Secretary-General's interview with Abderrahman Al-Rashed, Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al Awsat and host of "Saat Siyassa" Lebanese Future TV [use of this transcript must be attributed to Asharq Al Awsat/Future TV] (unofficial transcript)

SG: As you know, the UN has been working with its other partners in the Quartet to develop the road map and now we are working together to ensure its effective implementation. We are all very encouraged by President Bush's initiative at Aqaba to bring the two Prime Ministers together, to discuss with them how we can move forward with this implementation. I hope next Sunday the Quartet, speaking with one voice on behalf of the international community, will be able to send a message that the US, the United Nations, the European Union, and the Russian Federation are all supporting the peace process and are determined to push ahead and work with the parties on the implementation of the road map.

Q: Well, the Arabs have always asked for the UN to be part of the negotiations. It has not been (participating) for a long time. Why this time suddenly the UN is part of it? Is it the Arab side, or is it a new formula for the Middle East?

SG: I think my own involvement began when I took office. You may recall that I was at the last Sharm-El-Sheik meeting with President Clinton and President Mubarak –on the Middle East –and with Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Barak, and at that point we were all very hopeful that we would be able to make real progress in the peace effort and get an agreement. Of course, that eluded us, but then out of that, grew the Quartet, and I have been a member of the Quartet right from the beginning, and in a way, as Secretary-General of the UN, it is important that the UN plays a role and I will be participating in this meeting and we've been involved all along and I have a resident envoy, Mr. Larsen in the region. He's the only resident envoy on the ground. The Quartet have other envoys who operate from outside and go in periodically. But he is fully engaged, dealing with the two parties and sending reports to me, and working with the other envoys of the Quartet.

Q: Your Excellency, you came up with the idea for a peacekeeping force. I'm not going to say this is something new but this is something controversial obviously. The Israelis, from the comments we have been seeing now, they are not in favor. Can you explain to me: first, how is it going to work, is it going to be through separation or is it just a part of the process to start?

SG: As you know, the road map contains a monitoring mechanism. A monitoring mechanism to ensure that both parties live up to the commitments they have accepted under the plan of the road map. The Americans have sent in Assistant Secretary of State (John) Wolf with ten, twelve people to begin the monitoring process. If the parties were to be able to break the cycle of violence, and begin to cooperate in implementing the road map, and making parallel steps to really move forward to the implementation, then we will perhaps not need to take other initiatives. But if the violence continued, and we were to come to the conclusion that the two parties cannot stop the violence, and of course with the continuous violence and the rate at which it had escalated a week ago, we couldn't make real progress on the peace process.

We tried to get the parties to remain engaged, that once they have made the strategic choice for peace, not to allow the extremists to derail the process, but there may come a time that it may be necessary to put down an international force to help calm the situation, to give the parties a chance to continue the process, and at the same time also use their presence to accelerate the strengthening of the security forces for the Palestinian Authority so that they can assume their responsibilities for security much better than the capacity they have today. This is not the first time the international community has done this. Obviously it will require the cooperation of both parties, and it will have to be part of a package of measures for it to happen. So I would see it as part of the implementation effort in some cases to calm the situation and give the protagonists time and space to pursue their negotiations. It may also be that if we were to reach an agreement, one would need some presence to monitor the agreement.

Q: Well, critics say that it's a good idea, but on the ground it does not work. They cited Rwanda and Srebrenica as examples of failures. What is the difference now between Rwanda, Srebrenica and the West Bank, and Gaza, as well?

SG: I'm sorry they're making selective choices as to peacekeeping operations and peacekeeping experiences. I would remind them about Cyprus. The UN forces have been there and we've had peace on the ground for many decades, whilst we continue the negotiations, and in fact I thought we came very close earlier this year –(but) it didn't work. A similar situation in Western Sahara: we put in the forces and there has been no fighting. I think obviously it's a difficult situation on the ground. Each situation has to be treated on its own, and one will have to look at critically at the situation on the ground and the timing as to when they go in, and, as I have indicated, with the cooperation and support of the two parties.

