Washington Straight Talk; Kurt Waldheim

From United Nations headquarters in New York City, Washington Straight Taw brings you a conversation with the man in the center of world problems which range from the Middle East and Cyprus to conflicts between the developing nations and the major power blocks. Tonight, on Washington Straight Talk, Kurt Waldheim, Secretary General of the United Nations since 1972, and former head of the Austrian Mission to the UN, is interviewed at the United Nations by Marilyn Berger, diplomatic correspondent for the Washington Post. Mr. Secretary General, last week the United States came to you and asked for your help in the peaceful release of the ship that the Cambodians captured. And what the United States said was an international sea lane. Can you tell us what you did?

Well, I received the American request for help last Wednesday around one o'clock in the afternoon. That was after the hostilities had started between the Cambodian gun boats and the United States Air Force. I did send immediately an appeal to both sides to the government in Cambodia and to the United States to refrain from further acts of force and to solve the problem peacefully. At the same time, I offered my help and my good offices. As for the rest, it's not up to me to comment you, no, the situation and therefore I don't think it's necessary. Did you receive any response from the Cambodians? Any indication that they were ready to give up the ship before the United States started its second military action, which was after the one where they downed a couple of patrol

boats? As I told you, when I made the appeal after having received the request from the US government, the hostilities had started already. Did you complain to the United States about starting hostilities at the same time they were asking for United Nations help? Well, these facts were well known. I was in contact, of course, with the mission here, with Ambassador Scali, but I think the facts are speaking for themselves. Does the fact that the United States initiated military action at the same time that it asked for help from you indicate a lack of faith in the ability of the United Nations to act? I wouldn't say so, but it is evident that the chances for our intervention to succeed were rather slim since this request was made rather late and the hostilities had started already.

It's always much more difficult to stop hostilities than to avoid them. Well, in your diplomatic way, are you saying the United States did not give you sufficient time to act? Well, I told you, I was asked around one o'clock, and that was about two hours after the fighting took place between the gun boats and the United States Air Force. And a few hours later, the major military operation started. So why did the United States bother to come to you at all? Well, it is not up to me to comment on this. In the same request, as you know, the letter was published, the United States government also referred to Article 51 of the Chart of the United Nations in regard to self-defense. Do you see that action as a protection of the freedom of the seas? Well, there are different views.

As you know, the Cambodian authorities are saying the incident took place within the territorial waters, whereas the United States government says this was outside the Cambodian territorial waters. And I think this is the basis for the conflict that the two sides had different views on the place where this incident happened. Do you see the recent events in Southeast Asia as indicating that the Domino theory was after all correct? I don't think that we can speak of Domino events. I think we have to see how things develop now before giving a clear-cut judgment on the future development in the area. I think it is simply premature to say, well, today, what will happen as a consequence of the events in China.

There's another very major trouble spot in the world, which makes the Cambodian incident appear to be a small footnote. And that is, of course, the Middle East, which has been a subject to the United Nations since the very beginning. What are the prospects in the Middle East when the UN forces expire in July? Well, I have to say that one of our forces in peacekeeping forces in the Middle East expired, or they are mandered, expired already at the end of this month, namely on the golden heights. That's expected to be renewed though, isn't it? Well, this is not definite yet. We have not yet received any formal information from the Syrian government that they are ready to consent to an extension of the mandat. I'm in contact with the Syrian government in this regard, and I try to clarify its position. But until now, no formal answer has been given to me.

I'm just now formulating the report to the Security Council, and I'm waiting for a clarification of this point. There are rumors that the mandat can, that Syria will agree to a limited extension, but no formal information has been received. If it were to agree, as I understand it, the two mandates, the one on the Egyptian front and the one on the Syrian front, would both expire at the same time in July. Do you think that would make war inevitable? It is correct that in this case, if Syria agrees to prolong the mandat by two months, it would then expire together with the Egyptian mandat end of July. But I do not think that if the mandat for the two forces were not extended, that would lead automatically to a new war in the Middle East.

