Bill Richardson

For Bill Richardson, the route from Capitol Hill to the United Nations has been circuitous--via Sudan, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba and assorted other hot spots. A runner-up for interior secretary during the first Clinton administration, the seven-term congressman from New Mexico instead gained wide international acclaim for his sometimes daring and always unconventional diplomacy. “I love the drama and intrigue,” he admits with a chuckle.

Over Cuban cigars, he persuaded Haitian strongman Raoul Cedras to discuss terms for stepping down--thus avoiding a U.S. invasion and opening the way for restoring Haitian democracy. After presenting pistol-packing Saddam Hussein with a piece of Pueblo pottery, he convinced the Iraqi leader in 1995 to free two Americans imprisoned for four months after straying across the Kuwaiti border.

Last December, during negotiations in the war-ravaged Sudanese wilderness, he talked a rebel leader whose young daughter had died from malaria into releasing three Red Cross workers in exchange for a health survey plus five tons of rice, four jeeps and nine radios. And twice he won release of Americans held in North Korea.

If every picture of Richardson with released hostages looks the same, there’s a reason. It’s the blazer. Whether in the African bush or Pyongyang’s sterile government offices, Richardson dons the same well-worn navy, double-breasted sports coat that he considers his good-luck charm. For one mission, his wife Barbara, an antiques restorer, had to scramble to get it back from the cleaners where the lining was being patched.

Richardson has long been one of Congress’ most colorful characters. Colleagues call the former deputy whip gregarious and determined; he is a leading figure in the Hispanic world. Critics label him flamboyant and too privileged--a graduate of Middlesex prep school and the son of a banker. The 1996 Almanac of American Politics probably described him best: “hyperactive.”

The Pasadena-born son of a Mexican mother and Anglo father, Richardson says he feels well-prepared for shaping the compromises needed to get the often divisive United Nations to act. His district, one of the country’s most ethnically diverse, is home to 28 tribes, including Pueblo, Navajo, Apache and Hopi--each with its own governing bodies including presidents and governors, plus large Anglo and Hispanic communities.

“They’re nations within a nation,” Richardson said in a recent conversation “Listening to their problems or helping sort out complaints during tribal councils and town-hall meetings teaches you a lot about respecting other cultures and points of view.”

*

Question: How important is the United Nations to the United States in the post-Cold War world, especially when America is an unrivaled power?

Answer: The U.S. can’t do everything, nor should we try. Without the U.N., we would face more and more often the stark choice between acting alone and doing nothing. The U.N. is essential, not as an independent actor on the world stage, but as an instrument that helps mobilize the support of other nations for goals Americans support.

But the U.N. is at a crossroads, and so is America’s leadership in the institution. Both face fundamental choices: For the United Nations, the choice is whether to adapt fully to new demands and changing times or to suffer the erosion of support from other nations and peoples.

For the U.S., the choice is whether to sustain our leadership in a reformed, effective U.N. or lose our voice in an institution that has helped us advance American interests for a half century.

Q: The United Nations is at a turning point as it sorts out a host of issues, most notably its mission and long-delayed internal reforms. What role will you, as the new U.S. ambassador, play in shaping answers?

A: Before we define a future role for the U.N., there has to be substantial reform. First, we must be sure the U.N. lives within a budget. Second, we need an effective inspector general to ensure proper bookkeeping, investigatory capabilities and independence to evaluate U.N. programs.

Third, we have to reform and downsize the economic and social agencies within the U.N. so they produce more for less. Fourth, we have to reduce U.S. assessments--to 25% for peacekeeping and 20% for regular dues--and convince other states that a more equitable formula for all states is in their interests.

Fifth, we need to ensure that any peacekeeping operation is scrutinized to advance not just U.S. but U.N. interests--specifically, to ask tough questions about cost, mandate, size of operation, rules of engagement and exit strategy.

So far, efforts by the High Level Working Group on U.N. Reform, which was first proposed by President Clinton, to address key economic, social and administrative issues have made little progress. Changes at the specialized agencies have generally been ad hoc and tentative.

Q: How is the U.N. mission changing?

A: The United States and the world community need to redefine the role of the U.N. to better respond to future global threats and to act in a multilateral fashion to resolve those transnational challenges, specifically nuclear proliferation, rogue states, international terrorism and drugs, environment degradation and tensions arising from economic competition.

Q: What issues do you expect to dominate the agenda in your first year at the U.N.?

