 |
| |
A Difficult and Defining Moment - Kofi Annan
I'd like to come in a moment if I may to what's happened since the end of the war and 1483 and so forth, but I wonder if I could ask you first to cast your mind back to that period between when the president of the US said that it was a difficult and defining moment for the UN and the outbreak of hostilities this spring.
You must have reflected many times on the institution, its limits, its powers during that period. What lessons did you draw from that?
I think you would recall at the beginning of the general assembly last September - if we can go back to last September - I spoke about the importance of multilateralism and the need to work together to deal with conflicts which are seen as broader threats to international community and that it has to be a collected response and appealed to the President that the US should come through the UN and go the multilateral route, which in the end when we spoke he said "Ok, I'm coming to the UN".
At that point the Iraqis had prevented the inspectors from going in; we were trying to get the inspectors seen and I think that focussed everybody's mind that we need to work together to deal with this thing.
So there was lots of activities here during the general assembly including a meeting of the Arab league foreign ministers which I attended and they played a role in getting the Iraqis to allow the inspectors to go back and of course, once the inspectors went in everybody hoped that we would be able to resolve this through inspection, the Iraqis would cooperate, they will be disarmed and perhaps we would be able to avoid a military confrontation.
And I think at that point the member states and all of us felt the organisation can plays its role and of course a debate started once the inspectors started their work and the question of how much time they should have? were the inspectors worth it? is it a useful exercise?
Most members thought it was but the United Kingdom and the US decided that they had run out of time. As Blix put it, it took us 3 and half years to gear up and we were shut down in 3 months.
And of course when that happened and the Council couldn't come to a conclusion there was a sense of 'what happens to this organisation?' and - perhaps not so much in England but here - there was a debate of the UN being irrelevant. UN going the route of the League of Nations.
I personally didn't believe it but it was unfortunate that the Council had to be divided because a council usually is at its most effective when they are united and when they have a common position. Not only are they most effective but it has greatest impact on the problems that they are trying to resolve.
So it was a difficult period, a rather depressing period and I think most of us probably walk around here almost in mass depression at what is happening because don't forget only a year or 2 earlier we had won the Nobel peace prize, the UN was doing well, we had been active not just in areas of peace and security, we were pushing the fight against HIV/AIDS, we were pushing for alleviation of poverty, arguing for action against inequality and disparities that exist in the world today, pushing governments to be sensitive to environmental degradation and I am pleased to hear that with the heat in Europe everybody . . .actually the problem is not Europe, Europe has always recognised its environmental problems, but I hope that the rest of the world will wake up.
And so all this was happening and then suddenly Iraq comes across and brings incredible divisions between if I may put it simply, the war camp and the peace camp. The Council itself took it very seriously and they were very agonising discussions, in groups, in individuals, with capitals: if there was a case for war and if that was the only way to resolve it.
In the end as you know the council did not approve military action, the US and the United Kingdom went ahead anyway, but now we are beginning to pick up the pieces and I think the rift is beginning to heal.
As I said that is something I would like to talk about, but just staying with that period or a moment or two if I could you said in that speech you referred to at the General Asembly last year, you talked about multilateralism as you say and you said that the UN can confer a unique kind of legitimacy.
Did you see the decision by the United States and the United Kingdom to go ahead without approval as really an attack on that philosophy for the way that business should be conducted?
It was and I did indicate that I thought that it was not in conformity with the charter because it was the kind of situation that called for connected response. Not only that when I raised the question of legitimacy and indicated that the legitimacy was going to be widely questioned, I think some did not believe it at the time but that is precisely what has happened and even since the war we have seen the importance of the legitimacy that the UN can confer.
Governments are now saying we would like to help in Iraq but provided there is a broader UN mandate. Some governments may think that the UN doesn't matter but the UN matters to member states and that is what is important.
I mean right now I believe there is a need to internationalise the operations in Iraq. The pacification of Iraq, the democratic government in Iraq, an Iraq that is at peace with itself and with its neighbours is in everyone's interest and we should all work to make it happen.
But of course the governments are saying the conditions must be right and for most of them, the conditions is the UN umbrella, UN imprimatur in other words the UN legitimacy.
How did you see your own role in period leading up to March 19th when the whole thing collapsed?
I worked a lot with the member states and of course there was also the public. The public was very much interested in this.
This was one of those rare situations where before a shot was fired there were millions in the streets campaigning against a war. Normally the campaigns came when the war had started and it has become protracted but this time they came and so you had the public react.
You had the governments in this building divided.
