Making My Own Rules and Managing Risks in the Face of Disappearing Opportunities: My Encounter With A Constitutional Law Professor.
It was in a Constitutional Law class, and the topic was the United Nations (UN) reform and restructuring. The contentious issue was the effectiveness of the Veto Power wielded by the five permanent members of the Security Council vis-a-vis the numerical strength and vote of the General Assembly regarding the demand for restructuring by the United States Congress. As the lecture progresses, it isn't difficult for discerning minds to conclude that the Professor has not been favorably disposed towards the United States, judging by his anti-American digress. But he is a Western-trained lawyer, thus making it more difficult for me to fathom any cogent explanation for his blatant bias and animosity.
I am a very reserved and stoic gentleman student, but do always command a profoundly authoritative and untouchable kind of guy demeanour. I hardly ask a question in class, and never answer any unless called upon. In and outside of campus, I make friends with only those I want to talk to - and I always know if someone is worth my time and attention within the first five minutes of my interaction with him or her. Indeed, I could afford to stay away from guys who I consider socially unenlightened, especially those who are plainly handicapped by environmental factors, yet are unwilling to embrace changes or accept correction. However, with my Lecturer, whom I like and love so much, it was a different story. I wasn't going to walk away or sit tight and watch as he propagates a time-worn ideological mumble-jumble.
I made up my mind to express my view on the subject, not necessarily because of his anti-American vibes, but to put a lie to his illogical assertion that the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) can apply its numerical strength and voting power to override any resolution taken by the Security Council, thereby neutralizing the efficacy of the Veto Power. In other words, American exercises of its Veto Power can be rendered ineffective by a majority vote in the General Assembly.
I had had enough. The moment he stopped talking, I started speaking, straight from my seat where I was sitting. “Sir, though your comment may sound reasonable and seemingly aggressive, it does not hold true in fact in light of what is going on at the moment at the UN. Adding to that Sir, given American status as the most influential financial member of the UN, and the fact that it is presently contributing about 90% of the UN funding, America will use its financial leverage to cripple the institution or use it to compel it to adopt the reform programs or restructuring it deems appropriate, without even going to the Security Council to exercise its veto power.” And I stopped talking. There was total silence in the classroom. No sigh, and no sound. To say that the Professor was flabbergasted and ruffled is an understatement.
When he gathered his composure, he asked for my name, and I told him. Then he said: Mr. A, next time you want to make a comment or contribute to a discussion in my class, the right thing to do is to raise your hand, and then I will recognise you. That is only when you have to speak. At that moment, a pang of guilt encapsulates the entire me. And, without any hesitation or deliberation, I offered an unpretentious apology for my unprofessional conduct. He accepted my apology, but added, surprisingly, “The comment you just made is an extra five points for you ahead of the final exam in this class.” Hearing that, I relaxed and heaved a sigh of relief.
I made up my mind to express my view on the subject, not necessarily because of his anti-American vibes, but to put a lie to his illogical assertion that the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) can apply its numerical strength and voting power to override any resolution taken by the Security Council, thereby neutralizing the efficacy of the Veto Power. In other words, American exercises of its Veto Power can be rendered ineffective by a majority vote in the General Assembly.
I had had enough. The moment he stopped talking, I started speaking, straight from my seat where I was sitting. “Sir, though your comment may sound reasonable and seemingly aggressive, it does not hold true in fact in light of what is going on at the moment at the UN. Adding to that Sir, given American status as the most influential financial member of the UN, and the fact that it is presently contributing about 90% of the UN funding, America will use its financial leverage to cripple the institution or use it to compel it to adopt the reform programs or restructuring it deems appropriate, without even going to the Security Council to exercise its veto power.” And I stopped talking. There was total silence in the classroom. No sigh, and no sound. To say that the Professor was flabbergasted and ruffled is an understatement.
When he gathered his composure, he asked for my name, and I told him. Then he said: Mr. A, next time you want to make a comment or contribute to a discussion in my class, the right thing to do is to raise your hand, and then I will recognise you. That is only when you have to speak. At that moment, a pang of guilt encapsulates the entire me. And, without any hesitation or deliberation, I offered an unpretentious apology for my unprofessional conduct. He accepted my apology, but added, surprisingly, “The comment you just made is an extra five points for you ahead of the final exam in this class.” Hearing that, I relaxed and heaved a sigh of relief.
