by Louise Manoogian Simone
Benon Sevan, born in Nicosia, Cyprus, graduated from the AGBU Melkonian Educational Institute in Cyprus, obtained a Bachelor of Arts Degree in History and Philosophy at Columbia College, New York, and a graduate degree from the School of International and Public Affairs of Columbia University.
Joining the United Nations Secretariat in 1965, Mr. Sevan has served as a United Nations Observer with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Act of Free Choice in West Irian (Indonesia), Assistant Resident Representative with the Fund of the United Nations for the Development of West Irian, and as the senior secretariat official with the mission to inquire on the situation of prisoners of war in the Iran and Iraq conflict.
From 1982 to March 1988, Mr. Sevan was Secretary of the Economic and Social Council and served as secretary of a number of intergovernmental bodies and special United Nations conferences. In April 1988, Mr. Sevan was appointed Director and Senior Political Advisor to the Representative of the Secretary-General on the settlement of the situation relating to Afghanistan. In January 1990, he was also asked to serve as the Secretary-General's Representative on the Implementation of the Geneva Agreements on Afghanistan. In January 1991, Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar decided that Mr. Sevan should also assume the responsibility for the overall administration of the Office for the Coordination of United Nations Humanitarian and Economic Assistance Programs Relating to Afghanistan.
On July 20, 1992, Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali announced the appointment of Mr. Sevan to the post of Assistant Secretary-General in the Department of Political Affairs at United Nations Headquarters in New York. Mr. Sevan is married and has one daughter.
Q. How did you begin at the UN?
A. Believe it or not I started as a caption writer in the Radio and Visual Services Division. After my studies at Columbia University, I thought about returning to Cyprus to join the Government or going into photojournalism. I had given up my initial ambition of becoming a professor of Philosophy since I found political affairs more challenging.
My candidacy to the United Nations Secretariat was submitted in 1965 by Foreign Minister Spyros Kyprianou who later became the President of the Republic of Cyprus. At the time the United Nations was going through one of its financial crises. There were only two posts available. One was considered to be too high for me as a newcomer. Since I had put photography as one of my hobbies, they hired me within two weeks with the promise that I would soon be transferred to the Department of Trusteeship and Decolonization. It took them almost 18 months to agree to release me for that transfer. I was the best caption writer they have ever had, they told me. Actually it was a good experience for the first two months. It gave me a broad knowledge of the overall UN activities and provided me with an opportunity to recognize everyone.
After I started working with the Special Committee on Decolonization, I took on a number of special political assignments abroad. Eventually I moved on to become Secretary of the Economic and Social Council, the counterpart of the Security Council which deals with international peace and security.
My life at the UN has been very rewarding. I have seen the best and the worst. It has given me a better understanding of different cultures, and has clearly demonstrated the common bonds and aspirations of people everywhere in the world. Having seen so much misery around the world, I've learned to appreciate life. It has reinforced my determination to help others. I always remember what our great Armenian poet Tekeyan wrote, "What am I left with? Strangely enough with what I gave to others."
Q. We are entering a complex era with all the ethnic uprisings in the world. What was your experience in Afghanistan?
A. I returned to New York last August after four and a half years' assignment in Afghanistan. First, I went as the head of the United Nations team monitoring the withdrawal of 100,000 Soviet troops. After their withdrawal I was appointed as the Personal Representative of the Secretary-General in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in order to promote a political settlement. With the resignation of Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan as Coordinator of United Nations Humanitarian and Economic Assistance Programs in Afghanistan, I was asked by the Secretary-General to take over those responsibilities as well. The program involved over $600 million for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan, with nine offices, which included hundreds of international personnel and thousands of local staff, spread from Geneva, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan to the former Soviet Union. I was also in charge of the de-mining program, employing over 2,000 Afghans. There are millions of anti-personnel mines spread all over Afghanistan.
With all this and the intensive shuttle diplomacy I was carrying out between Kabul, Islamabad and Peshawar (Pakistan), Moscow, Teheran, Riyadh, Geneva, Rome, Frankfurt, Paris, Washington and New York, I logged almost 700,000 miles of travel in three years.
