Bill Richardson, former congressman from New Mexico and rising star of the Democratic Party, has served as a diplomatic trouble-shooter in many of the world’s hot spots. Now, the Mexican-American politician faces a formidable double challenge as Washington’s ambassador to the United Nations: selling America to the UN, and the UN to Americans.
Q: Sometimes you must feel like a lone sentinel on a hostile frontier: The U.S. has probably come in for more criticism in recent months than at any time since the Cold War–the land mine issue, our position on Cuba, our efforts to thwart a French-Iranian energy deal, our bickering with Canada, efforts to stamp our concept of a free market on the rest of the world. How do you respond to this criticism?
A: Perhaps sometimes we should be more humble in pursuing our goals, more consultative with our friends and allies. But we are the indispensable nation, the lone superpower; so most countries still turn to us for leadership.
Sometimes America has to protect its interests. In declining to endorse a treaty banning anti-personnel land mines, we were trying to protect our troops. We thought we offered a reasonable compromise (a ban that would offer exemptions to protect U.S. troops in South Korea), but the rest of the world didn’t think so.
Q: Do you see any prospect of President Clinton changing his position on land mines?
A: I think we have a sound land mine policy. We have said that we’re ready to limit production and stockpiling, and we have a record of participating unilaterally on a lot of de-mining activities–in Cambodia and El Salvador, in Africa, in Bosnia. We have taken those steps.
Korea was our problem, and the reason was that we have 37,000 American troops there. We have a treaty with South Korea. The North Koreans have a huge numerical advantage, and the only way to offset that advantage is to have a deterrent, and that is visible land mines in the area.
Now, we asked for a nine-year phase-out at the same time that we’re negotiating with the North Koreans. Maybe as a result of those negotiations we’ll be able to deal with this.
Q: Six years ago the Persian Gulf war was ending and the utility of the UN to the U.S. was clear. Now it seems like we are at odds with the UN at every turn. Why?
A: We’ve gone in phases. The apex was in the gulf war, when the UN was basically the cover for our actions in Iraq. Then Bosnia and Somalia happened, and the UN’s reputation went down, to the point where we weren’t paying our dues. If you go out in the country, I’m sure you’ll hear this: “The UN is just a bunch of world-government types.”
Now I see a little surge, but it’s still not in good shape. It’s going to require going out and explaining why the UN is important.
Q: Is anybody paying attention?
A: More people are, especially the younger generation, which is the core support for the UN as the entity that will deal with global climate change–young people care about the environment–and with refugees and human rights.
Q: What is it going to take to get the U.S. and the UN back in some kind of proper working relationship?
A: First, we have to pay our bills. I’m trying to drum up support for a deal in the Congress under which we would pay off most of our debt in exchange for some reforms at the United Nations–reforms that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has already instituted, like living under a budget cap, like fewer staff, fewer conferences, more consolidations. These are benchmarks that the Congress has asked for.
That debt–the UN says we owe $1.3 billion; we believe we owe $1 billion–has minimized our leverage in the UN. We haven’t paid our (full) contribution for five years, and it’s hurting our interests.
(A UN decision on the amount of dues to be paid by Washington is considered likely in the next few days.)
The American people have not understood that the UN is good for America’s interests. It helps us deal with global problems more efficiently. It stops wars. It deals with refugees. It monitors elections. It brings stability. It deals with the plight of women around the world. It deals with AIDS and smallpox.
All of these are U.S. goals–they’re not just international goals.
If you look at the future threats for America, they’re going to be nuclear proliferation in outlaw states, international terrorism, international drugs, environmental degradation; issues such as refugee dislocations and the plight of women. These are massive problems that the UN is trying to deal with that are not on anybody’s radar screen. But the American taxpayer will save money by America advancing its interests with other countries acting multilaterally, as a coalition.
Q: You’ve said 65 percent of UN Security Council operations are in Africa, which suggests a basket case. Are there any points of light?
A: There are some democratization trends–more elections are being held. There are movements toward market economies, as in Uganda, Eritrea, Zambia. There are some emerging leaders, such as South African President Nelson Mandela, who are taking more of a peacemaking role in the hemisphere. There are more integrated economies in Africa.
The U.S. has a new investment strategy, a new bill to create free-trade zones and lower investment barriers in Africa. The president is going to go there next year. This a continent that is very important, not just resource-wise but people-wise. It’s in our long-term interest to try to keep the continent stable.
And it’s important that African-Americans recognize that this is a continent that deserves more attention from them. This is the reason why we appointed Jesse Jackson as a special envoy to Africa.
Q: What will he be doing?
A: He’s not full time. But he has a tremendous ability to resolve problems. He has rescued prisoners. He has great credibility in Africa. He will get spot assignments from the president and the secretary of state. There’s no main charter, but there’s a recognition that somebody with his negotiating skills and his knowledge of the continent will be very helpful.
Q: How is biculturalism an advantage in your job?
A: The fact I could speak Spanish with Castro permitted a connection that resulted in the release of political prisoners. The fact I’m a minority helped me negotiate with Arab and Asian leaders. The fact that as a New Mexico congressman I represented Native Americans, Hispanics and Anglos, and we were able to negotiate a lot of differences over land and water through town meetings, prepared me biculturally to deal with other countries.
I can speak the language of 50 percent of the UN. I think that makes a difference.
———-
An edited transcript