A few days later, a classmate, who at present, a very successful and, of course, a popular lawyer in Nigeria, accosted me with a well-choreographed question. He called out my name, and I waited. Then he walked towards me and asked politely. Which book did you read about that comment you made in class yesterday? My response was instantaneous and swift. I did not read it in any book. I responded. Where then did you get the information from? He asked. I read The Guardian Newspaper every day. I replied. So the Guardian Newspaper publishes it? He asked. I looked at him and said, The Guardian did not publish the story. Before he could ask the next question, I looked at him and said, You won't understand. Then I began to walk away. At that point, he retorted in his usual amusing way: I knew long ago that there is something about you. And he walked away. It was the early Nineties. And American Congress was exerting enormous pressure on the UN to reform itself.
Less than two years later, Boutros Boutros-Ghali became the UN Secretary-General. He did not serve a second term for an obvious reason: America vetoed his candidacy or re-election. That was not unexpected; he had a turbulent relationship with the United States members of Congress over his refusal or reluctance to implement the restructuring reforms that they championed and demanded of the UN. Not surprisingly, America openly tied or conditioned its continued funding of the body to the willingness of the Secretary-General to comply and adopt the reforms that they wanted for the institution. (By the way, then, America was the only major financial contributor to the United Nations, before the Japanese government stepped in a few years later).
Less than two years later, Boutros Boutros-Ghali became the UN Secretary-General. He did not serve a second term for an obvious reason: America vetoed his candidacy or re-election. That was not unexpected; he had a turbulent relationship with the United States members of Congress over his refusal or reluctance to implement the restructuring reforms that they championed and demanded of the UN. Not surprisingly, America openly tied or conditioned its continued funding of the body to the willingness of the Secretary-General to comply and adopt the reforms that they wanted for the institution. (By the way, then, America was the only major financial contributor to the United Nations, before the Japanese government stepped in a few years later).
It was a battle of wits between Boutros Boutros-Ghali and the American government throughout his first and only term at the UN. As the impasse lasted, the General Council couldn't do anything, and not even a vote was initiated by any of its members. In the end, the reforms – drastic cuts in the workforce and expenditure accounts, as well as elimination of nonviable programs – demanded by the American Congress were all implemented in line with my audacious declaration in my Constitutional Law class in faraway Nigeria, about fifteen months earlier.
What I do know is that the Nigerian Guardian Newspaper did not publish any story of that nature. What is true, though, is that reading the Guardian Newspaper and the international Time Magazine, unfailingly every day and every week respectively, places me in a position where I could take a stand or make an informed judgment on any domestic or global issue, and be authoritatively right on point.
In hindsight, you don't have to be an intellectual, a prophet, or a philosopher to be able to visualise the bigger picture ahead and put it in a proper perspective. It is about common sense - of innate wisdom, made rich by your immediate surroundings as a child, of sacrifices and aspirations. It is a choice: who am I, who do I want to be, and how do I make the man I want to be a better man, given the ultimate goal? That mindset defines the man in me as reflected in what we have written so far on this Blog. It is about the depth of reasoning, wisdom, thought, and the ability to articulate them effortlessly and fearlessly. And the most important part of it all is remembering to implement them when the opportunity places you in a position to do so or casts you close to power. That's what makes the difference in any leadership.
You will be reading more of that in Parts Two, Three, Four, and Five. That is what "Social Intelligence: Making My Own Rules and Managing Risks in the Face of Disappearing Opportunities" is all about.
In hindsight, you don't have to be an intellectual, a prophet, or a philosopher to be able to visualise the bigger picture ahead and put it in a proper perspective. It is about common sense - of innate wisdom, made rich by your immediate surroundings as a child, of sacrifices and aspirations. It is a choice: who am I, who do I want to be, and how do I make the man I want to be a better man, given the ultimate goal? That mindset defines the man in me as reflected in what we have written so far on this Blog. It is about the depth of reasoning, wisdom, thought, and the ability to articulate them effortlessly and fearlessly. And the most important part of it all is remembering to implement them when the opportunity places you in a position to do so or casts you close to power. That's what makes the difference in any leadership.
You will be reading more of that in Parts Two, Three, Four, and Five. That is what "Social Intelligence: Making My Own Rules and Managing Risks in the Face of Disappearing Opportunities" is all about.
Watch out for Parts Two, Three, Four, and Five.
