The Chronicle INTERVIEW.

The president of the fifty-fourth session of the United Nations General Assembly, Dr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, is Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Namibia, a post he has held since his country became independent on 21 March 1990, and is regarded as one of the founding fathers of the Republic.

Dr. Gurirab served for 14 years as the South West Africa People's Organization's (SWAPO) Chief Representative to the United Nations and later as its Permanent Observer. From 1986 to 1990, 4e was its Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

Russell Taylor of the UN Chronicle spoke with Dr. Gurirab on the phone at his residence in Namibia on 30 July.

Excellency, you will be presiding over the first session of the General Assembly [GA] to straddle two millennia. What do you see as some of the major challenges before this fifty-fourth session?

We will reach the crossroads of the old and the new millennia, but the world will not really have changed much. There will still be old problems, and the new millennium will come with new challenges. The world we have is one of industrialized countries and developing countries, of rich countries and poor countries, of small countries and big countries, of those who have power and those who do not, of those who have capital and technology and those who need them but have different priorities.

I see the United Nations, in spite of all that, as an effective catalyst. Where it is not effective, it is not because of the institution; it is because of the shortcomings of the Member States. The UN is still a force for social change. It must spearhead a worldwide campaign to reach the poor and the needy, the neglected, those who live in developing countries, and instil in them hope for the future, empower them to do things for themselves, and mobilize and deliver resources to them. I see a world in which, on top of poverty and backwardness, AIDS and crime are increasingly destroying the lives of youth, children, even babies. That is one of the major challenges now facing the UN--and obviously the situation may go from bad to worse in the future.

In light of globalization, how do you feel developing countries can best represent their interests and future?

There is an imperative for unity and solidarity. That is where the Non-Aligned Movement comes in. That is where the G-77 (Group of 77) and China come in. We are seeing, increasingly of late, efforts being made by developing countries, member States of NAM, to establish synergies and linkages to consolidate their position in dealing with globalization. Globalization has come; it is here to stay; it is a force to be reckoned with. But it is my view that if globalization is going to be the decisive factor in the emerging world order, it must have a human face, it must be about empowerment for the people, it must be about transparency and democracy. And I hope, therefore, that it has strengthened enough countries in the coordination of their policies and their negotiating positions in a way that also strengthens their efforts to make a difference in what globalization becomes in the future.

Some felt in the past that democracy, human rights and good governance were used as a rationale by developed countries to get involved in the internal affairs of developing countries. Recently, your contribution to the promotion of human rights, peace and development in Namibia was recognized by the World Association of former United Nations Interns and Fellows. Have attitudes changed?

Foreign interference and intervention are phenomena that have been a part of life for centuries. Coming out of the background of a long struggle for the political independence of my country, I personally believe that that struggle and those preceding it were actually about human rights, political freedom, democracy, the rule of law and good governance. Our human rights were not recognized and there was no democracy. Even those colonial powers that practiced and lived by democracy in the old country did not think of it when they were dealing with their colonies and people outside of their immediate neighbourhood. In the truest sense of the word, we, from the developing countries, the former colonies, the victims of Europe and America, are the champions of these noble, universal ideas. I subscribe wholly to all of them. It does not mean that we should be defensive when fingers are pointed at those countries and leaders who are practicing dictatorships, who have corrupt governments, who do not think about the w ell-being of the people, while enriching themselves and neglecting the development of their countries.

I have a balanced view about it. Yes, there are good reasons to be wary about those who only talk about these ideas, but do not put their money where their mouths are when it comes to poverty reduction, education, health, housing, rural development and skills training. I welcome criticism where it is valid, but I also would point out hypocrisy and that these countries should not concentrate only on democracy and good government. People do not eat ballot papers; they eat bread. The approaches must be balanced.

As we head into the next century, there are still people in the world who don't live all that much differently from their forebears a hundred years ago. What should the UN's and the GA'S role be in bridging this persistent gap?

It is a question of focus and implementation. Beginning with the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 up through the Habitat Summit in Istanbul in 1996, the UN and its family organized a number of major summits and spent a lot of money bringing together experts, leaders and others to debate social issues of immediate concern to the human race. But the recommendations that came out by them are just sitting.