Q: One more question in comparison: What about your experience in South Lebanon? Because it was painful, it was a problem the Israelis in some cases did not really listen to the monitors or agree to your conditions on the ground.

SG: But I think even there the UN did make a difference. There were tensions, there were flare-ups at times, but the UN was able to help the parties and continue to monitor and do its work, and monitor the withdrawal of the Israeli forces, under resolution 425, and since then the border has been relatively quiet. There have been incidents, but it's nothing like it was before. I consider the UN force in Lebanon a success story in the end.

Q: Now, we're talking about the West Bank and Gaza. What happened to Syria, Lebanon, completely forgotten in the process?

SG: No, it's not forgotten in the process. In fact, we in this organization have always maintained that we need a comprehensive and just peace in the region, and in the Quartet we do mention the need to tackle the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. For obvious reasons we are concentrating on the Palestinian-Israeli front at the moment, but the other tracks have not been forgotten. They are an essential part of the international agenda.

Q: One more question about the peace process. Haven't the Russians and the Europeans –of course, not to forget the UN –involved with the Americans, they've just had a bloody fight in the Security Council, they couldn't agree on Iraq. How come now they're going to agree on a more complicated case like the Arab-Israeli struggle?

SG: Yes, the Council could not agree on Iraq. There were divisions, but the Council had also, before then, agreed on all sorts of issues. The Council unanimously agreed on the fight against terrorism. The Council unanimously agreed on sending the inspectors back to Iraq. The Council has taken many unanimous decisions, and it is normal that they not agree at certain moments, but by and large the Council works quite well. In fact the Council issued a statement supporting the Quartet and its efforts only two days ago, and I think that was extremely important. I think there will be agreement. There is general support for the peace process in the Middle East, and besides, everyone is a partner. The European Union is there, the US is there, the Russian Federation, and I representing the international community. So in a way, the whole community is committed to the process, and I don't think you're going to see disagreements in the Council on this issue.

Q: Iraq. Obviously it is still the issue. People will accuse you that the UN has ignored the Iraqi issue since the invasion and the occupation. The Americans have failed so far to set up a civilian administration, the military force is not yet a solution in Baghdad, as we see it. Where is it going from here, at least from your point of view?

SG: I don't think it is correct to say that the UN has ignored Iraq since the war. The UN has passed resolution 1483 that gave us legal basis for action in Iraq, and I have a very good Special Representative -- Sergio Vieira de Mello –who is on the ground now, working with the Iraqis and also with the occupying power. He is now in the process of talking to as many Iraqis as possible, and traveling to every region to assess the situation for himself and to determine and advise me on how best the UN can help Iraqis form a new government –working with the coalition, of course –and take charge of their own destiny. You will recall that during the debate on the future of Iraq, and in the resolution there were several essential principles which the members agreed on: the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Iraq must be respected, the Iraqis must be in charge of their political future and they must control their natural resources. All these, I think, will have to be respected. Obviously, the occupying power –the coalition –is responsible under the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulation for effective administration of the territory and also for promoting the welfare of the Iraqi people.

The UN has a role particularly in the humanitarian area. We are responsible, and it's going quite well, and we're going to assist in the political process, human rights, reconstruction, and in fact next week we're going to have the preparatory conference here on the reconstruction process for Iraq in addition to a humanitarian appeal we'll be making next week. Yes, security is a serious problem in Iraq today, and every effort is being made to contain it, and policing is not a job for soldiers. They are not trained for that and sometimes it's very difficult, but I hope one will be able to bring the situation under control as much as possible, so we consider security important, because we have to create a secure environment for all the wonderful things that one has promised Iraq to happen.

Whether it is reconstruction, whether it is economic development, whether it is opening up the society for a free, organized and open democratic process, you need that for it to happen, so in our discussions with the authorities we have raised it, and I know they are trying their best to try and calm the environment and stabilize the situation.

