In the Iraqi crisis, the UN has suffered on both sides of the argument. However, it still is the Global Crisis Manager. And no one else can solve the "problems without passport" as it can. So thinks the Under-Secretary-General of the UN Shashi THAROOR. He expressed this and other thoughts in this interview he granted to the editor-in-chief of NT, Alexander PUMPYANSKY.

In January 1998, the World Economic Forum put Shashi Tharoor on its list of "future global leaders". In fact 48-year old Shashi Tharoor has really had a breathtaking career - even two. In the 25 years he has been with the UN he has risen to the position of Under-Secretary-General in charge of the Department of public information. He is also known as a writer and publicist, and as an author of novels, stories and articles. Our talk took place in Moscow.

More dead or alive?

Will you tell me, Mr. Tharoor, is the United Nations more alive or more dead?

We're always alive. We've had various ups and downs in the course of being alive for 58 years, but we're still very much alive.

But you wouldn't deny that the United Nations is in crisis. The Iraqi situation has been resolved. I wouldn't say it happened against the United Nations or even without the United Nations, but, definitely, this was not according to the blueprint of the United Nations. And both the leaders of the UN and the members of the Security Council had to bow somehow to the course which was basically worked out in Washington. So what about this crisis?

Well, the first thing I would say is that, to be quite honest, we should not look at the UN only through the prism of Iraq. I'll come back to this point later but first I'll address your question from the Iraq angle. I would say that what happened in Iraq was still very much in the UN framework.

When President Bush came to the General Assembly in September last year, he did not frame the problem of Iraq as a problem of US unilateral wishes or even of US national security. He framed it as an issue of implementation of UN resolutions. And so the UN and its resolutions go to the heart of the American case against Iraq. Then early this year, between January and March, the Council discussed the issue extensively but failed to agree. Now that's part of the rationale of any deliberative body. You discuss issues, you try and resolve your disagreements and I must say the Security Council's record is that more than ninety percent of the time we do agree. But Iraq was one of the rare occasions that we did not agree. And if you look at the same eight or nine week period while these disagreements were going on, at the same time the same countries were agreeing on a whole host of other issues that are very important to the people affected by them. Cyprus, Congo, Cote d'lvoire, Afghanistan, East Timor, Ethiopia, Eritrea and so on. In sum, agreement was being reached on a number of issues that affect real people's lives. That is something we should not forget.

The UN and US are not in opposition

Then, of course, the United States came back to the United Nations after the war. I agree with you that the blueprint they've used to re-organize Iraq is principally to recognize the authority of the occupying powers. But nonetheless they came to the UN and the UN made a number of modifications to their proposal including in particular, involving a special representative of the secretary-general in advising the coalition on specific questions relating to the future of Iraq. That again has been, I think, an important change from what happened in the past.

Now, I admit that what you are saying is absolutely true in that we know even from recent public opinion polls that the UN has suffered on both sides of the argument. In the US we have lost standing because the UN is seen as not having supported America. In the rest of the world we have lost standing because the UN is seen as having failed to prevent America from going to war. And that's part sometimes of what happens to the UN. When member states disagree, you have a situation in the UN in which the organization gets blamed from both sides. But people forget the UN is both a stage and an actor. As a stage, we provide a platform for the member states to play their parts, to resolve their disagreements. As an actor, embodied by Kofi Anan and the peacekeeping operations, or the UN agencies, or the staff like myself, we implement what member states agree upon. When they don't agree, there is, as it were, no role for the actor. That doesn't mean that the actor would not be necessary for the next production. This is what, I think, sometimes people forget.