I saw my role as defending the principals of the organisation along the lines of my statement to the General Assembly and other statements I made at Mary and William University and in discussions with the other governments.
But I also had the responsibility to insure that I work with both groups: those who were for war and those who were not for the war to see if we could not breach the differences, find a way out.
When it became obvious that war was going to be inevitable, I also had the responsibility of - after the war - helping to pick up the pieces and trying to bring everyone together and forge a way forward through the Council because it was important that the international community came together not just for this organisation but for the issues we are dealing with around the world.
It was important they came together to work on post-conflict Iraq, to deal with the issues of poverty, the environment, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction that we have occupied us, that even lead to war, and so the divisions could not be allowed to persist so I saw my role as again trying to unify, work for the unification of the Council, international co-operation and moving forward and I think that if some doubted the need for that sort of international co-operation before the war, I think was become patently clear that that is the way to go.
And did you think that if you had spoken out more strongly for the peace party say you would have compromised your ability to do what you are doing now?
I think I spoke out for what I though t had to be said. And so you can make your point without going overboard because you have to be viable to deal with both camps and move them forward.
Tell me a bit about the bridge building that' gone on since the end of the conflict and the lead up to resolution 1483 and that retreat you had in upstate New York where you got them all together.
Describe what your tactics were during that period.
Basically I talked to lots of people, not only the ambassadors here at Headquarters but also I was on the phone with leaders around the world and really trying to encourage everybody for us to come together and deal with the aftermath of what has happened.
And that if each one sat in his or her corner we were not going to be able to come out of this and everyone was going to be a loser.
There was a debate as to the central role of the UN. What the UN should do and what the coalition will do.
There were those in Washington who felt 'Look, we one the war the UN did not support it why should we come back and give and give Iraq to the UN?' which was the wrong way of looking at it.
I saw it as an urgent task in Iraq that needed to be done; a situation in Iraq that had potential of either helping the region or destabilising the region which would create major problems over the world so we should see it as a real crisis situation that the international community had to rally.
There was lots of debate.
As you know I spoke to Prime Minister Blair several times in Europe. I spoke to the European Summit and I was in touch with lots of leaders. In the end we came up with a resolution that was not optimal - not everybody was satisfied with it. But at least it did provide legal basis for our action in Iraq today.
Obviously it is not enough for some governments when it comes to deploying troops. Some would want to go in but they would want to go in as part of a larger UN international effort along the lines we did in the Balkans, and not only in Bosnia but in Kosovo where there was a multinational force, authorised by the UN and they joined a multinational force.
Today most of them believe that if they send in troops and police that they are joining an occupational force which brings with it all sorts of problems not only in the relations with other countries and neighbours but for some, philosophically and politically and intellectually it is very difficult to swallow.
Because it's a curious resolution isn't it? It says that the UN has a vital role but it doesn't really explain what theat role is and your special envoy says he was almost very confused about what he was going to do when he got there.
Yes but this is also precisely why I put him in because he is one of our most experienced operators and the resolution was deliberately ambiguous. It was a fudge.
At the same time we are dealing with real life situation and we needed to break it down into functional terms. What does this resolution mean? What can we do with it?
And so I had to send Sergio down. He talked to lots of Iraqis, travelled around the country. Worked with Mr Bremmer, the US representative, and has managed to carve out a very effective role for himself and he has had an impact and the report I gave to the Council last month gave indication of the kinds of activities we would like to undertake and have asked them to establish a new mission in Iraq which will only take the activities whether they are in areas where we are assisting the political process, reconstruction, human rights, police training that will allow us to play our role.
There is a talk of perhaps a second broader resolution which will provide what some governments want to see before they contribute.
I think that resolution is down the line for another couple of months.
Do you think that the US maybe drawn back into the UN fold if you like by the realities it is facing on the ground in Iraq? Both in terms of troops it is losing, establishing security and giving political legitimacy to the process.
The US is facing enormous difficulties on the ground.
I was in Washington in the middle of last month (July 03). I spoke to the Secretary of State, the President and I also spoke to senior senators and some congressmen and I think that unfortunately I didn't go to the Pentagon and so I didn't have the direct conversation with them but I think that a realization is steeling in that the US cannot do this alone.
They need to bring in others. They need partners; they need partners, not only on the security front but also on the economic reconstruction and the political front.
I have also encouraged everyone to work with the neighbours. What happens in Iraq doesn't happen in a vacuum. The neighbours have a role to play. They are important, we need their co-operation and the Arab states, most of them are sort of sitting on the fence for a moment because they are also a bit uncomfortable.