Q: Besides these issues, the issue which matters nowadays is what will happen next, will the Americans consult with you in setting up a new Iraqi government or political system? We haven't heard anything about a political system to be installed in Baghdad.

SG: I think there are serious discussions going on between the coalition authority and the Iraqis, and of course my envoy, Sergio de Mello is talking to them about them, and under the resolution, the UN has to work with the coalition and the Iraqis to establish a new government. I would hope that soon the coalition authority would put out a road map. I'm using that term -- road map –again, to give the Iraqis a sense of where things are heading and a clear determination that power is going to be handed over to them and they will be in charge of their own political future, their economic welfare, and give a time-frame as to when this is likely to be done. And I think that when that is done the Iraqis will understand that the occupation is not a permanent state, but a temporary and a transient one.

Q: What is temporary? Is it one year, two years?

SG: That is difficult for me to say because it's not something that the UN is in charge of handling alone. We are assisting the process and I think this is something that will come out of the consultations and the discussions taking place on the ground, and I will meet my special envoy in Amman this weekend where he will give me a face-to-face briefing on developments on the ground.

Q: Today, it's Iraq. Tomorrow it seems it's going to be Iran. In Iran we have a similar conflict now. The Americans insist on inspecting the nuclear facilities in Iran. The Iranians are not saying yes completely yet. What is the UN, the Security Council going to do about it? Are we going to go through the same scenario like Iraq?

SG: I think this is an issue that is before the IAEA board and Dr. (Mohamed) El Baradei and his board are working very actively on this. He has been to Iran himself, and there are indications that the Iranians will cooperate, and I hope they will cooperate fully with the Atomic Agency and sign the additional protocol to come into line with international requirements, and I think we should let the Atomic Agency to do its work and it will be up to them to determine what they will do and whether they refer it to the Security Council. As far as what is happening in Iran, I have seen it on television, I've been reading the reports, and following what is happening. Some have talked of regime change in Iran. I think that regime change is a matter for the Iranian people to determine their type of government and how their society is run, but of course these days everybody claims to rule by democratic principles. I hope that the rights and the interests of the young people who have been demonstrating be protected, but any regime change is for the Iranian population to decide.

Q: Are you talking here about President Bush's remarks for the Iranian people to demonstrate against their own government, and even change the regime?

SG: I read the President's statement, and also what the Secretary of State said, but as I've indicated, any change of government or change of regime should be the responsibility of the Iranian people.

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, how do you evaluate the conflict between Iran and the US? Is it alarming or do you think it can be solved at a lower level?

SG: I hope it can be contained. Because we have a very good example of the US and Iran working very well together and cooperating. We saw this cooperation with regard to Afghanistan, during our work in Bonn when (Lakhdar) Brahimi helped them organize a Loya Jirga in Bonn, leading to the formation of a transitional government in Afghanistan, and since then there has been very good cooperation between the US and Iran, and I hope that this kind of cooperation can be expanded to other areas, and I think I would like to see that happen.

Q: You mentioned Afghanistan. The UN is working there, some European governments also. Still, the so-called legitimate government controls only Kabul. Where is legitimacy in this case? How can the UN fix a situation like that?

SG: The situation in Afghanistan is of great concern, and we are worried about security. My Special Representative, Mr. Brahimi has time and time again –and myself –pleaded with the international community to do more to ensure security in Afghanistan. I think ideally one would be using national institutions, the Afghan army and Afghan police. These do not exist. They are being trained and it's going to take time. If it were possible, we would want to see expanded international presence beyond Kabul to make a difference in the country.

We're going to be coming up with the issue of constitution and its approval, and possibly national elections next year, and this is going to be a difficult and tense period that is going to need additional resources to ensure that the environment is calm for the political programme that has been established. We have appealed to those countries with capacity to really improve their military and security contributions to Afghanistan and will continue to do that.