But I want to reiterate the point that in fact the issue of the UN's relevance goes beyond any single question including that of Iraq. Of course, Iraq is important. But the UN's relevance to the world hinges on what Kofi Anan calls "problems without passports, the kinds of problems that cross all frontiers uninvited, and that no one country, however powerful, can solve on its own. These are problems of human rights and human wrongs, of climate change, of drug abuse, of terrorism, of displacement, in fact, the terrible confluence of AIDS and poverty and famine in Africa, which is threatening more lives, more human lives than anything in Iraq. Then, all of these issues the UN is working on, it's working with the strong support and backing of the United States. And you mustn't finally overlook the fact that the United States remains a key member of the UN. To see the UN and the US in opposition to each other is a bit irrational because the US is a part of the UN. Most countries have in their foreign policies a unilateral element and a multilateral element. Many countries say: on matters of addressing national security in our backyard we are unilateral, and in global issues we're multilateral. Yes, the problem is that the American backyard is so big that the US sometimes takes an approach that others may see as global. But I do believe that we have a great deal that we do together on a whole host of issues. And I am not worried that the US is in the process of abandoning the UN.

A new Santa Maria

Let's forget this for a while. Let's go back to the core issues about the nature of the United Nations. Very often, real policies are made today in other places. Why so? Is the UN a showroom for a non-existent world unity? Is it a talking shop for the weak and unsuccessful? Is it a fire brigade which is being pulled in every direction because there are too marry fires in the world, and therefore it's always late to arrive at the emergency place?

I think it's all of the above and more, because in fact, it does indeed provide a place where people can talk. It does provide a voice to those who consider themselves voiceless. It does provide a forum for action in remedying crises that cannot be solved in their own areas without external involve- ment and support. It does serve the extraordinary purpose of preventing things from getting worse in many cases.

You mustn't forget that during the years of the Cold War we had a situation in which the UN played a very important and unheralded role of preventing local and regional conflicts from igniting the global superpower confrontation. The UN did it by dealing with these problems through the intervention of an impartial force that neither superpower would object to.

All of those "traditional" roles the UN continues to play and, in fact, it's one more thing - it is an adventure. Dag Hammerskjold (former Secretary-General) described the UN as a kind of Santa-Maria, to use the name of Columbus' ship, sailing in uncharted waters. But, of course, he also said that there were people on the shore who blamed the storm on the ship. And that is something which I think we have to recognize: the UN seeks to do a great many things. It doesn't always succeed, and it has no claims to being perfect. But as Dag Hammerskjold said, the UN was not invented to take mankind to paradise, but rather to save humanity from hell, and that, I believe, we have done numerous times.

But nevertheless, you couldn't stop the genocide in Rwanda, nor ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, nor the division or disintegration of Yugoslavia. Why?

Well, the UN can do what the collective political will of member states permits it to do. And when the member states want to act, the UN provides them the forum and the mechanism for the implementation. When member states cannot agree on action, the UN cannot be a substitute for them.

In the case of Rwanda, as you know, the then Secretary-General Butrus Gali and the then Under-Secretary-General for peacekeeping, who is now the Secretary General Kofi Anan, both called for Security Council intervention. But in fact the Council went the other way. They in fact withdrew the peacekeeping force that had been sent before the genocide for a different purpose. And in the case of the former Yugoslavia once again there was no political will on the Council to take decisive action, to end the civil conflict that had begun in that part of the world. So, you and I, I am sure, both understand that the great strength of the United Nations is that it is an organization of ideals that are wedded to realities. But the ideals can only be fulfilled if in reality there is an absolutely firm commitment and a will from member states.

All the successes of the UN depend on three things: a realistic mandate that is doable and worth doing, resources that are commensurate with the mandate - when I say resources, I mean not only money but also human resources, and both mandate and resources are dependent on the third thing, and that's political will. Without political will you will not get a strong mandate and you will not get the resources to match it, so you end up either putting a bandage, as happened to us in Bosnia, or not going at all, as happened in Rwanda, or pulling out too soon, as happened in Somalia.

By the way, speaking of the disintegration of Yugoslavia, is it a sort of a duty of the United Nations to keep the states' integrity and the borders unchallenged? Or vice versa, is it a duty to help the people who are fighting for independence, to help all sorts of secessionists, autonomists, and so on?