They are not only uncomfortable Arab League, in my discussions with Secretary General Amr Moussa, also come back to this question of a UN role and a UN mandate and I think the initial discussions have begun but the question is what kind of a second resolution?
There are some who would like to see a narrower resolution which would authorise other governments to send troops and police. There are those which would like to see a much wider resolution, a resolution that would expand on the UN role and authorise an international force to stabilise Iraq and then they will be ready to go in.
And so when this discussion will end, what it will lead to, only time will tell. But perhaps come the Fall there will be much more active discussions on it.
So from being as you've put it rather depressed about the future of the UN 6 months ago you sound as if you are now more optimistic?
Yes I am an optimistic I am optimist by nature and also I am optimistic because of the facts, because of what has happened because, in a way, Iraq has more or less driven home to leaders around the world that the UN is a precious instrument.
UN is important. UN imprimatur… and legitimacy is important for parliaments, it's important for governments. It's important for peoples around the world and we need to work together.
And quite frankly there are lots of issues that no one country, however powerful can deal with alone and the issues that we are confronted with from terrorism to weapons of mass destruction to the so called new threats where there is the hard threats or the soft threats of depravation and poverty. You need to work across borders to be able to cope with them.
Nevertheless the standing of the UN took a knock clearly, all the research from the Pew Foundation, a lot of countries.
We did take a knock but I think in some ways it was quite ironic, those who were opposed to the war were angry that UN could not stop the war but the details are the Council did not vote for war, that the Council resisted and that the US and UK went to war despite the Council position.
It was lost on them.
And those who were for the war were angry with the UN because the UN did not support the war. And so both sides were knocking us in the press.
But in retrospect now that things have settled down I hope and when they reflect a bit on it about what happened here in this building and what is needed and what role the UN can play today they will realise that perhaps some of the judgements were a bit hasty.
But do you think that your capacity to deal with some of these other problems that you have been talking about disease, poverty, problems that particularly afflict Africa, do you think your capacity to deal with those has been damaged, even if it's only temporarily by the split over Iraq?
To some extent it has been damaged for 2 reasons.
First Iraq is going to demand huge amount of resources which will mean you won't have that many resources to apply to all the regions.
Secondly there is going to be huge demands for troops. Iraq alone is going to tie up 500,000 troops. What the public don't realise is that if you have 150,000 troops deployed in Iraq, you need 3 times that number for rotation and training purposes so you have 500,000 troops committed to Iraq and it could go higher.
You have other commitments around the world and as each crisis explodes and you need additional troops there is going to be competition for well-trained and well-equipped troops.
And governments will tell you we are over-stretched, we are over-committed, so it will affect that on the military conflict resolution side.
On the economic and social aspects, again the question of resources and focus being elsewhere, even take a look at Afghanistan, Afghanistan was in the news and on top of the agenda 2 years ago, an Afghanistan today is on the back burner. And this happens to the other crises.
Some crises are almost treated like orphans.
And presumably a reluctance on the part of the United States to put troops in harms way in other places given what they are going through in Iraq at the moment...
You have seen the debate in Liberia.
I mean I have had lengthy and serious discussions with the US administration, including, at the highest level with the President.
Today we have an American ship off, American ships off the coast of Liberia. They have indicated that they will only go, Taylor must leave first. Today we expect Taylor to leave on the 11th August and then we will see what happens.
My own sense is that in the end president Bush will take the right decision and help in Liberia.
The Council authorised a multi-national force to go in Liberia. The two nations with forces in the region: Nigeria and US.
So if you take that as an international force, the two will have to pull their efforts to make it happen. 1500 Nigerian soldiers cannot do it. They cannot control the airport, the seaport, help pacify Monrovia and create humanitarian corridors for humanitarian assistance to come through so I do hope and expect the US troops to assist.
And presumably, when it comes particularly to dealing with Africa, one needs to keep in mind the problems with poverty and so forth, can only be dealt with once security is in place so that the peace and security aspect of your work continues to be extremely important there.
Absolutely crucial and that is the message I hammer away with the African leaders, that unless we take urgent and concrete steps to resolve the wars and the conflicts of the continent we are not going to be able to focus on the essential issues of economic and social development.
Not only that, once we continue to fight each other and the continent is seen as a continent that is constantly in crisis, that from and investment terms it is seen as a bad neighbourhood, nobody invests in a bad neighbourhood, and they are not going to do it with development assistance.
