THE former US president, Jimmy Carter, once walked out of a reception after the then Zimbabwean foreign minister, Witness Mangwende, made one of those ghastly gaffes which sets guests wondering if someone has imbibed too much of the nectar of illusory joy.

A few months ago, a senior foreign ministry dignitary gate-crashed a US ambassador's reception.

After the outgoing envoy had made his speech, the foreign affairs dignitary took over, to spew such vitriol against the US, he was greeted with boos, sniggers and guffaws.

After a senior United Nations envoy visited the country to probe the handling of the blood-stained Operation Murambatsvina in 2005, she made a scathing report on the hell Robert Mugabe's regime had visited upon its already harassed underclass.

The government reacted with customary venom, disregarding the envoy's identity, not only an African, but a Tanzanian. She would be last person to badmouth a government with which her country has enjoyed the closest relations, dating back to the days of the struggle.

In general, since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe's foreign policy has been in something of a muddle. From being a surrogate of the two communist giants, the USSR and China, it took time for the government to identify its real new friends and enemies.

But the muddle was not quickly resolved, for it had been almost cast in stone by the original partners in government, Zanu PF and PF-Zapu, protégés of the two socialist giants, respectively.

Today, the foreign policy remains mired in vague commitments to a hazy form of democracy and even fuzzier commitment to an adherence to human rights principles.

Yet Mugabe routinely goes to New York for the UN General Assembly session and almost inevitably rubbishes the world body for being so dominated by the West.

This time, he made a point of thanking his government's two mentors for sinking an attempt to have the UN institute sanctions against his regime for a whole litany of violations.

That must be considered Mugabe's last hurrah for few people would be able to hold down their food if he were to attend the 2009 General Assembly and subject us to the same diatribe on the UN's lack of democratic credentials.

Needless to say, coming from a Zanu PF leader, such criticism is almost bizarre. Since 2000, scores of Zimbabweans have been killed as they try to assert their rights as citizens of a free country. Most have been killed by agents of the government, whose campaign to silence them is anchored on "bashing".

A new government must establish a new foreign policy, not the Stone Age variety of Zanu PF.

But, happily for us, the UN, which celebrates its 63rd anniversary this month, has survived more robust threats than Zanu PF's. What is very significant is that the UN has continued to score victories in spite of the predominance in its Security Council of the West.

The only Arab secretary-general in its history, the Egyptian Boutros Boutros Ghali had his second term vetoed by the US, after he had finished the first in 1996. Another African, the Ghanaian Kofi Annan, served from 1997 to 2006.

The UN has done sterling work in ameliorating people's lives since its founding in 1945. Its agencies continue to provide vital aid to underprivileged people, often burdened with corrupt and uncaring governments, as in Zimbabwe.

Calls for the reform of the Security Council are justified. The membership of the UN is now weighed very heavily in favour of the underdeveloped countries. So far, the response to their appeals for Security Council seats for an African, a South American and an additional Asian one has been positive.

Among the likely African representatives are South Africa and Nigeria. India is obviously in line for the additional Asian seat. All the present permanent members of the Security Council -- China, Russia, Britain, the US and France -- have not opposed the increase in the numbers.

What may be debated is the depth of the reforms.