The answer is both and neither. Just look at the composition of the United Nations: in 1945 there were only 51 states, today there are already 191. So clearly, various new states have been created both through the process of decolonization which the UN has led and managed, and also through the process of new state formation, including the breaking up of states. So one cannot say that the UN is determined to preserve the states as they are. But equally, the UN is not in the business of encouraging secessionism. There are very, very rare cases when the UN has recognized the so-called liberation movements. That was the case with South Africa where you had the ANC and the PAC being recognized, SWAPO in Namibia and, in earlier days, in Zimbabwe, ZANU and ZAPU were given a certain status by the UN. So, these were the excepions, plus, of course, the great exception of Palestine which is not really an exception because Israel's control of those areas has never been accepted by the UN. The same thing applies to East Timor: Indonesia's control over this territory was never accepted by the UN. Otherwise the UN is very much against attempts to break up states by force, and we respect the sovereign status - our members. That does mean that if a state comes to the United Nations and says: "Somebody is threatening my sovereignty", our sympathy would be with the state rather than with those who are threatening its sovereignty.

After peacekeeping

The function or the mission of the United Nations has changed over the decades. First, peacekeeping, like in Cyprus where, for 40 years they have been keeping apart the hostile sides. Thert you moved to a more active stage like in Yugoslavia. Did you call it peacemaking? Am I mistaken with the term? From peacekeeping to peacemaking?

No, peacemaking for us is diplomacy. It's arbitration, reconciliation, mediation.

What is the second world?

Peace-enforcement.

Peace-enforcement. Sorry.

That is the business we don't like doing.

You don't like doing it?

We don't like doing peace-enforcement because the distinction between peace-enforcement and war-making is very thin indeed. For us it is better to do peace-keeping with sufficient robust capacity. Then no one is tempted to challenge you, and you wouldn't need to enforce the peace. Your own strength would be enough. Part of the problem we've had since the 1990s is that we have been put into situations where we were asked to do peacekeeping with resources so modest that some fellow at a checkpoint with too much Slivovitsca and a gun, or a kid in Sierra Leone on crack with a Kalashnikov can stop a UN force, and that is simply unacceptable. When the UN deploys with sufficient credible military capacity, usually it is able to do its job without having to fight, without having to kill.

But also, you will continue to do this institution building?

Yes, peace-building.

Peace-building, institution building, like in Bosnia, Kosovo, for instance.

And Afghanistan and East Timor.

Afghanistan... definitely.

And now Iraq, perhaps ...

Yes, and maybe in East Timor we can say nation building, isn't it?

Yes, because we did indeed bring them to their independence, and we have seen them through for the first two years of their independence.

So higher and higher steps, I would say, are being climbed. What UN has been doing may be called crisis management with ever broadening functions. Do you think the time has come for even more active interference? The existence of aggressive dictatorships, like Saddam's, or outlaw regimes, is also an element of the crisis and a danger to the world. Is not it high time for the international community to realize that it must interfere, that it can't just condone regimes like that of Saddam. Actually this was the logic behind the Americans' move. Shouldn't the United Nations adopt this stand and be the "vehicle" of this common will common ideals?

I think this is a very valid argument and, in fact, it comes very close, to what Kofi Anan said to the General Assembly in 1999 when he actually advocated the principle that member states should not be allowed to use sovereignty as a shield to protect them when they abuse their own people. And this sparked off a major debate which culminated, I believe, in the findings of the "Canadian" commission on state sovereignty which came up with the argument that sovereignty confers not only privileges but also responsibilities. And foremost amongst them is the responsibility to protect the well-being of your own citizens. And if you fail to do that, then the world has the responsibility to protect your victims. Now that argument is not over, because many would not agree with these principles. But I would say the debate has moved well beyond the old more narrow definitions of state sovereignty which used to stress that anything that happened inside borders was nobody else's business but that of the state. That thinking has changed.