I will be presiding over some of the follow-up special sessions [to these meetings]. If attention were to be paid by Member States and the international community to the recommendations made then, if those agendas, including Agenda 21 that came out of the Rio Summit, were implemented, it would go a long way towards addressing the needs of the people. United Nations leaders--the Secretary-General, the Presidents of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council, the Directors-General of UN specialized agencies and others--could do a lot to sensitize the private sector. I was very much encouraged by the initiative taken a couple of years ago by Ted Turner of CNN: both by his actions and his challenge to other corporate executives to assist the United Nations. The private sector can play a role in fields like the financing of development, poverty reduction, human resource development and so on. It is a question of political will on the part of the Member States, the leaders and p olicy makers and of United Nations activism contributing towards finding solutions.

You alluded earlier to criticism of the UN in certain areas of its focus, including in local and regional conflicts. Do you feel that criticism is justified?

The United Nations, as I said earlier, is a creature of sovereign States. It is not a world government. It can only do those things that Member States enable it to do. When you talk about conflicts, are they local conflicts within the jurisdiction of the State or are regional conflicts that involve more than one State?

So, it becomes difficult for the UN, [even] with the best of intentions, to be effective. There are examples, like Somalia: the initial start was welcomed and embraced by everybody, but when the going got tough and people died, the UN was put out in disgrace. Very often, UN peacemakers and peacekeepers, who are sent in to help, are killed-often in order to chase them out-or they die by accident, caught in crossfire. But they are noble peacekeepers, peacemakers. It is the leaders, the power grabbers, that start local and regional conflicts, and unless they are persuaded that their interests can also be served by peaceful means through negotiations and dialogue, they will continue to rely on the gun as the best way to realize their objectives. The United Nations mandates UN involvement in conflict situations: the Security Council is very often held up in terms of its peacemaking by different factors-be they political, ideological or particular interests-and this can cause UN efforts to be ineffective. There ar e situations in which the UN has not been up to par-I can think of Angola. It was a shame, a disgrace, an embarrassment that, in the face of such a large UN presence, Jonas Savimbi was able to rearm himself to the extent that he did. He was conducting a lucrative business in the illicit diamond trade and was able to import into Angola tanks and heavy, long-range artillery. He was not detected and has forces deployed throughout the country. And now, he is almost invincible in terms of the power that he has.

There are instances like that, but there are other success stories, such as Namibia.

Given that Namibia is also a current non-permanent member of the Security Council, what should the role of the Assembly be in furthering the Council reform process?

It is good that the whole of the UN membership is now talking about UN reform, restructuring, democratization and so on. I see the ongoing efforts of the working groups on reform being carried forward, in and around the General Assembly. The UN, when all is said and done, should be a democratic institution representing the aspirations of all its Member States. For the time being, negotiations have been on hiatus, but they will be reactivated and carried forward. There is anxiety on the part of some countries that insist that we should proceed with those areas of reform that have achieved consensus and implement them, and continue to work on others that have not as yet achieved consensus, broadly speaking. It is, as they would put it, foot-dragging on one side and an urgency to proceed on the other-something which others have called an inclination towards the quick fix. I believe these discussions and negotiations should continue until all Member States are confident that all the pieces are in place. It is a question of compromise and flexibility to produce a product that we can all embrace as something we have really been working for, collectively or separately. But we are not there yet.

Looking back at the United Nations involvement in Namibia, including the United Nations Transition Assistance Group [UNTAG], what do you fell in that respect were the Organization's achievements and its deficiencies?

Well, my association with the UN started actually as a UN Fellow--you referred to it earlier--as a petitioner way back in the sixties, then continued as SWAPO's Chief Representative and later as its Permanent Observer, its Foreign Secretary, and now as Namibia's Foreign Minister. It is a long-standing association.