I think that both sides are very interested to find an negotiated settlement. Of course, I can't tell you how long that we last, the situation remains very serious in the Middle East. There can be no doubt about this, but again, I do not feel that determination of a possible domination of the mandats for our peacekeeping forces will lead immediately to war. I still hope that the mandats will be prolonged, because, in my opinion, they are a very important factor in the peace-making process in the Middle East. Yes, the Geneva conference is under the umbrella of the United Nations. Do you have any idea when that will be resumed? Consultations are still going on in this regard, and therefore, I cannot tell you when the Geneva conference will be resumed, there is the possibility to have it resumed in the summer, but no date has been fixed until now.

Do you expect that there will be another unilateral United States effort that is similar to the Kissinger Shuttle diplomacy? I cannot speak for the United States government in this regard. I don't know what kind of intentions the government has in order to find a way out of the actual stalemate. I think two possibilities, we have two possibilities, the multilateral approach through the Geneva conference and direct bilateral efforts by individual governments like the United States. And I want to say that one doesn't exclude the other. You can have both at the same time, even. Yes, but do you feel it's possible any more to break off one part of the problem while ignoring other parts? I think a real peaceful solution, a lasting solution, can only be found through a global solution of the Middle East problem. Limited solutions can be helpful.

We have seen that in the past in connection with the disengagement agreements, but these are military agreements, but what we need in the Middle East is a global political settlement. There are many graved-outs, especially in Israel, about guarantees of a settlement, and there has been some proposals put forward to have the United States and the Soviet Union participate themselves in a UN peacekeeping force. What would be your view of that? Much will depend on the trust, how much confidence exists in this regard. The United Nations could certainly play a useful role in regard to any future guarantee agreement with or without the participation of the big powers. This is a question of confidence, and I think this is a very delicate subject because there is not enough confidence. This is one of the main problems we are faced with today. Not enough confidence between the Soviet Union and the United States, or in general, also between the parties directly concerned.

We see it every day. Yes, I was going to ask you whether this much-voted Soviet-American day-taught has made it easier to operate within the United Nations. In view of the fact that the charter was founded on the idea that the Soviet Union and the United States would work together, and then they immediately never did work together. Now we have a new process of day-taught. We have Secretary Kissinger meeting right now with Grameco in Vienna. I wanted to know if this has made any change whatsoever in what the United Nations has been able to do. Oh, yes. This has changed the picture in the United Nations considerably. Whereas in the first years after the war and after the creation of the United Nations, everything was more or less dominated by this East-West confrontation. This is not so anymore, and this is certainly helping us in our efforts. On the other hand, we have another confrontation between North and Thousand. This is, in my opinion, also a very grave problem, which has to be solved. Yes, during the last General Assembly, we saw the North-South problem, if you want

to call it that, very disruptive. And I think there were some actions taken in the General Assembly that were some of the illegal and some of them just what people have called the tyranny of the majority. And one week you had South Africa ousted from the General Assembly. You had the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat treated like a head of state. And you had Israel deprived of the right to speak. Are any actions being taken within the United Nations now? Are you taking any action to prevent this kind of thing from happening next time? Let me say here that the General Assembly is composed of sovereign states. It is not the organization is such which is making the decisions. It is the will of sovereign governments. Now, in regard to the examples you just mentioned, these were decisions of sovereign governments. And let me also say that there are no automatic majorities in the General Assembly. They are changing majorities, depending on the subject.

As far as the confrontation is concerned, I wish to say that we are very intensively engaged in a preparatory process for the next Assembly. For the special session and economic matters development problems. Yes, on that, what are they going to be doing in that special session on economic problems? Well, the question is the new economic order, a better relationship between the industrialized countries and the developing countries. Better for whom? For both sides. I always stress this point. Of course, the developing countries want better living conditions through a new economic order. Does that not mean a redistribution of wealth taking from the rich and giving to the poor? Well, it is not absolutely necessary. I think that what we really need is a genuine sincere cooperation between the two sides. Because the two sides need each other. The industrialized countries need the raw materials from the developing countries.

And vice versa, the developing countries need the products, the industrialized products of the industrialized countries. Yes, but certainly in the General Assembly, the have-nots are the people who have the votes. Is there anything being done to prevent them from passing resolutions that will just lower the currency of UN resolutions? Already, one here is that UN resolutions just don't mean anything. Well, this is one of the problems we have that resolutions are adopted which are then not implemented because a number of countries, in this case the industrialized countries, are not ready to support them and therefore the resolutions cannot be implemented. I think the resolutions contain principles. Now we have to try to establish a real sincere cooperation between the two sides so that some compromises can be worked out which will help us to overcome the actual stalemate in this regard.

Yes, they want a new economic order and I think Secretary Kissinger made a speech last week in which he said the old order is absolutely fine. We just have to make it work better. So he's put out the American position quite clearly and the Americans are still, even with its economic problems, the strongest industrialized country. Well, as far as I know, the Secretary of State has also indicated at the same time a number of concessions in regard to the old order. And let me add this, you cannot expect to create a better world if two-thirds of the human beings are living still today in misery and even starvation. So something has to be done in this regard, but I repeat it should be done through a cooperation and not through confrontation. Yes, getting back to the voting strength of these countries, one person has said that the gravest problem on the political horizon of the United Nations is the possibility that this group of countries with strong voting power may decide to oust Israel from the United

Nations. Have you heard that this is going to happen in the next assembly? I know that rumours in this regard can be heard, but I haven't got any clear indication in this regard. These are rumours, which one can hear in the corridors. Well, there was a vote in Cuba too, I believe. Yeah, but this is something completely different that was not the meeting of the United Nations. Now, if Israel were to be ousted, I think the United States would probably be put in a very difficult position. Do you think this could be a terrible blow to the United Nations from which it might not recover? As I told you, I haven't heard of anything in this regard besides rumours and there are many rumours going around, I have the impression that these things will be very carefully studied by all sides, and I think that there will be a very careful consideration of all

aspects of this problem before a decision of this kind is made. Will you personally oppose such an effort? Well, we were always for the universality of the United Nations, but I repeat the decision is not with me, but with the General Assembly. Do you feel it is your role to express the majority view of the General Assembly, your role as Secretary General? As Secretary General, I have to see that the rules of procedure are maintained. I have to see that the charter is maintained, but the different organs of the United Nations are completely independent organs. For instance, the General Assembly is master of its own business. For instance, in the Congress or in a national parliament, it's not up to the government to decide what the parliament is doing, it's the parliament itself which decides.

They are master of their own business and do not accept the intervention from a government as the Assembly cannot accept interventions from the Secretary General. But do you not feel that it's your role to intervene at times and to say, look, let's take another look at this thing? I told you that I have to see with that the charter, the rules of procedures are maintained, and if I have the impression that the rules of procedures or the charter are not maintained or that it risks not to be maintained, it is up to me to throw the attention of these organs or bodies, to this fact, and this is what I have done in the past and what I'm going to do in the future. Well, last year when yes or our fat came to the United Nations, Palestinian leader, and a head of state's chair was put out for him. Did you speak to the President of the General Assembly about this? Yes, I did, and you know that the chair was not used. Did you do anything about the idea that he appeared in the General Assembly carrying at

least a holster if not a gun? Well, I didn't know about this. I know there was a lot of talk and writing about this, but... Well, I saw it. I had my binoculars with me. I saw the holster. I cannot swear there was a gun in it. I mean, this seems to be against the whole idea of the United Nations. You know, I can only say that as far as we know, there was no gun in it, and I think this is a very important aspect in this story. Do you feel that the United Nations has any of the moral force that had started out with back in 1945 when it was really supposed to save the world from the scourge of war? I want to say that, of course, the world has changed since 1945, and so has the United Nations. In 45, we had 51 member states.

Now we have 138 with very different views, very different political and ideological background. But what you see in the United Nations is just a reflection of the world today. But the reflection of the world is somewhat distorted. Is it not, after all, the power of the world, the industrial power, the technological advance are in the countries that have minority votes now in the United Nations. So it's a reflection of some kind of sovereign existence of small countries. But I think your predecessor, Uhtan, indicated once that just because a country has a flag, it doesn't necessarily have to fly in front of the United Nations. These small states come in and have a lot of power, but is that a real reflection of the world? This is a real reflection because we cannot build a better world if we are talking about power politics. I think here in the Western world, we are always talking about democracy. And democracy means that everybody has the same rights and duties. So why should there be a discrimination for smaller countries?

How can we continue with the policy which is only taken into account power and nothing else? I think here the world has changed as you have seen it in the energy crisis. You have seen it now in many other instances. We need something new, a better, more reasonable cooperation between the powerful countries and the less powerful countries, because the island majority, as you rightly said. What if the powerful countries decide that they don't really need the United Nations anymore, that they lose interest in it because they get fed up with being outvoted all the time? May I say this? I don't think that such an attitude would be justified just because these powers don't have the same influence in the United Nations than they had before when the UN was created. I think that would not be fair. And I do not think that this will happen. Of course there will be in the future two critical situations.

We will have problems, but this is the world of today and I personally prefer a much prefer a heated debate in the Security Council chamber than a fight on the battlefield. Do you have power that is derived from the organization? Do you have the ability, if there isn't a war looming, to call people up and say, look here, let's stop and think about this? Can you call Chairman Brezhnev or President Ford? Can you exert the moral force of the United Nations in that way? Certainly. I have two possibilities. I can act through direct diplomacy. In other words, I can ring up the leaders in those countries and I have done it in the past repeatedly. When, for example? Well, I don't want to enumerate all the cases, but I can refer to the Cyprus crisis. I can refer to the Middle East situation where I have used these direct personal contacts

repeatedly. In the Cyprus crisis to do, for example, try to get the Greeks not to move into Cyprus or later the Turks not to move into Cyprus? No. You ask me about that context. I have I rank up the leaders in Turkey and in Greece and I went personally to the island in order to bring the two community leaders together. I have really done whatever was possible, but... You also sent someone to Chile, I believe, to Cyprus. Not only once, repeatedly, I send people there, I send Cabres or... To what? Were you trying to get these political prisoners being held free? These were purely humanitarian activities. This is part of my responsibilities and it was for this reason that I intervened in order to free these people. Did you get any? Yes. Yes. How about Jews in the Soviet Union? Repeatedly, we got a positive reaction.

Have you been able to help Jews who wanted to get out of the Soviet Union after all there is a UN? Yes. I have done it too and you will certainly understand that I do not want to go in all the details, but you may be assured that I have done it. But doesn't the necessity that you must have a field for quiet diplomacy? Did you provide the organization of the very image of success that it is so badly needs in the world today? That is very true. This is one of our problems. We are doing quite a lot through quiet diplomacy. When it succeeds, the crisis doesn't break out and people don't know about what was done by the United Nations. If the crisis breaks out, then we are blamed for the failure. So this is a real problem, but in the interest of the course, I prefer to take it and to accept this criticism because I think it is much more important that we have a chance

to help through confidence between the governments and us here in the United Nations, then to have great publicity which could then do harm to the course. Well, there has been a lot of talk in the United States and in high places in the United States that Washington is losing credibility in the world. There was a time when small countries turned to the United States for support, security. Is there a chance now that they will turn to the United Nations instead? Do you see this as a possible avenue for strengthening the organization? There was a tendency to turn away from the United Nations saying things are better than through bilateral diplomacy or on a regional basis, but I think that the events of the last years have shown clearly that these problems, all these problems cannot be solved bilaterally that one needs a globally approach. And I think the time will come again, I don't think that we are so far away when people

will again realize that they need the United Nations and that this organization is still the best hope for peace. Mr. Secretary General, you're full of hope in your annual report last year there was a great deal of pessimism that there was a crisis of major proportions facing the world. Is it getting better? I think that I was right when I said this because what happened during the last year was very serious, very grave, and I don't think that my report was wrong. As far as the first development is concerned, I think the situation will continue to be serious and will continue to be full of problems and conflicts, but there's still a chance for the United Nations and I think there's more and more confidence in this organization. Well, on that note of hope, I think we're going to have to wind this up because time is running out as always.

I thank you very much for joining us today, Mr. Secretary General. From United Nations headquarters in New York, Washington Strait Talk has brought you an interview with UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim and Marilyn Berger, diplomatic correspondent for the Washington Post. Production funding provided by Public Television Stations, the Ford Foundation, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

This has been a production of Impact, a division of GWETA.