And yet when you say, should not the United Nations go and overthrow Saddam Hussein, it contradicts the fact that Saddam Hussein himself was the president of a sovereign member state of the United Nations. And you would find it extremely unusual, I believe, for the member states to collectively agree to take steps that would undermine such a person simply because the principle of the sovereign equality of states is something that they all see as their own defense. This is why we can only meaningfully act where there is political consensus amongst member states to that, or in the rare cases when a country invites us in. In the case of the former Yugoslavia we were invited to go inside, even though it was an internal conflict. The same in Somalia. In Somalia there was no government, so we didn't fear we were violating anybody's sovereignty in trying to help the victims of that civil war. In the case of Iraq we have a different situation: the Security Council way back in 1990-91 condemned Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and authorized the war and the intervention, but only for the purposes of expelling Iraq from Kuwait, which is why the Americans didn't go all the way to Baghdad in 1991. So I do think we have to look at what the member states are prepared to agree to. The United Nations does not have independent political existence of its own other than as the embodiment of a collectivity of member states.

The Liberian precedent

Can you say a few worlds on Liberia. The precedent is in the making, I think, when one takes a sitting president to a court. What is the case there?

There is a very interesting situation. People say that Milosevic is president but Milosevic had already, in fact, ceased to be president when he was taken to the court. So new case is truly unusual, it is precedent setting. What has happened is, because the court in Sierra Leone has the power to indict people not only in Sierra Leone but also involved in the conflict in Sierra Leone, and they felt they had enough evidence implicating President Taylor in actions that are themselves crimes against humanity and war crimes, they felt they could indict him. Obviously, the difficulty for a sitting president is he may have sovereign immunity in his own territory, but he does not necessarily enjoy sovereign immunity outside this territory. And that will depend very much on the countries he goes to. He may go to a country which says: since you are a president, I will not serve a warrant on you. But he may go to another country which says: sorry, I have a warrant. This would indeed be an extremely important legal precedent to follow.

The court in this case is a mixed court, it is essentially a national Sierra Leonean court with international involvement. It is not a UN court as such. But obviously, the UN is following this development with a great deal of interest. We certainly do believe that impunity should not be allowed to happen. And if there is evidence that President Taylor has been responsible, then we feel he should be held accountable. And that is true of other presidents around the world if they play a part in such horrendous crimes against humanity.

What sort of measures could the United Nations take in such a specific case?

Well, the United Nations controls no territory. It will really depend upon sovereign member states to act. As you know, in the case of President Taylor the prosecutor in Sierra Leone sent the warrant to Ghana when Mr. Taylor was attending a peace conference there. The warrant was not served because he left very quickly. I don't think the UN directly will play a part, but we certainly have our own concerns, we are helping the victims in Liberia, in Sierra Leone and in the surrounding countries. And it is not helpful for us to have somebody as a president who may be responsible for some of the atrocities which we are trying to, now, cope with the consequences of.

In the world of globalization, in the world of integration, like the common Europe, more and more people are speaking about some sort of a roof under which the global problems would be solved more effectively. Some dream, you know, of a world government. Do you see your (our) otganization, the United Nations as such a roof or a candidate for the world government?

No, I think a world government is not worth pursuing as an idea simply because it raises a colossal amount of political animosity. And if the United Nations were seen as in any way aspiring to be an embryonic world government, it would not enjoy any cooperation from a large number of member states including in particular that of the largest contributor, the now sole superpower in the world. So I don't think it's a useful analogy.

What we would say is we are not interested in the notion of a world government, but we are interested in the notion of international cooperation in a way that allows all countries to live with a common set of rules, institutions and values. That is not a world government, that is sovereign states remaining sovereign but out of their own free will cooperating with each other for the common good. And to us that is what the UN is all about.