The Chronicle Interview: Jan Eliasson
|
Jan Eliasson was unanimously elected President of the sixtieth session of the United Nations General Assembly on 13 June 2005. He took over the presidency from Jean Ping of Gabon when the Assembly opened on 13 September and has led its work during the session when UN reform is at the centre of debate.
Mr. Eliasson has had a long and illustrious career in Swedish politics and international diplomacy, dedicating much of his international career to strengthening the role of the United Nations. He was Sweden’s Ambassador to the United States for five years (2000-2005), following six years of service as his country’s Deputy Secretary of State. He also served as Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York (1988-1992).
Mr. Eliasson was part of the UN mission, headed by Sweden’s former Prime Minister Olof Palme, mediating an end to the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1986) and was the Secretary-General's Personal Representative on Iran/Iraq (1988-1992). He served as Chairman of the General Assembly’s working group on emergency relief (1991) and Vice-President of the Economic and Social Council (1991-1992). In 1992, Mr. Eliasson was appointed UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs. He was involved in a number of operations in conflict areas, which included Mozambique, Somalia, Sudan and the Balkans, and undertook initiatives on humanitarian issues. A frequent lecturer on foreign policy and diplomacy, he has been a visiting professor at Uppsala University in Sweden, lecturing on such topics as mediation, conflict resolution and UN reform.
Horst Rutsch, with Nancy Kang and Paritosh Srivastava, of the UN Chronicle conducted this interview with Ambassador Eliasson on 13 July 2005, prior to the World Summit.
|
|
On the significance of the sixtieth session
of the General Assembly
We all must take full advantage of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly. The main reason for having such an ambitious approach to reform in 2005 is because of the realities out in the world today. We are facing very important global threats and challenges; thus, we need to find global answers and approaches to these fundamental challenges.
I also think we are facing a test of multilateralism, one which we have to take seriously. We are fortunate to have a good knowledge-base for this important discussion. We have comprehensive documentation of the needs involved and a strong analysis of the directions that we can take. For instance, we have the report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, we have the final report of the Millennium Forum, we have the Secretary-General’s report titled “In Larger Freedom”, and we have all the work that has been so skillfully conducted by [fifty-ninth] Assembly President Jean Ping on the outcome document of the High-level Plenary Meeting at the 2005 World Summit in September.
Many of these matters are still being negotiated by Member States, but I hope we can find common ground in all important areas of reform. We are in the midst of a crucial discussion that touches upon the areas of security, development and human rights. One of the most promising ideas in the reform proposals is the establishment of a peacebuilding commission. We should take advantage of this wealth of ideas and proposals, and deal with them seriously. Overall, so much is at stake not only for the United Nations but, above all, for all people in the world today.
On testing reform proposals against the practical results in the field
In my acceptance speech to the General Assembly on 13 June 2005, I spoke of the need to put every reform proposal through a “field test”. Any reform would have to make a difference to the people in the field. I come back to that point often because I myself have seen the operations in so many countries while serving the United Nations. We cannot address organizational issues without considering the realities on the ground, especially in crisis areas where people are most vulnerable and in need. This belief in “field tests” reflects my own experiences from the field. I started in 1980, assisting Sweden’s Prime Minister at the time, Olof Palme, when he was mediating the Iran-Iraq war. In the late 1980s, the UN Secretary-General also asked me to be his Personal Representative on Iran-Iraq. I was in Baghdad with Lakhdar Brahimi, one of the great troubleshooters of the Organization, and Emilio Cárdenas, former Argentine Ambassador to the United Nations.
When I became Ambassador in 1988, I was able to view the United Nations from another perspective. This was a fascinating period following the end of the cold war. The promise of the United Nations was clear to us. This shared belief was reflected in the fact that for several years the veto was not used in the Security Council. But then the explosion of civil wars and ethnic and religious conflicts all over the world disturbed that balance and did not lead to a more peaceful world.
We have seen the humanitarian consequences of these wars. Because of this, many of us felt that we needed to define a humanitarian mandate and function for the United Nations. This resulted in my being asked to lead a negotiation on the humanitarian work of the Organization. The outcome was General Assembly resolution 46/182 of December 1991, which led, among others, to the creation of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs; and I am proud to have served as its first head in this important area. The realities of the field were shocking—I witnessed them first-hand during my tenure as Under-Secretary-General—in Somalia in the fall of 1992, in Mozambique in 1993, and later in the Balkans. That is why I am still so field-oriented in my thinking. I find it useful to have both kinds of experiences: seeing the United Nations from an “insider” perspective at UN Headquarters, and also out in the field where much of the Organization’s work is done.