The Afghans have been divided into many groups and subgroups. The divisions multiplied, particularly after the withdrawal of the Soviet troops in February, 1989. There were seven recognized opposition leaders based in Pakistan, eight in Iran, a multitude of well known opposition commanders who had their own agenda, the then Government in Kabul headed by Najibullah, the former King of Afghanistan who was in exile in Rome, a multitude of former Government officials, intellectuals and religious leaders. Afghanistan is a conglomeration of different ethnic and tribal groups - Pashtoons, Tajiks, Turkmens, Uzbeks, the Hazaras, in addition to various religious groups, mainly the Sunni and the Shias. Along with the Afghan groups, you had to deal with the Soviet Union and the United States - the two being the Guarantors of the 1988 Geneva Agreements on Afghanistan, - the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, and the European Community.
I was also involved in negotiating the release of prisoners, particularly Soviet prisoners of war, held by the Government in Kabul and the Afghan mujahedin. During my last visit to Moscow, I had a reunion with Russian Vice President Alexander Rutskoi who served as a colonel in the Air Force in Afghanistan. He was taken prisoner by the Afghan mujahideen when his plane was shot down. I helped negotiate his release and hand over to the Soviet Embassy in Islamabad.
Our work was to ensure that no outside plan was imposed on the Afghans. Whatever the plan, it had to be an Afghan plan, prepared by the Afghans themselves, for the Afghans. My role was to act as a catalyst in developing a settlement plan.
I did achieve our main objective, namely the transfer of power from Najibullah's government in Kabul to a broad-based interim government which would organize elections. Najibullah resigned in April 1992, and sought asylum at my office in Kabul. He is still there.
The Afghan people are full of contrasts. They can love you and hate you with equal passion, all at the same time. When I made a similar remark to the Soviet Ambassador in Kabul, Amb. Yagorchev, he responded, "Yes, just like the Armenians. So many groups fighting each other constantly."
Unfortunately, there is still fighting in Afghanistan. It is the end-game after fourteen years of war which has left over a million dead, two million disabled, and thousands upon thousands of orphans and widows. I have witnessed terrible human suffering: half clad children scraping the barks of the trees in the freezing cold; a mother losing half her body during a rocket attack, with a baby still alive searching her breast for milk. The whole country has been destroyed, at times through scorched earth policies.
The international community has become immune to the sufferings of the Afghans, just as it has become relatively immune to the sufferings of the Armenians. There are so many trouble spots around the world, with compelling demands for international humanitarian assistance, all competing for the limited resources available from a limited number of donor countries.
Q. The aftereffects of war present so many psychological problems. In Armenia there is discussion on how they will reintegrate 5000 guerrilla fighters who have seen nothing but war for four years. Certainly neglect was one of our greatest mistakes after the American soldiers returned home from Vietnam. What is it like in Afghanistan?
A. The whole Afghan nation has been traumatized. It is afflicted with the deep wounds and scars of war. Not a single Afghan family has remained untouched. Every one of them has lost at least a member of his family or a relative. Afghan refugees constitute the largest population of refugees in the world, totaling over five million, with three million in Pakistan, two million in Iran, and thousands spread all over the world. I understand their suffering. I am, like most Armenians, a child of refugees. I have seen the same suffering in the eyes of my grandparents.
The greatest challenge to face the Afghans after the war is the reintegration of thousands upon thousands of its youth into a normal life. During the past fourteen years, most of them have been involved in the fighting. They know nothing but war. You can blindfold a boy of twelve and hand him the parts of a Kalashnikov rifle and he can put it together in less than two minutes. Yet you ask him to add two and two, he does not know the answer. Instead of toys, they have grown up with guns, tanks and rockets. Instead of listening to the songs of birds, they have grown up with the thunder of rocket attacks. The amount of arms available is horrific.
Q. Surely the proliferation of arms is another problem?
A. Look at Afghanistan, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. They have an abundance of arms but nothing to eat. The same people who provide aid are often the suppliers of arms.
