‘Western-centered UN no longer works, cannot resolve conflicts, needs reform’

Hans von Sponeck, former UN Assistant Secretary General, spoke to Harici. He said that the the West centric orientation of the UN of yesterday, is no longer helpful at all in the world in which we live today.

Hans Von Sponeck is a close witness to the great suffering of the 20th and 21st centuries. His father, Hans Emil Otto Graf Sponeck, was an officer in the German army during the First World War. In World War 2, he was a general. He was executed in 1944 on suspicion of participating in the assassination attempt on Hitler.

Hans Von Sponeck, whose career at the United Nations (UN) has taken him to conflict and war zones, is a harsh critic of the organization’s structure. Appointed Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq in 1998, Sponeck headed all UN operations in Iraq and directed the Iraqi operations of the Oil-for-Food Program. In February 2000, Sponeck resigned in protest against the UN’s Iraq sanctions policy.

Sponeck was also part of a group of 18 people who published an open letter to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz calling for no further arms aid to Ukraine.

Hans Von Sponeck answered journalist Esra Karahindiba’s questions about the UN’s role in the international order and calls for reform, the Gaza and Ukraine conflicts, and the US-Germany relationship.

‘UN: Churchill, Rosevelt and Stalin’s dream turned into a nightmare’

While multipolarity debates and the search for a new international order become widespread, the role and legitimacy of the UNSC is being discussed. In addition, calls for reform are made, saying that the UN represents the interests of a narrow group of countries. How do you evaluate the role of the UN? What kind of restructuring is needed?

Well, the answer about the current situation as far as the Security Council is concerned is to me as someone who has spent over 30 years in the United Nations is very clear What is obvious is that over these 78 years of the existence of the UN, one thing has become every year more and more clear. That is since the beginning in 1945 of this new institution called the UN, we have created the world has created, the world has allowed to create a very West Centric institution. If you reflect back what this means, it means politically, financially, geographically; the UN is located in the West. The political UN is headquartered in New York. The commercial, the financial, the economic UN is invested in two UN institutions. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are located in Washington. The specialized agencies, the funds and programs the operational UN, the executive UN has been located until recently exclusively in Europe and in North America. So, the entire establishment is linked to the West. And if you then know this is nothing new whatsoever is that we have had a very unilateral oriented power structure in the UN then you can understand why in the 21^st century now, we have reached a situation where this is no longer in line with the current geopolitical world order. The world order today is much more diversified, is much more unfortunately also polarized. The countries that yesterday where colonies have become mature independent countries that say “wait a minute, we exist, we have a voice, we will speak out and we will do what we think is in our best interest”. That has created a very complicated dynamics in the UN system as a whole but particularly in the UN Security Council. So, what in 1945, when three old men met in Yalta on the in Crimea; Churchill, Rosevelt and Stalin, they had a dream. The dream was one, together as a team to make sure that the world order is governed in such a way that East and West have a share. Now that dream didn’t last very long. And what yesterday was a dream, today is a nightmare.

 ‘UN is today badly in need of reform’

We have a totally inoperative Security Council that has not, I repeat, not been able to solve and prevent or manage conflicts and wars. Well, let me be specific. Iraq: No, there was no solution. There was in fact an illegal invasion. Ukraine: No. Afghanistan: No. Libya: No. So, people are there now political figures, also I must add, is this new civil society is questioning, is the United Nations worth to exist. If this is the case, my answer to that is very clearly: The political United Nations, meaning the security Council the General Assembly are today badly in need of reform. If they are not reformed, they cannot play the role that the world needs. But the UN is more than a political UN. There’s also an operational UN, the specialized agencies… You talk about Ukraine, you talk about Gaza… Who is there right now? The UN agencies under grave danger, are involved in helping on the humanitarian side. That’s another face of the United Nations. Then there’s the International Court of Justice; also not very effective because both the General Assembly and the International Court of Justice are very clearly without the authority of decision making. They can only advise the international court of Justice can give you an advisory opinion about the war in Ukraine. The general Assembly can vote on the legitimacy of the Russian invasion into Ukraine but they cannot decide. So, unless these minimized ineffective two small levels of authority have to be changed in order to make a difference.

‘West centric orientation of the UN is no longer helpful’

Can you define how those reforms could be made?

There are some very easy answers. One answer is: You cannot have in 2023 a Security Council that is based on the geopolitical reality of 1945. You have five members, five permanent members in the Security Council, three of which are from the West. Africa is not represented at all in the group of permanent countries. Latin America is not at all represented in that group. Asia with over 50% of the global population has one seat with China. So, this is, I come back to what I said in the beginning, the West Centric orientation of the UN of yesterday, is no longer helpful at all in the world in which we live today.

Then, you totally agree with President Erdogan’s “the world is bigger than five” statement.

The world is bigger than five. But I would go one step further. The world is bigger than five governments. But the world has become even bigger because of the role that civil society, non-governmental organizations play today that they were not able to play yesterday.