UNTAG succeeded in Namibia because the Namibian people, regardless of their political differences, were ready for it. They saw it as a midwife to assist the birth of an independent nation. SWAPO, which was one of the most decisive players in that transition, played a constructive role. They assisted in the transition, in the implementation of resolution 435 [of 1978, which established the plan for Namibian independence], in the holding of elections and so on.

The shortcomings of the UN, apart from the personalities involved as leaders, had to do with a decision taken at the UN that resulted in subordinating the UN, which had assumed direct legal responsibility over Namibia and which had declared South Africa's presence in Namibia as being illegal. In the end, the UN's position, its authority, its power in Namibia was subordinated to that of the Administrator General who represented South Africa here in Namibia. In that sense, UNTAG was almost a referee rather than really the one that not only supervised but actually controlled the process. But, even noting that, the end was achieved satisfactorily, elections were free and fair, and they led to the constitution-making and the independence of the Republic of Namibia. On balance, it is perhaps the shiniest of all UN operations.

What did the United Nations mean to the Namibian people, in particular, when the Organization was the legal administrating authority but without access to the territory? And were UN activities at the time helpful?

Way back in 1946, the South African Government sought annex Namibia. Some Anglican churchmen, then UN Member States got together, protested and succeeded in preventing South Africa from doing that. There was therefore an awareness among Namibians of the United Nations: even if we didn't understand fully what it was all about, it was good to know that they were there to help us. Then, when we started petitioning the UN, we could talk, we could meet, and we could get an understanding of the system. The media encounters helped to introduce SWAPO leaders and other Namibians to decision makers, opinion makers, members of parliament, NGOs [non-governmental organizations] and so on.

But in terms of what the United Nations did for the Namibian people in subsequent years, let's say from 1966 onwards: first of all, the establishment of the United Nations Council for Namibia helped with the termination of South Africa's mandate over Namibia. Under the auspices of the Council, the UN Commissioner for Namibia and the United Nations did quite a number of things. They gave scholarships to Namibians who were craving an education in different countries: many were able to get an education once they had crossed into neighbouring countries and the UN could reach them through their local offices or by way of correspondence. That was great. Also, through the Council for Namibia and the specialized agencies, the UN provided humanitarian assistance to Namibians in exile by way of projects and programmes. It also helped in legitimizing the struggle of the Namibian people, and also the personality of the country.

The Office of the Commissioner, starting in 1968, issued UN identity and travel documents to Namibians. We were then able to travel not as refugees but as Namibians with the UN emblem on these identity documents. It was our passport. It identified us as Namibians, not faceless refugees. And we went around, through the Office of the Council for Namibia, to appeal to Member States to recognize this document. That was very important. The UN, through the Council, also carried out consultation missions to different countries beyond Africa to mobilize support and to introduce Namibians; I was the person then-- others came on later--to say, this is their cause; it has become the United Nations cause: support them.

We had a very active, imaginative Commissioner for Namibia in the person of the late Dr.Sean McBride[of Ireland]. He started a programme of legislating, through decrees adopted by the Council for Namibia and endorsed b the General Assembly. One of the more famous was the decree on the protection of the natural resources of Namibia.

Under its power and authority; countries that were in violation--South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia--or were engaging in business deals with South Africa were, so to speak, "blacklisted" and held accountable in the reports the Council submitted to the General Assembly.

Without the Council for Namibia and the General Assembly, I would not have been able to maintain the effective presence that I did in New York. The United Nations funded the SWAPO office to ensure effective representation of the Namibian people at the UN. I participated in the work of the Council on equal footing with the representatives of sovereign States. Lastly, the reports from the Council, in which I had a lot of input, were transmitted to the General Assembly for endorsement, complete with resolutions that specifically addressed the needs of the Namibian people. Step by step, we were also able to get assistance from the UN to people whom we were able to invite to attend different meetings. These allowed us the opportunity to consult on strategies for the struggle.

The struggle in Namibia was between oppressor and oppressed, but what are some of the special dangers inter-ethnic conflicts impose on Africa and elsewhere?