On the importance of strengthening the United Nations
I am a great supporter of the United Nations, but I am not an “uncritical” friend. I think that one should look at the Organization from the perspective of enlightened self-interest—which is nothing other than a strong combination of idealism and a demand for well-functioning multilateralism. The United Nations is the reflection of our dreams and aspirations for a better world—a world of peace, development and respect for human dignity. But one could also see it as long-term security for all. An efficient United Nations, as a Swedish Prime Minister used to tell me, is the first line of defense for many smaller and medium-sized nations. Similarly, the larger countries are also coming to the realization that we need to face global problems together.
I think the United Nations needs to communicate better the important work it is doing in the field and reach out to the public opinion. It has been taking such a beating on issues like oil-for-food, and no doubt we need to work hard for accountability and oversight in order to make sure that resources are used rightly. But if we shift the weight of scrutiny from oil-for-food, I am sure that public opinion would also shift. Consider what the United Nations has been doing in Afghanistan or Liberia, what the Security Council did in Lebanon, and what the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Food Programme or the United Nations Children’s Fund accomplish on a daily basis. These positive images need to be better projected so that the success stories of the United Nations are better known in the world.
On the relevance of the UN Charter for the twenty-first century
I always carry the UN Charter with me. It is an impressive document and I am a great admirer of its authors. Practically every concept that we are discussing today is already well formulated here: security, development, human rights and prevention. I think one of the greatest challenges for the United Nations is to make sure that we translate the relationship between development, security and human rights into practical concepts. In other words, there can be no development without security, no security without development, no long-term security or development without respect for human rights. That is the nexus—the dynamic nexus—that we have to develop. Although the Charter inspires us, we have much work to do in terms of removing artificial boundaries between the three areas and translating theory into practice.
On establishing a culture of prevention within the United Nations
One of the major challenges of the Organization is to shift its attention from the late stages to the early phases of conflict. By doing so, we could save many lives, a lot of money and the reputation of the United Nations. People in the world, including my own in Sweden, are very frustrated at always hearing “never again”. We heard “never again” after the Second World War, “never again” after Cambodia, after Rwanda and after Srebenica. Now we have a similar discussion about what is going on in Darfur, Sudan. If we do not act early on at the first vibrations of mass killings or genocide, then we face the serious risk of undermining the moral authority of the United Nations and ultimately the international system of collective security. So herein rests a key responsibility for all Member States and the Security Council: to act early.
On the five-year review of the MDGs
I see the High-level Meeting in September playing a pivotal role in furthering the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were adopted by Member States at the Millennium Summit five years ago. The Millennium Declaration required us to review progress every five years. This meeting will take stock of how far we have come on the targets for 2015.
Let us remind ourselves that the Meeting’s role is to emphasize the achievement of these goals. I am hopeful that we will have seen—and will see—progress, in some areas, there’s less; in others, there is more. For instance, the British during their presidency of the G-8 have been pushing very constructively for development assistance, debt relief, especially in the case of Africa, and the alleviation of health problems. By this, I mean not only HIV/AIDS but also tuberculosis and malaria, and the need for clean water, which are major problems, not least in many parts of Africa.
I hope that the richer countries realize that these inequalities are not only unfair but also dangerous. We live in a globalized world; we have to make sure that we take global responsibility. These and other issues will be discussed at the High-level Meeting. We will then continue the dialogue and assessment of the MDGs in the fall during the regular session of the General Assembly.
On the need to continue working for a global partnership for development
There is so much that depends upon the activities outside the United Nations. I think it is vital, for instance, to look at the Doha process and the meeting in Hong Kong. Many industrialized countries are working to the detriment of the trade patterns around the world. There is also a need to forge a stronger relationship between the Bretton Woods institutions—the World Bank and other international financial institutions—and the United Nations. You rarely see finance ministers in New York—it’s not a good sign. We should make sure that serious economic processes are also brought into the work of the United Nations and that we look at them from the perspective of an international division of labour. In general, to reach the MDGs we must not only support a forward-looking vision for the United Nations but also bring in other actors, particularly in the areas of trade and finance.