‘If one cannot talk to president Putin today, try tomorrow’

You are one of the signatories of an open letter to Olaf Scholz, calling for no more arms aid to Ukraine. At this point today, aid packages to Ukraine are rejected even in the US Senate. Media outlets such as The Economist criticized this situation and wrote, “The indecisiveness of the Western allies strengthens the possibility of Russia winning the war in Ukraine.” How do you evaluate the latest situation? Did the aid provided to Ukraine help? Will Western Ukraine resist be sitting at the table with Russia as it heads towards defeat?

Well, if you can give me one example where a war has led to peace on the battlefield, I would have difficulty in arguing that weapons don’t make it, can make a difference. I belong to those as a person with a background in the United Nations who argues with all the power that I have, the little personal power that I have, is to “say stop increasing the opportunity to kill people on the battlefield whether it is in Gaza or whether it is in Ukraine and start remembering that peace is made through diplomacy at a round table”. There must be a round table, where there’s equality but no unilateral independent leadership. So, my point is that shipping more weapons into a battlefield, guarantees you more debt, guarantees you an extension of military confrontation, but it is not a solution, certainly not a solution that would lead to a peace between conflicting parties that must be very clear. And what is happening in Ukraine now is increasingly. That is maybe the one chance we have: a pattsituation* where both parties recognize that this will be a never-ending confrontation where no side is going to win. So, why not stop now and do what the Secretary General of the UN and others are calling for which is an armistice.

The good opportunity to start is to remember there was Turkish leadership in the establishment of humanitarian corridors between the warring parties in order to allow the export that of wheat and millet and other agricultural products. That was the one moment or the exchange of prisoners or the return of children, other examples which should have and could have and we would look to Türkiye to be an active partner in promoting this opportunity to go from a humanitarian corridor to the moment of an armistice where the weapons are not used and negotiations for an agreement to have a peaceful resolution to take place. I do not belong at all to those who say with a person like President Putin one cannot talk. If one cannot talk to President Putin today, try tomorrow and maybe the next day. Ultimately everyone, east or west north or south knows that the resolution the return to peace will be in the conference room, will be achieved in the conference room, not in the swamps, in the mud, in the snow, of two countries fighting each other in Ukraine.

‘Sanctions probably punished Germans the most’

What do you think about sanctions against Russia? It is said that there was a boomerang effect for Germany. Do you agree?

First of all, it is correct. The Germans are probably more punished because of the cost of energy than anybody else. But I would say that there is no way to end this unless you go the diplomatic route that has to take place. We have to accept that other people have different opinions and if you sit with them on the conference table that doesn’t mean you agree with them. It means you are willing to listen to them that you are trying to understand the motivation of the other side. And if you do that, then you come one step closer to a resolution.

‘You must have the courage to disagree with US’

There are criticisms that Germany’s interests do not always coincide with those of the United States and that following Washington without questioning harms Germany the most.

Well, you know if you are a member of a club, then, you think you must take a view that is consistent with the majority in that club. I would say “yes” up to a point. When principles are involved, adherence to law in adherence to national or, in this case, EU

interests, then responsible politics means that you voice your disagreement and if the other side is really an ally, in the western context for example, if the Americans would understand that we are Germany is a friend of the us at the moment, so as a friend, you must have the right to disagree. And you must have the courage because you believe in the principles of the laws that govern us nationally and internationally. That that you do not necessarily have to go the way the United States wants to go.

‘Germany is a victim of Nordstream-2 sabotage’

Actually, this critic came right especially after the Nord Stream sabotage. How do you evaluate this criticism? Can Berlin pursue a policy independent of Washington? How do you see it?

There’s a lot of criticism in Germany of the German approach to dealing with you mentioned Nordstream-2. There are a lot of quotes, facts or the other word that is being used alternative facts, there is no such thing as alternative facts. They’re only facts. And the evidence that we, as a person in the public, have suggests that Germany is a victim here that our investments in a very expensive Nordstream-2 pipeline has been destroyed. That’s one thing one can say. But maybe more important is that the sovereignty, the German sovereignty has suffered as a result of this incident. Who is behind it? One can speculate. I would argue it is definitely not Russia. Russia wouldn’t be so foolish to shoot its own foot. So, it’s other parties. Who are these other parties? There are many answers to that. I don’t want to give you an answer. But I’m satisfied to know that a lot more has to be brought into the public domain to explain to people who are very critical of this development, who caused all this. That is still ongoing. One has to see, one has to wait.

‘European media lacks investigative journalism about the route of grain exported from Ukraine’

I also want to ask you about the grain deal which was initiated by the United Nations and Türkiye; and agreed by Russia and Ukraine. We know that more than 33 million tons of grain were exported from Ukraine to different parts of the world. But at the beginning, it was promised that this deal was for the poor people in Africa and different countries. But at the end of the day, today, according to World Food Program, we know that less than 1 million ton of grain was sent to the poor countries. How do you see the outcome of this grain deal as President Putin was not eager to renew the agreement for the next term?