Yes, the struggle in Namibia was an anti-colonial struggle with the oppressor--with the apartheid regime and the apartheid system on the one hand, and the Namibian people on the other who, with SWAPO, freed themselves and achieved independence. Of late, in Africa, as in the world, we no longer see those classical kinds of colonial struggles; exceptions are perhaps Western Sahara and East Timor.

Now, we are seeing that existing conflicts in Africa have the character or trappings of ethnic tension or clashes. They are destabilizing societies where they take place, and have obviously spillover effects into neighbouring countries. This is more dangerous in Africa because the boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, disregarding the tribes, the muons. In cases where several countries have contingent borders, one nation, one tribe may be divided among an English-speaking country, a French-speaking country; a Portuguese-speaking country and a Spanish-speaking country Once you have ethnic tribal conflict in one, then that tribe, that nation, that is also resident in the neighbouring countries is more likely to offer support, even without being asked. They would feel duty bound: "Our people have been slaughtered next door, so let's go in." Next you realize that what was an internal conflict has developed into an interstate one. The worst case today is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but what is unravelin g in Eastern Europe is yet another dangerous example, and so it can go in Asia and Latin America. What is happening today in Europe, which is so highly developed, does not augur well for the future. Local, ethnic-inspired conflicts and regional conflicts based on ethnic rivalries are the greatest danger facing us for the remainder of this century; this millennium, and certainly into the greater part of the 21st century. It is sad, but it's true.

What do you see personally as the main accomplishments of Namibia? What are some of the pitfalls that it still faces?

It will be a big day and one of many thanksgivings--to all powers that we know beyond us. And we would be so ever conscious of where we were 10 years ago: the terrible war that we were dragged into, the untold suffering of our people, the sacrifices made by so many of our people who are buried under unmarked graves in the battlefields in and beyond Namibia. We think of them. Thanksgiving would not be about the peaceful lives that we are enjoying--I don't think that it will be that between now and next year--but about having come together as a people. Divided along racial lines, every effort was made by the apartheid regime to divide us also along ethnic, tribal lines. We were able to defeat their objectives. In the struggle for a united, independent country, our Government adopted a policy of national reconciliation. So much harm was done to the social fabric of our nation. We were turned against one another--some fighting as members of the liberation movement, SWAPO, and others being conscripted into doing the fighting and dying for the illegal occupationist regime. We recognize that we are all Namibians, that we must be united. We cannot forget what happened in the past, but we must forgive one another and work together to better the lives of our people.

And we have succeeded. We enjoy peace and stability. We have not been as successful as we wish, in spite of all the hard work and best efforts being made to achieve greater economic growth and productivity. We are still working at it. It's a terrible, many-headed beast, the economy. You smash one head but another one remains.

We are very much determined, yet we realize that all the efforts that we are making towards greater prosperity, wealth creation and sustainable development in Namibia cannot even begin to unfold if we do not consolidate peace and stability. We think of ourselves not only as heroic freedom fighters, but also as equally heroic peacemakers and builders of a new nation.

You count as friends two Goodwill Ambassadors of the United Nations Development Programme--American actor Danny Glover and South African writer and Nobel Laureate Nadine Gordimer. Is the role of such ambassadors effective?

There are many others. Harry Belafonte, for example. They are great human beings; I would like to count them all among my friends. Yes, they play a crucial role on two fronts. In the first place, the UN is an organization of sovereign States, but the Preamble to the Charter speaks in terms of "we the people", and the idea behind appointing these kinds of personalities is to allow them to be able to reach ordinary people. They go to remote parts of countries and meet people in rural areas. That does two things, to my mind. One is to embrace these people, give them hope, but also to let them know "the United Nations cares, the world cares about your plight. And I and here to let you know that we are trying to do something about it. We know that you are hard at work to pull yourself out of a predicament, and we are trying to mobilize support for you; to help you to achieve that."

Secondly, when they leave a telephone message on the table of a Head of State or the executive of a corporation, their name is recognized and they are therefore able to meet with decision-makers to tell them, "I have found XYZ in the following countries. You can do something about it." They become the spokespersons of ordinary people and that is the role of these individuals. What matter is to help mobilize support and resources for these people who are languishing in poverty.