Q. There is a great deal of pressure on the UN to find solutions. How will it operate?
A. There is increased pressure on the UN to solve problems which others have failed or found too difficult to resolve. In many instances the UN has become a dumping ground of problems after others have turned them into disasters.
The report of Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali entitled "An Agenda for Peace" published last June in response to the request made by the Security Council Summit has received well-deserved praise by all Governments. In his candid style, he has addressed the role of preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping and post-conflict peace-building in the current changing context of the world. He has not tried to change the Charter of the United Nations, but rather has provided a guide to make the interpretation and implementation of the Charter's provisions more relevant to the current situation. The emphasis is on prevention. It costs so much less, both in terms of human lives and financial resources, to prevent conflicts than resort to war and then try to settle it.
With the increased demands on the United Nations, we are truly facing a serious financial crisis. We do not have sufficient staff resources to field all the missions around the world. Currently we have about 60,000 UN troops involved either in peace-keeping or as observers, costing $3.6 billion for the period 1992-1993. More are to come in Somalia and Mozambique. The cost of peace-keeping for the period 1986-1987 was $364 million. Last year's expense on peace-keeping at $1.4 billion is less than the cost of a stealth bomber, or the budget of the New York Police Department.
The United Nations today is not what it used to be at its establishment. The initial membership of 51 countries has increased to 180, with others waiting to become new members. At the same time, there is a greater commitment to resolve international disputes through the United Nations. With the end of the Cold War, there is a more collegial approach within the United Nations, particularly in the Security Council where the veto has not been exercised for the past two years.
Q. The UN troops are not armed. How much can they do?
A. We have lost many UN troops in peacekeeping, whether in Cyprus, the Middle East or the former Yugoslavia. They are lightly armed and can engage only in self-defense. They were never intended to be combat troops. They are sent with the consent of the parties to the conflict. With the increased number of casualties, and the change of the nature of the conflicts, there is now a major concern over the safety of UN personnel. Discussions are underway on how to revise the rules of engagement.
You have to realize that the nature of conflicts has changed. There are currently more UN troops deployed for internal conflicts than between countries. There is now increased demand on the United Nations to get involved in the electoral process, such as in Angola, Cambodia, El Salvador, Eritrea, to name a few, as well as to monitor human rights violations. There is more readiness on the part of the governments to invite the United Nations to assist in the peacebuilding process, and in preventive diplomacy. The Secretary-General's views on preventive deployment and peace-enforcement have been implemented by the Security Council in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Peace enforcement is currently being carried out in Somalia. These were two precedent setting decisions taken by the Security Council.
Q. One often hears of "peacebuilding". What does that literally mean?
A. Ending a conflict is not the end of a disaster. What is essential, as the Secretary-General has stated in his "An Agenda for Peace," is to re-build the institutions and infrastructures of nations torn by civil war and strife; and building bonds of peaceful mutual benefit among nations formerly at war. And in the largest sense, to address the deepest causes of conflict: economic despair, social injustice and political oppression. There is also an increased recognition of the necessity to abide by international humanitarian law.
Q. Do you think the break up of the Soviet Union is responsible for much of the present turmoil?
A. Certainly, the break up of the Soviet Union into a multitude of republics is part of the problem but the problems were brewing. Under the Soviet system the lid was kept on by sheer force. The ethnic differences were always there and contrary to what was stated officially, the nationalities problem was never resolved. They were simply postponed.
Q. With the election of Boutros-Ghali the UN is undertaking a much more active role. It always seemed like a bureaucracy that never moved in the past. How do you see the future for the UN?
A. Mr. Boutros-Ghali has brought about a dynamism to the United Nations Secretariat, though there are a number of colleagues who have failed to adjust to the new times. He is highly energetic, determined, and an activist. He has had fantastic experience, both as an academic and as a senior official of the Egyptian Government, serving as Deputy Prime Minister, among other high posts. He is a prolific writer, and has authored many books on international law. He has been involved in the most delicate negotiations, including the Camp David accords.