And of course the other thing that worries us is the power of the warlords. What measures are going to be taken to curtail their influence? What measures are going to be taken to ensure that they will subject themselves to the authority of the central government? There is only one government, not many governments in Afghanistan. So these are some of the challenges ahead, but here again the international community has a lot to do. We did make promises to Afghanistan, we did make promises when we had the donor conference in Tokyo, and these have to be fulfilled.

Q: But seeing Afghanistan, Iran, and obviously Iraq, and we'll talk about other areas later, people are quite concerned that the UN is becoming mostly, if not dominated, at least influenced by one superpower during your time, in the late nineties, and now. How can you see the role for the UN to comfort these countries in the region? Syria is worried, the Iranians are worried, and some other nations in the region.

SG: Let me say that we all have to admit that there is one superpower in this world today and that is the US, with considerable influence around the world. It has influence in this organization, but there are other countries who also have influence, and not just the big powers, even the smaller ones, they have a vote. I think we saw this on the discussions on Iraq, where the coalition could not get the support of the Council to declare war on Iraq. Of course, the war did happen without a Council authorization but the Security Council and its members took their responsibilities very seriously and debated this issue for weeks before the war erupted. I think what is important is for us to understand that we need to cooperate together.

When you look back into history -- and I've always maintained that for one to have vision, one must have a sense of history -- if you look at the twentieth century, the first half saw two world wars which almost devastated the world. The second half was much better organized because at the end of World War II visionary leaders came up with a system of international cooperation and security arrangements: many international organizations with specific responsibilities, with the UN at its center, to ensure that governments can cooperate, nations can cooperate without necessarily resorting to war, as transpired in the first half of the twentieth century. I think it is still possible for us to build on what we have.

Obviously we may want to ask questions if the current international security system is adequate, if we have the kind of international cooperation we want to see, or we need to strengthen it or introduce new mechanisms to make cooperation more effective, but I think the UN is essential for our world today. You refer to Syria: I don't see any intention either in Washington or elsewhere to extend what happened in Iraq to Syria and there is a dialogue with them and I cannot see how we can keep on taking the kind of military actions that you imply. Yes, we've had Afghanistan, but there were specific reasons for Afghanistan. Iraq has happened and you know the history and what happened in this organization, where the Council had not supported the war and has led to many divisions which we are now trying to heal. I think the member states are coming together and I think we're going to see improvement in their relationships because they have many important tasks ahead of them to tackle together, not least the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the other tracks on the Middle East issue, the issue of poverty, the fight against AIDS, the fight against terrorism, and nuclear non-proliferation, and health issues. All these could be tackled through cooperation. I think the member states understand this, including the big powers.

Q: Well, you did talk about the fight against AIDS and poverty, and obviously you did mention that from the beginning when you assumed responsibility about Africa being a forgotten –or abandoned, actually –continent, with the crises we see from AIDS to death, to wars, etc. Where is it now, since your promises?

SG: I think the African governments and African people feel neglected, they believe that the world tends to focus –or the big powers tend to focus, on one issue at a time. Today that issue is Iraq and it is done to the detriment of their own crisis, and we should not forget them. Each time I talk to them, they say “Make sure that Africa is not forgotten. We have genuine problems”. In a way, they are right. Many more people have been killed in Congo –3 million people –than in the war in Iraq. Many more people are dying of hunger in that region. AIDS is devastating the populations of many countries. It's a global problem, it's spreading very fast in Asia, in Eastern Europe and in the Caribbean.

These are major issues that as an international community we need to come together and work on, and I'm happy to say that these topics were very much part of the discussion at the G8 summit. There is an awareness that you cannot have a safer and peaceful world without doing anything about the inequities, which exist today. And that one will have to tackle these issues of poverty, AIDS, that drive people to desperation, and so hopefully this recognition will lead to action that will be sustained to help the people and the countries which are least fortunate.