Well, what I what would say is, political leaders who have including Türkiye should now go public in giving us evidence. What you’re saying is what I know. And that is that an inadequate amount went where it should go and that is to countries in the saheel, in the south of the Maghreb which is badly in need because of climate change. To have these the support from Ukraine that needs to be shown, explained in simple terms and then, one has to, and that is for example a role that the United Nations could play is, World Food Program should go public and say: “These are the figures and this is what we think should be needed. There should be a reversal of this policy of shipping grain, millets, corn, whatever it is, into countries that need it but don’t need it to survive, it should go where it is needed for people to survive.” And that is missing, the media at least, the media in Europe is not adequately trying to do investigative journalism to bring this to make that very clear. “This is what happened.” “Why did it happen?” “And why do you as the politician whom we elected to parliaments wherever they are, what are you going to do about it?” That is lacking. It’s not enough information flow into the public that allows the public to take a position where they have on the basis of credible information, an opportunity to react in the interest of those people who need to benefit from what Türkiye has negotiated, which is an immensely important contribution in order to ease the tension that exists in our region.

‘Give diplomacy a chance’

By the way, China prepared a document of 9-items for peace-building between Ukraine and Russia and presented it to Moscow. And Russia said “Okay, we appreciate any country who wants to be part of the peace”. But to be realistic, how do you perceive the role of China and the global South in the negotiations between Ukraine and Russia?

As always, those who offer themselves, whether it is the global south or it is China or anyone else, one should give those parties an opportunity to pursue that road of negotiations, of cooperation. Give diplomacy a chance. Don’t, from the from the very beginning in dealing with a conflict, be unable to compromise. I think a key word in this whole conflict resolution exercise is the ability to compromise. There is no treaty that I know that isn’t the result of compromise. So let’s sit and have a compromise and agree on what needs to be done in order to create a win-win situation. It’s possible but it’s not being done. It’s again a geopolitical great game that is being played here.

‘UN is politically irresponsible in Gaza’

UN can never produce something applicable or which Israel obeys regarding the Palestine issue. Can you comment on Israel-Gaza conflict? It’s now almost 20,000 civilians killed by Israeli air strikes or land operation. The majority of them are in the field of Gaza Strip. What do you think about the future of Gaza Strip because Netanyahu government wants to settle there and control Gaza. And the United States thinks that the control of Gaza should be given to the Palestinian Authority after the war. What do you think about the future of Gaza considering that Israel does not listen to any resolution of the UN?

Does Gaza have a future? Is there a future for the Gaza that we see on our television screens? It will take decades before Gaza is habitable again, before people can live there with dignity and security. It doesn’t exist. I come from a country I am old enough to have seen the Second World War. I know what war is like. I know how painful war is like. My father was executed. My mother in a was in a camp. My grandfather died on the way into a prison camp. My half-brother was shot in the battle. So, I know what war is. I know how long it took in my family to digest what we have gone through. What we have gone through is not half as painful as what Gaza people have gone through. So, it will take a long time before Gaza mentally and physically is able to stand on its own again.

That is a tragedy that should be recognized better today than tomorrow. Because if you only recognize it tomorrow, then many more people will have died in the meantime. So, there’s urgency. And the United Nations on the humanitarian side understands that very well. They understand. On the political side, they are irresponsible. They don’t want to take the steps that are needed in order to end this. The United States has every opportunity to stop that by stopping the supply of weapons into Israel. That isn’t happening and that makes in a way the United States a party to what is a crime of the highest proportion that you butcher innocent civilians day after day with the argument that you have to retaliate for what is, of course, also a crime committed by Hamas. But it is not acceptable that you look at this situation only from the today context. Ask the question why is there a Hamas? Why is there a Hamas? Would there have been a Hamas if in 1948 the UN resolution creating two states would have been implemented for both sides, for the Israelis and for the Arabs? There wouldn’t be a Hamas today. That is forgotten very often in the discussion.

‘Uncertainty that didn’t exist before the US occupation of Iraq’

You served in Iraq. Tensions between opposing factions have risen again as Iraq now prepares for elections. Even though 20 years have passed since the occupation, the country remains fragile. The state structure is weak, politics could not be institutionalized, infrastructure could not be built. What was Iraq like when you served? What about now? What kind of country did the occupation leave behind?

I was in Iraq at a time when Iraq was completely dependent on external humanitarian assistance. People wouldn’t have survived without World Food Program. But there was an order in Iraq as difficult and as complex it was. There was an order, there was an orderly relationship between Baghdad and the Kurdish areas. There was cooperation. There wasn’t just a border and then there was nothing on the other side. There was daily contact between Bagdad and Arbil and Sulaymaniyah, the Kurdish areas. So, there was this order which worked in favor of people of at the time when I was in Baghdad, 23 million people. Now, the people in Iraq are grappling with an incredible disorder where there is fragmentation, where there are militias, they’re either Sunni related or Shia related or Kurdish related. It’s a completely open unpredictable circumstance reality in which people again are fearful for their lives, for their survival, for their future. Do you want to be a young person in Baghdad or in Mosul or in Sulaymaniyah? What future do you have? You don’t know. Maybe a good one, maybe a bad one. But there is an element of uncertainty that didn’t exist at the time when I was in Baghdad.

* a situation in which neither of two opposing groups or forces will make a move until the other one does something