The Secretary-General has trimmed the fat of the Organization, and he intends to cut down further the number of staff, particularly at the highest levels. He demands accountability and has a hands on approach. He is a voracious reader and simply does not just read what has been submitted to him. He writes his own speeches, and puts his stamp on everything. He has shaken up the Organization for the better. One of the legacies he wants to leave behind is a lean and efficient United Nations Secretariat. It is indeed a privilege to serve under him.
In every bureaucracy you find dead wood. The UN cannot be the exception, with so many people coming from a multitude of cultural, political and religious backgrounds. It is unfortunate that one hears about the UN only when there is a crisis. We have many specialized agencies and programs carrying out very impressive humanitarian and technical and economic assistance programs all over the world, with dedicated staff members who often risk their lives. They are the unsung heroes.
Q. Why was there so much animosity in Somalia against Boutros-Ghali and the UN?
A. Well, you cannot be loved by everybody when you are the Secretary-General. Nor should one try. It goes with the turf. One should stick to the principles of the Charter and the mandates given by the Organs of the United Nations. What happened in Somalia took place at the instigation of one of the many factions which feels threatened by the peace process.
I have experienced it many times, particularly in Afghanistan. You do not think about it after a while. I have been shot at, I have been criticized by different factions, I have been accused and threatened by fundamentalists. Last April I thought it was all over when I landed in Kabul after midnight and was surrounded by a very hostile group armed to the teeth. It took me over three hours to negotiate my way out. They were ready to blow up my plane which was previously rocketed on my arrival. I used to fly in and out of Kabul on the average of 50 times a year with rockets being showered on the airport. Our office was shelled many, many times. You become a fatalist. At the end of the day if you see that you have made even a little contribution to improve the situation it gives you tremendous satisfaction. When you see so much suffering, so much poverty, people dying in front of you, your whole attitude changes. All the things you used to worry about mean nothing, including your own life.
Q. Do you experience cultural shock living in such different parts of the world?
A. No, I can adjust to anything. I feel at home wherever I go. I can eat the worst food or the best food. I tell my wife Micheline that I think I picked up that habit at Melkonian where I spent a wonderful six years. They used to serve the same menu week after week, year after year. The only difference was they re-typed the menu each week. There was no xerox machine then. Whatever was in front of you, you ate. Otherwise, someone else would eat it for you.
I think I was the happiest man on earth when I served in 1968/69 in the former Dutch Guinea, now Irian Jaya, part of Indonesia. In fact I volunteered to return and served two additional years.
You could not go into a more primitive place, a place where the stone age had never left. They used to give us R & R (Rest and Recreation leave) after nine months to go to Australia or Singapore. My colleagues could not understand me because I would charter a missionary plane to go to the jungles and live with the tribes.
Q. How many countries have you been in?
A. I have never counted but many I am sure. Perhaps I should start counting. It is hard on my family. When I took the assignment in Afghanistan, I was to be there only nine months. After three and half years, I brought Micheline and Jasmine, my daughter, to live in Islamabad, Pakistan. My wife took a leave of absence from her work at the United Nations. But even then, I was a commuter by plane. It was a wonderful experience though for both of them to live in Pakistan.
My little daughter was five when I left for Afghanistan. She used to be so happy to see me during my frequent visits to New York, but just as she adjusted to my arrival, she started counting the few days left before my departure. She used to start crying and I would tell her: "There are thousands and thousands of children like you with no mothers, no fathers, no toys, no clothes and no food. I am trying to bring peace to Afghanistan so that there will be no more war orphans. I have to go." It is a good education for children to learn to care for others. She used to collect her toys and clothes for me to take to the Afghan children.
Q. With all your political experience what do you think Armenia's goals should be?
A. Armenia should clearly define its objectives and above all study the map, without any emotions, and make its calculations accordingly. Armenia should develop friendly relations with its neighbors. Like a child, you do not have a choice in your parents or your brothers and sisters. Similarly, we do not have a choice in choosing our neighbors. You try to live in peace. It is essential for Armenians to develop and promote common interests with their neighboring countries. Wars do not resolve national interests. There has to be a mutually accepted political settlement of the dispute, if durable peace is to be achieved. The sooner the negotiations begin the better the interests of all concerned would be served. Pyrrhic victories lead nowhere close to peace.
