Can Pakistan live with a U.N. Chief from India?

Thalif Deen, Inter Press Service

UNITED NATIONS: India's formal announcement of its candidate for the next U.N. secretary-general has threatened to trigger a nomination from neighbouring Pakistan possibly turning the race into an all-too-familiar Indo-Pakistan political battle in the world body.

Ambassador Munir Akram of Pakistan told reporters last week that the announcement of his country's own candidate, if any, will come only from Islamabad. But he was not willing to give credence to any of the names floating around at the United Nations.

How would Pakistan, a country that has fought three wars with its neighbour, perceive an Indian candidate for secretary-general in an institution where the two countries are occasionally at political loggerheads? Pakistan has been, and remains, one of the leading campaigners against any proposal to grant a permanent seat to India in the 15-member U.N. Security Council.

As the two South Asian countries test their political wills over the proposed expansion of the Security Council, India changed the dynamics of the secretary-general's race last week by formally nominating Shashi Tharoor, U.N.

Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, as its candidate for the much sought-after job. The post falls vacant in December 31 when incumbent Kofi Annan finishes his 10-year, two-term tenure.

Tharoor's nomination has raised several political questions crying out for answers: Is the United Nations ready for a secretary-general from a big power, nuclear-armed nation? Will Tharoor be perceived as a product of a 'corrupt' U.N. system which has been under fire recently for mismanagement and malfeasance? How will China, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, react to a candidate from India, a country that has become increasingly close to the United States as a political counterweight to Beijing?

Asked if his nomination is in violation of a time-honoured tradition that no U.N. secretary-general should come from any of the big power nations, Tharoor said: 'Clearly this is not my understanding or New Delhi's understanding of the tradition.'

"The understanding we always had and certainly I had during my time at the United Nations is that the convention was that none of the P5 members (the five permanent members of the Security Council, namely the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia) should put forward a candidate for secretary-general for the very simple reason that it would be unjust for any one country to have both the power to initiate action through the secretary-general and the power stop action through the veto." And therefore, he said, it was widely understood that the permanent members, who after all possess vetoes, should not be in that position.

"Having said that, when it comes to countries of a certain size, we already had a secretary-general from Egypt (Boutros Boutros-Ghali), which certainly is a significant country in the world, and therefore it did not appear either to myself, as an Indian national, or for the Indian government, that this was not much of an issue."

In an interview with IPS, Tharoor also responded to several other questions relating to his nomination. Excerpts follow.

IPS: At a political level, there are reports that Pakistan may field a candidate primarily in the role of a "spoiler" because it may not be able to live with the U.N. secretary general from India. What are your thoughts on this?

ST: Firstly, every country wishing to field a candidate should be encouraged to do so, because in my view the world needs as broad a choice as possible. This is an important job, and if we are to look for candidates principally from Asia, the fact is that there is room certainly for more candidates to emerge from a continent with over three billion people. So I have no particular difficulty with that.

As to whether or not Pakistan can live with a candidate from India, that is for Pakistan to determine. But I would only say two things: One, is that I would certainly hope, that over my 28 years at the U.N., I have demonstrated, proud though I am of being who I am from India, that I am also an international civil servant, that I have conducted myself according to the rules and standards of the international civil service. But in addition, if I may make a second point, that India has a longstanding tradition of respecting the independence of the civil service - whether the national or the international civil service.

Just as in our country the bureaucracy is traditionally non-political and independent of any political affiliation, governments of India have traditionally respected the fact that U.N. officials are independent of any allegiance to the home governments.

Throughout my 28 years in the U.N., I have never been asked by the government of India to do anything for the government nor indeed have any attempts been made to either seek or impart information or instructions from the government. So, I see myself as someone accountable to all 191 member states, and not to just any one.

IPS: Some of the diplomats at the U.N. seem to think that China remains the unknown factor. But you have maintained good relations with China even to the point of barring Taiwanese journalists from coming into the U.N. building last year which is a plus point. But do you still think that at a political level, China wouldn't mind having an Indian as secretary-general?

ST: I think you have to ask China that question.

IPS: Would there be a conflict of interest for you to run for the office of the secretary-general while remaining an U.N. official? And there have been questions at U.N. press briefings that even before the official announcement of your candidature, you may have been on a campaign trail on U.N. time. Any truth to these allegations?

ST: No. I think the conflict of interest will only arise if I was doing something against the interests of the organisation that I serve. Whereas, both my current work and my aspirations are to strengthen the institution in which I serve. So, I don't see a conflict of interest.

Secondly, it is not accurate to state that there were no declared candidates (who were U.N. officials and who ran for the secretary-general's office previously).

Certainly, as you may well remember, in the cases of at least two under-secretaries-general Mr. James Jonah (in 1991) and Mr. Annan (1996) the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) placed their names on the list which was officially submitted to the president of the Security Council for discussion.

That is exactly the same procedure as being a declared candidate, as is being followed now. I therefore do not seek any lack of precedent for what I am doing.

IPS: So, they continued to work while running for office?

ST: Yes, in both cases, I must say they continued to work full-heartedly and with commitment to the organization which is exactly what I am doing. I intend to follow the established precedents to stay on and do my job with professionalism, conviction and integrity.

I have no doubt that there will be those who will be watching my every move to ensure that I don't "abuse" my position, and indeed people have been doing that for as long as I have been in the public eye. No U.N. resources have been or will be spent in the furtherance of my candidacy. I might add that, far from seeing my position as an advantage, I believe it imposes far more constraints on me than on any of the other candidates (Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka; Thailand's Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai and South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon).

I am not aware of any similar suggestions from journalists urging any of the other candidates, all of whom also hold positions paid for by taxpayers, to step down. I am sure they are doing their respective jobs, and fulfilling the responsibilities which they are employed to fulfill, while pursuing their aspirations. I shall strive to do the same.

IPS: Perhaps in the eyes of U.S. right-wing neo-conservatives, your longstanding personal and professional relationship with Kofi Annan may go against you because you may be viewed as one of Annan's "cronies". Will you expect any negative fallout from your relationship with the secretary-general?

ST: Well, I don't think either he or I would describe our relationship as being that of a "crony" (laughs). He has been my boss for many years. In my view, he has been an extremely effective and impressive secretary-general. He has done a great deal for the organisation.

I am very proud to be associated with his accomplishments. And if people judge that negatively, I feel sorry for their judgment. As far as I am concerned, however, both he and I would say, we are different people. And that if I am to be judged either positively or negatively, it should be for my own abilities or lack thereof, rather than anybody's else.

IPS: Your fast-track promotion from a director (D-2) to an under-secretary-general which was rare in the U.N. system has been viewed by some as Annan's attempt to "groom" you for the job of secretary-general. Any comments?

ST: First, you seem to be overlooking the year and a half I spent as interim head of the department of public information, at level of assistant secretary-general. I certainly had to earn my spurs between January 2001 and June 2002 before being appointed as USG. Second, Kofi Annan has quite properly stayed out of the fray of the succession race and has throughout been scrupulously neutral amongst the candidates.

I have learned a great deal from working with him but neither of us would consider that any "grooming" has taken place. We are different people and I am sure I will make my own mistakes!