A: Enforcement and application of sanctions on rogue states, such as Iraq and Libya specifically. Continuing to reform peacekeeping functions and developing new capacities for their use--such as an African Crisis Response Force where Africans would learn to develop peacekeeping and humanitarian functions for themselves--while also successfully accomplishing U.N. exit strategies in Bosnia, Haiti and Angola.

In addition, we need to strengthen the effectiveness of war-crimes courts in Bosnia and Rwanda; develop stronger U.N. responses to transnational challenges such as terrorism, crime and environment, and, lastly, to start a spirited debate on Security Council reforms with the potential entrance of Germany and Japan.

Q: Is the Security Council likely to expand soon?

A: This will take until mid-1998 to decide. It’s a contentious issue. Our position is that, based on their active roles as players in the world arena, Germany and Japan deserve seats on the Security Council. But we don’t support diluting the veto power of the five permanent members, and we would be concerned about expanding the overall number of council seats beyond 20 or 21.

The United States supports only five countries having veto power. Japan and Germany would be permanent members in that they wouldn’t rotate [as non-permanent members do].

Long term, what we need to develop is a just formula that allows the representation by other regions and by developing countries that will be equitable. That will involve a reallocation of dues, so that the United States does not absorb so much. But this will be subject to a lot of renegotiating.

Q: Iraq recently agreed to U.N. terms allowing it to sell $2 billion in oil every six months to pay for basic humanitarian necessities. And Baghdad is inching toward compliance on weapons of mass destruction. Do you see any possibility that sanctions will be lifted while President Saddam Hussein is in power? Or will Washington hold out, despite pressure from other major powers to ease the international squeeze as Iraq complies?

A: The issue of sanctions will be settled by Saddam’s performance on all U.N. resolutions, and, so far, his record has been quite poor. The two immediate challenges are proper Iraqi behavior with respect to resolution 986 [on the oil-for-food and medicine deal] and UNSCOM [arms inspections]. The jury is still out on both. And then there is the problem of his behavior on human rights.

U.S. policy will not change as long as Saddam stays in power.

Q: The United Nations has come under increasing heat in recent years from Congress, which was reflected in the questions asked during your confirmation hearing. And the United States is now in arrears in its U.N. dues by more than $1 billion. Do you foresee an end to this confrontation? And if so, how?

A: I see my role as being a bridge between the U.N. and Congress in an effort to reform the U.N. and pay our arrears. What is needed is three simultaneous negotiations that I plan to undertake: One is to convince Congress to pay our arrears. The second is to push the U.N. on reforms. And the third is to change and streamline our relationship with the 46 U.N. affiliated agencies that we pay dues to.

Electing Kofi Annan [as new secretary general] is an excellent start. I hope to capitalize on the good will he has generated in Congress and at the U.N.

I know some question whether our participation in the U.N. serves American interests. So I also intend to take an active role speaking around the country. The biggest challenge is to build a consensus in America that the United Nations is an important body that advances not deters U.S. interests. I want to develop a new constituency of support for the U.N. and better explain the U.N. role to Congress.

Americans benefit greatly from U.N. agencies, especially on issues of safety and security. Labor standards set by the International Labor Organization help ensure that American exports remain competitive abroad. The ICAO’s aviation safety and security standards are an important benefit for Americans who are 40% of international air travelers.

Billions of dollars in American exports of movies, software, music, books and even industrial inventions are protected by trademark and copyright protections monitored by the World Intellectual Property Organization. And both U.S. agricultural exporters and consumers benefit from food-product safety and quality standards set by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization . . .

Q: How might your term at the U.N. differ from Madeleine Albright’s?

A: I have my own style, but I will be lucky to achieve the same stature as she did at the U.N.

I want to be more active in taking positions that deal with the economic and social issues at the U.N. by meeting extensively with blocs of Third World countries, by taking a more active leadership role in dealing with issues of development, human rights, population, health, refugees and the environment. That’s an excellent platform for promoting U.S. interests in the post-Cold War world.

Q: What do you hope to contribute personally at the United Nations?

A: I see myself as being a bridge to the developing world of Asia, Africa and Latin America, which is two-thirds of the United Nations as well as two-thirds of the U.S. worldwide export market.

When I leave the U.N. in four years I want Third World countries to say “There goes our champion, our advocate. He didn’t always agree with us but he dealt with our problems and issues that have often been neglected in the international arena.”

As a Hispanic, I particularly want to build a unique bridge to Latin America, which is a region we need to pay more attention to.

I also want to be remembered as someone who stood for human rights and ensured that human rights is a powerful instrument of U.S. foreign policy--for example, by strengthening tribunals in Bosnia and Rwanda and strengthening the U.N. human-rights office, which needs more authority.