It may not sound like much of a difference. But it's an important one: the American negotiators, led by U.S. ambassador Susan E. Rice, have based their contention that the U.N. statement really does blame North Korea for torpedoing the South Korea vessel on the fact that nobody else but Seoul's mortal enemy, North Korea, had a motive for mounting an attack.

"This statement is notable, and I think is clear because in the first instance, it uses the term attack repeatedly, which you don't have to be a scholar of the English language to understand it's not a neutral term," Rice said.

China also sought to remove any language indicating that the council "expresses its deep concern" over the findings of a South Korean-led allied investigation into the attack. That provision, which stayed in the final text, provided the strongest hint, in an otherwise noncommittal statement, that North Korea probably fired on the Cheonan.

That investigation, which included specialists from the United States, Britain, Australia and Canada, concluded that a North Korean midget submarine shot a torpedo into the Cheonan, killing all 46 seamen onboard.

The investigators -- known as the Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group --presented the Security Council last month with a detailed briefing of their findings, including photographs of a torpedo tail with Korean writing and a series of test results eliminating the possibility of an explosion inside the vessel.

China simply wanted to take note of the investigators' findings of North Korean culpability while similarly taking note of North Korea's insistence that it had nothing to do with the attack. 

In the end, the two Korean delegations walked away from the meeting claiming they had got what they wanted. South Korea's U.N. envoy Park In-kook, told reporters he was satisfied that the U.N. statement "made it clear it is North Korea to blame." He said, "I'm sure today's strong unanimous statement will serve to make North Korea refrain from further attack or provocation."

North Korea's U.N. envoy, Sin Son-ho, meanwhile, denied responsibility for the attack, and said his government would "do our utmost to dig out the truth behind this incident." As for the fact that the council stopped short of directly blaming his government: "It is out great diplomatic victory."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

The U.N. Security Council had a lot on its plate Monday. There were dueling briefings by South Korean and North Korean delegations on the March 26 sinking of the South Korean naval ship, the Cheonan. Then came a U.N. briefing on the crisis unfolding in Kyrgyzstan, where Kyrgyz mobs have driven more than 150,000 ethnic Uzbeks across the border to Uzbekistan. There was also a high-profile meeting on Sudan with the participation of the all the U.N. and African Union's top envoys, including Ibrahim Gambari and Thabo Mbeki.

But you wouldn't have known any of that by looking at the Security Council schedule. Yesterday's U.N. daily journal noted that the council would be discussing the "adoption of the agenda" -- whatever that means -- in addition to deliberating on a "report of the secretary general on the Sudan." No mention of the Cheonan, or Uzbekistan, or Thabo Mbeki and the African Union.

This was no mistake. The terse, daily notices on the happenings of the world's premier security body are often designed to be vague. The curious reality is that the 15-nation council is frequently unwilling to formally acknowledge that it is meeting to discuss the many security crises that land on its door.

The problem is that once an issue is officially "placed on the agenda" of the Security Council, it's hard to get it off, granting the U.N. Security Council an open-ended opportunity to play a role in the affairs of a politically sensitive or unstable region.

Russia and China, fearing Western attempts to meddle in their own spheres of influence, have frequently resisted requests by the Western powers to formally discuss crises. The two powers have sought to block official meetings on Burma, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka. The United States has also long opposed any effort to place new crises involving its closest allies, particularly Israel, on the council's agenda. Other smaller countries, including Colombia, Sri Lanka, and Uganda, have also struggled to keep their names off the council's agenda, a distinction that states often find demeaning.

"There is a serious allergy to being on the council's agenda," said Colin Keating, a former New Zealand ambassador to the United Nations who heads a Columbia University-affiliated think tank, The Security Council Report. Keating said the decision to hold off-the-books meetings has created greater opportunities for countries to discuss international problems. "The practice involves the recognition that sometimes if you want progress on some of these tough issues, one of the keys to moving forward is to have some ambiguity about whether the council" is formally responsible for dealing with a crisis.

Keating said the council began exploring ways to hold informal meetings outside the council chamber in the early 1990s, at the height of the Bosnian conflict. In March 1992, a Bosnian priest asked to brief each of the council's 15 members on the violence in Bosnia. Only one envoy, Diego Arria of Venezuela, agreed to meet him. The council bars private citizens or NGOs from officially addressing the security body, but Arria was so moved by what he heard that he prevailed upon the council to listen to the priest over coffee in the U.N. delegates' lounge.

Since then, the U.N. has frequently held informal meetings under the so-called Arria Formula with human rights groups, humanitarian aid advocates, and other private groups or distinguished political figures.

Keating said that the trend toward convening informal meetings on politically delicate issues has picked up steam over the past year as the council has looked for ways to overcome opposition to formal meetings on hot-button issues. Sri Lanka, for instance, has refused to engage in discussions about the civil war in its country if the meetings were placed on the council's agenda.

China objected to South Korea and its allies briefing the council on evidence it has collected alleging a North Korean midget submarine torpedoed the Cheonan in March, killing 46 seamen. In a compromise, the Security Council organized "an informal interactive dialogue" that will not appear in the council's formal record as having occurred. China didn't ask a single question at the briefing.

Likewise, Russia had opposed holding a meeting on the ongoing crisis in Kyrgyzstan. But Moscow had no problem letting the council hold "informal consultations in connection with the UNRCCA (United Nations Regional Center for Preventative Diplomacy for Central Asia)" to talk about the ongoing crisis in Kyrgyzstan. Such compromises limit the level of engagement, according to Keating, but allow the council to "dip its toe in the water."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch