Conflict Prevention

Interview with Mrs. Linda Perkin, Deputy Director, Department of Political Affairs (DPA)

UN Special: The UN is becoming involved in conflict prevention. Don’t you think it is a rather hopeless task?

Mrs. Linda Perkin: The UN has been involved in the prevention of conflict from almost the very beginning because good diplomacy is trying to deal with problems before they reach crisis proportions. So, I think, what has happened is that it has been more formally framed than it was previously. But I don’t think it is really new. Is it hopeless? I don’t think so. I think particularly when you look at the economic realm of the question, there are measures that can be taken that are smart, that are targeted, that cost less than trying to pick up the pieces after a crisis has happened.

Do you think that economic development is one of the causes of crisis?

No, I don’t think economic development is a cause of crisis. Sometimes rapid change can put groups in conflict but just as often no change puts groups in conflict. If you have no growth in the pie, people are more at odds than if there is a chance for everyone to get a larger portion. No, I think the point is twofold. One of the answers to crisis when it has been generated by inequalities, competition for resources and such, is in fact to try and enhance development in those areas where you then are able to more satisfy the basic needs of more people.

The UN has been heavily criticized for its action in Yugoslavia and Kosovo. What is your assessment of the UN action there?

I don’t think that the United Nations has ever claimed to be the perfect instrument. But I would remark that it is not the first actor in the former Yugoslavia. There were other actors that tried to handle the situation and were unable to. The UN found itself, regrettably in some instances, involved in situations after they had gone beyond the point where it was going to be easy to manage it in a nice way. For example, the UN was not part of Dayton. But it was given a mandate under Dayton that was directed towards police but without the resources you would need in order to undertake what needed to be done. In Kosovo, equally, the initial NATO action was not a UN mandated operation. This was a coalition of the willing. It was not endorsed by the Security Council. First of all you had the OSCE in there, you had their monitors and you had various efforts to try and resolve things short of crisis. The UN was only turned to, in the end because it was the universal organization, the only one, which could unite the various parties that were thought could bring elements then to try to deal with the post conflict situation there.

That’s why UNMIK is a unique operation. It is UN but it is also OSCE and EU. It was UNHCR initially until they declared that the humanitarian phase had ended and it had the support of NATO.

Some say that the UN has nothing to do in Europe and that it should devote its efforts in other parts of the world!

It was very much a matter of surprise that in the early 1990s, the UN found itself with a major preoccupation in the heart of Europe. Europe was not where it expected to find its major operations taking place. With almost 190 Member States and a world that has enormous number of competing demands for assistance, be it political, economic, institution building, you name it, it is understandable that the perhaps richest portion of the world and the one that has the most developed and most numerous regional organizations has difficulty making the case that it should be as much as a preoccupation of the Organization, if not more, than any other area. This does mean that the UN does not wish to support, facilitate, or do anything it can. One geographic area, one problem, is not superior or inferior to another.

Can the UN recognize the notion of “failed States”?

Do you know there is this old expression that was used in the United States by a Supreme Court Justice where it was said and it doesn’t matter with reference to what “ I can’t define it but I know it when I see it.” We have encountered cases where the breakdown of the institutions that you would normally count on to keep a society running has been so complete or so severe in critical areas that you find it very difficult to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. And I think that’s really what we are talking about with “failed States”. When the UN was in Somalia, it seems to have taken on a task that was beyond its means at that point. The same was true for the Balkans. Equally, there is great concern about Afghanistan because the problems are so monumental. So much is needed in terms of resources simply for humanitarian purposes. But beyond this, it involves trying to figure out how you recreate at the same time a functioning government elected by the people and not imposed by outside, a functioning economy, a society that has a certain amount of mutual respect within itself and various other systems, judicial and otherwise. It is perhaps beyond the means, and maybe beyond the wisdom of any one group. Then the question arises; are there combinations that might be able to do better? This is one of the areas I think we certainly need to explore because the UN is very willing and happy and able to cooperate with other actors and there is a very good case that can be made for taking those sectors, those functions where you actually have the greatest capacity to be helpful and respond and allowing others to act in other areas.

If the UN is given the impossible mission to “rule Afghanistan”, do you think this is feasible?

Thus far, everyone who I know who is in an official position has tried to be very clear that they do not think that is a task for which the UN is suited. Everyone agrees that what Afghanistan needs is a government that includes its various groups, but a government which is very much Afghan. How we are going to get there is a question that I personally can’t answer. But I don’t think anyone has said we in the UN can do this. I would hope that is possible to move in a rather rapid fashion towards helping those people who are interested in building a free and diverse Afghanistan, to start progressing towards the goals of its whole population. The international community wishes to see those people in a position to play very important policy role and see that it gets done.

Is your Department is going into fighting terrorism?

All of the UN is now turned towards the question of how to fight terrorism, and this is true in all of its aspects. In the political area, both the Security Council and the General Assembly moved on the 12th of September to take action by adopting resolutions on the subject of terrorism. There has been a history of resolutions on these subjects. There are 12 UN conventions on various aspects of terrorism, which need to be signed, ratified and implemented as quickly as possible by all of the Member States of the UN. There is also a Committee now established under the Security Council to monitor and report on the implementation of the provisions of the 
second Security Council resolution on this subject. So, DPA supports all these efforts but not alone. The whole UN system is basically being asked to respond to those needs that are identified by the Member States as quickly as possible.

(The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy of the Organization).

Interview by Jean Michel Jakobowicz.