How the UN works

Today's FT carries 2 stories that reveal a lot about how "international consensus" is constructed and how legitimacy to act in a manner of their choosing is created by the world's most powerful states. Robert Zoellick, US Deputy Secretary of State was pleased to be able to speak on behalf of China's government (obviously, they are unable to say it for themselves) on the matter of Iran:
"China has emphasised its support for international efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear programme in talks with the US, Robert Zoellick, the US Deputy Secretary of State said on Wednesday...Mr Zoellick said he had argued in Beijing that China’s interests in maintaining the flow of oil and gas from Iran would be served by helping ensure that Tehran did not develop nuclear weapons...“If you are concerned about energy security … one might conclude that developing a nuclear capability in a sensitive political region which is the heart of the world’s energy resources would be extremely dangerous,” Mr Zoellick said."
"Zoellick says China shares international view on Iran" Richard McGregor, FT, 26/01/06.

And if that isn't brazen enough, the US ambassador to India apparently sees no reason to disguise his threats to Dehli:
"Washington on Wednesday raised the stakes in the confrontation over Iran when it warned India that Delhi’s own nuclear deal with the US could be ditched if the Indian government did not vote to refer Tehran to the United Nations Security Council...
In comments reported by the Press Trust of India news agency, David Mulford, US ambassador to India, said that if India decided not to vote against Iran, the US-India deal on nuclear energy co-operation would “die”. He added: “The effect on members of the US Congress with regard to the civil nuclear initiative will be devastating.”"
Daniel Dombey in Brussels, Roula Khalaf in Tehran and Arkady Ostrovsky in Moscow, "Washington warns Delhi over UN vote on Iran," FT 26/01/06.

Comment seems unnecessary.