We need to create an environment which will release the creative images of our own people that will encourage local entrepreneurs to want to take risk and then encourage other foreign investors to come in.
So it is absolutely so and I think the message is getting in.
The G8 at this last summit all said that they would want to support the conflict resolution in Africa, they would want to focus on resolving some of these conflicts.
Could you imagine if in a year's time we have no conflict in Congo? By some miracle, Sudan is resolved? That region, with Angola, peace being stabilised and strengthened?
For the first time in many years that whole central/southern African region will be conflict-free and the possibilities of the pooling their efforts, joint projects. South Africa could be the motor for the region. They have the capacity, they have the technology, even in terms of tourism they can really do wonderful things.
And if you can resolve Sudan and get Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and all of them to focus on social and agricultural development and focus on long term for security and agriculture, I hope we will move away from the periodic famines that we are going through now.
So it is absolutely essential that we resolve these conflicts. You are right on the spot.
What about the intellectual case that you need an institution like this to deal with what I call problems without borders? Do you think that that has taken a knock as a result of the Iraq crisis?
I think initially, it took a knock initially. But I think that even those who went against the UN, who went against the Council decision are beginning to realise they need the UN.
There is a tendency for people to think that it is only the small countries and the medium sized countries who need the UN. The big countries need the UN too.
At the same time that the UN was being knocked, the US kept telling North Korea, 'We will take your case to the UN'. Not only that, on the question of Iran, they say let the Atomic agency and the others come in and do it.
We have the issue of weapons of mass destruction. We have four systems: you have the nuclear, chemical, biological, and ballistic missiles. For nuclear and chemical capacity we have the Atomic Agency in New York that handles nuclear and the chemical weapons organisation in the Hague that handles chemical, but for biological and ballistics, the only capacity we have in the world today resides in UNMOVIC and I believe that we should try and retain that capacity regardless of what happens to UNMOVIC in the near future so that we can have the capacity to inspect the four systems and the only organisations that can do it is the UN and the family.
When individual governments do it, it's not credible.
There are lots of questions. I know that we have the British and American scientists looking for weapons in Iraq. They may find them, they may not find them. But even if they found them would it be credible?
Some argue maybe if they do the UNMOVIC inspectors, the UN inspectors should go and make an assessment and report back to the council. There is the question of ongoing monitoring and who does all these things?
And looking ahead a lot of people talk about reform, the possibilities of reform, is there a case do you think for reform in the structures so that for example the concerns of a continent like Africa where so much of your attention is directed are actually heard at a political level within the Security Council?
Yes I think there is a need for reform and I think most governments have accepted and recognised that, and we've talked about it ad infinitum in this building.
We've talked about the need to reform the Security Council, various attempts have been made but they have all failed.
I think everybody agrees that the membership and the structure of the Council is a bit anachronistic. It reflects the geo-political realities of 1945 and here we are in 2003 stuck with this structure and there is this sense that the Council needs to be reformed to make it more representative and more democratic and to bring it in line with today's realities.
When you look at the debate on Iraq and the membership of the Council at the time or as it is today, of the five Permanent members, Four of them are from industrialised countries, only one, China, you can say comes from the south. What sort of global representation is that? Whether you look at it in north/south terms or even in population terms.
Luckily, Latin America has two important countries on the council - Mexico and Chile - it could have been some other countries. Africa had Guinea, Cameroon and Angola. They did very well, but sometimes they come under intense pressure. The sort of pressure you can bring to bear on some of these countries, you can't easily bring to bear on a South Africa, Nigeria or Egypt.
So when you look at some of these things, and even in Europe, most European…the population were against a war but the leaders went in another direction and in the end Europe itself was divided with two of the permanent members from Europe on one side, and UK on the other side and yet we are all supposed to act in the collective interest.
So there are lots of questions that people are asking about the way the Council is structured and the way it functions.
Final question if I may, I know you are pressed for time, about the future but one of the geo-political realities of today is that we have a single hyper power as it has been described, one country that is so much more powerful than everybody else. Is it possible to build a structure which accommodates that and still maintains the kind of multilateral approach that you'd like to see?
No I think that one has to be conscious of that.
You can not ignore that, it is a reality. It is a reality that one has to factor in but at the same time, one also has to get the only superpower, the hyper power, to understand the concerns of others and even hyper-powers need friends and allies and quite a lot of the issues that they are confronted today.
We need to come up with a system that takes account of that but is also seen as fairly representative and democratic and a system which has rules that all will accept, not only when it goes your way.
| | | |
| |
| | |
Listen