On strengthening the United Nations relationship with other partners
The United Nations should seek to foster close relationships with regional organizations. There may be a strong role, e.g. for the African Union and the European Union, but working across and between regions also holds promise. And let us not forget that Chapter VIII of the UN Charter is all about regional cooperation and regional arrangements. There is no contradiction between the United Nations and regional organizations. In fact, there is a dynamic and positive relationship being set up between regional action and global action.
It is also essential that we work out a strong relationship with civil society. These dynamics are sometimes complicated, but the NGO community has contributed much in operational terms, not least in humanitarian crisis situations. They have often been useful in giving early warning and they serve as an important link between different parts of society. They have connections, for example, with both the industrialized nations and the developing world. They remind us, in Shakespeare’s terms from Romeo and Juliet, that there is a “world outside Verona”. Overall, they are advocates for global solidarity and a vital resource we should not squander.
On the threat of terrorism and nuclear proliferation
There are many clouds on the horizon for the United Nations and the world community, and some of these are serious challenges. We need to create mechanisms that allow us, together with the other actors on the world scene, to deal more effectively with these threats. Recently, we have seen much more of the threat of terrorism. September 11 [2001] was the defining moment for the United States and also for the world in general. We have also seen the growing risks underlying the proliferation of nuclear weapons. To this we need to add the risk for biological and chemical weapons, all so hard to verify and contain.
The ultimate nightmare, of course, is the combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. This could mean disasters of a magnitude that we have not seen before. We need to face these threats not only in a very hard-headed way but also in view of the longer term. We have to deal with them simultaneously from the perspectives of law enforcement and analysis of root causes. While being tough, we also have to see what brings about these phenomena and go to their roots, effectively diminishing the factors that lead to growing gaps, not only in terms of resources but also in terms of attitudes to different religions and ethnic groups. I am personally fearful of the trend from the last few years where fear has grown at the expense of hope. This is one of the many reasons why the reform of the United Nations is so important. This work aims to produce models that can deal effectively with global problems. By that token, we can show that multilateralism works and gaps can be diminished. The cumulative desire should be for more hope and less fear.
On the legacy of practical and results-oriented approaches within the United Nations
From my perspective, 2005 is special, as it is the centennial of the birth of Dag Hammarskjöld, the legendary Swedish UN Secretary-General. This was the reason why my Government nominated me for this position. However, as President of the sixtieth General Assembly, I am serving 191 nations; it is quite a responsibility, but one that I accept and respect. Of course, I cannot divorce myself from my past, from my roots and from my values. I often say that in life you need to have a sense of roots—that is, where you come from—but you also have to have a sense of wings. I am proud that my roots include a strong element of belief in international cooperation and solidarity.
Like many Swedes, I like to advocate a practical and concrete approach to solving political issues. We tend to ask, “What are the concrete results?” If, for instance, you discuss development assistance, you could talk about it in terms of the 0.7 per cent of gross national product (GNP), but you could also simply lift a glass of water and say to the people around you, “here is a luxury for almost 2 billion people in the world”. People in the industrialized world may not feel that they can relate to the 0.7-per-cent GNP concept, but if they see the real effects of AIDS or malaria, they might be able to do so—every 30 seconds a child dies of malaria in southern Africa. People have to see the effects of not having clean water or adequate energy. How can you expect people to learn to read when it gets dark and they don’t have electricity? All of these sectors matter. The practical approach is very useful because we must always ask ourselves: “What are the results? How does it work out in the field? And, in reality, what has changed or is going to change?” I think this type of questioning is essential.
On presiding over the sixtieth Assembly session
I certainly believe in the ideals of the United Nations. I’m very grateful to have been given this opportunity and I will fulfil it with humility, with the values that I have acquired from my native country and with the experiences that I have had out in the world. Much of my time has been spent abroad. I have dealt with international mediation in war-torn countries and I have tackled issues in negotiations in New York. I have most recently spent five years in Washington, D.C. as my country’s Ambassador to the United States, whose involvement in international affairs is so crucial.
If I could take with me these experiences and principles that I believe in and use them here, together with my great colleagues and international staff (among Member States and the UN Secretariat), then I would indeed be blessed. I will devote my next year to the United Nations and hope that I can contribute a little bit to this test of multilateralism in an honest and good way. |
Go Back Top
|
|
Print 
