Former UN Security Council Chief: Positions on Iraq, Syrian conflict, Trump administration

 

The United Nations is committed to improving peace and security in areas of the world where the organization has failed in the past, says Sweden’s permanent Ambassador to the UN Olof Skoog. “The Security Council has been able to come together on some very important issues including on some elements on a way forward in Syria, on the Middle East peace process, and not least in support the new Secretary-General, where the council although divided on many issues has given a very strong support to Antonio Guterres.”

 

Skoog said that the UN Special Representative to Iraq has made a very strong appeal to all UN members “to come up now to sustain its effort to Iraq and to the people and the government to ensure that the next phases now of preparing for elections, reconstruction, in where there has been where there was destruction, helping to get the economy back on track, etc.”

 

On the situation in Syria, Skoog said that the only solution is political and that the Geneva talks is a good vehicle for that. “I do not know. I just hope that after six years of war people will come to their senses, accept that it is simply not the way forward to keep fighting, that there has to be compromises and an inclusive political process, and a new way of looking at this.”

 

Skoog went on to say that as part of Iraq moving forward there must be accountability for the massacre of the Yezidi community by ISIS and that hopefully Iraq and other UN countries will discuss the topic in the coming days.

 

“I share the tremendous frustration and sorrow of what has happened against the Yezidis, the way their women have been treated by this horrendous group. I absolutely believe that there has to be accountability. Iraq is not a party to the ICC, so would hope that, that could change because that would be one way forward,” he said. “I would hope that otherwise the legal system in Iraq be reinforced and supported so that there is real accountability on this. I think there proposals already coming, and I hope that very soon we’ll be back discussing this in the Security Council, and I would gladly support that.”

 

Rudaw: You assumed this position at the Security Council at the time of President Donald Trump. What concerns are there on the international level about changes internationally and US foreign policy?

 

Olof Skoog: I think it will depend very much on who you talk to. I think it’s very early days — still; we are only a couple of weeks into the new administration. Of course we have, as my country, reacted to some things that have happened already including the executive order to ban certain citizens from some countries into the United States, which we believe is a way of categorizing people into various ethnic, religious categories, which we don’t is a good way forward at a time when there should be more, not less, cooperation.

 

But for us, the most important change this year is actually the fact that Sweden is on the [UN] Security Council. We have had a month where we have presided over the Security Council. We have a new Secretary-General. We have a commitment, I think, by the United Nations to try to do better in the areas where the United Nations have failed in the past and that is particularly relevant in the area of peace and security, where we find the Security Council should be more proactive, better equipped, and more result oriented.

 

The Security Council has the power to convene sessions on any topic you want.

We felt that last year we were able, as an elected member, we were allowed to sit in as an observer [during] the last few months [of] last year. And I spent quite a lot of time there, and I had a sense that actually the Council could do better. That there wasn’t always the kind of focus that I would have expected, that there was sometimes more emphasis on insulting each other than trying to find common ground. So just very modestly we have tried to improve some of that, as we took on the chairmanship. We’re only one month into a two-year term. So, it’s way too early to say what we have achieved, or whether anything will change, but I think now after one

month that I can say that the working climate in that room is better. The Security Council has been able to come together on some very important issues including on some elements on a way forward in Syria, on the Middle East peace process, and not least in support the new Secretary-General, where the council although divided on many issues has given a very strong support to Antonio Guterres. So what we want to do is just to make sure we get off to a good start in 2017, and I think so far, so good. I realize for people on the ground — who are suffering from the situation in Syria, the horrendous things that have been happening in Mosul under Daesh, etc. — there isn’t much improvement from one day to the other, but I hope that a common ground will be found and that we can move forward on these issues, gradually.

 

 

Coming back to the issue of Trump and the travel ban on seven countries. Do you think religion is the reason or there are other factors behind it?

 

I’m the Swedish Ambassador to the United Nations. My job is to protect and defend Swedish interests. Part of that interest is, as we have defined our interests, is a strong United Nations, a strong multilateral cooperation. So we don’t make the distinction between what is best for Sweden and what is for the world. For us, it is the same thing. That’s why we have reacted when countries, and a big country like the United States, takes steps that seems to threaten some of this cooperation, some of this flow of well-intentioned people across the globe — students, tourists, what have you. [It’s] a situation where there should be more, and not less, exchange between religions, ethnic groups, nations … We just think that’s the wrong thing to do.

 

Another hot topic these days is Iran testing ballistic missiles and its impact on the nuclear deal.

 

We consider, if you look back it has been very difficult negotiations with Iran. But in the end, the deal that has been made, we believe is a success of the preventive, diplomacy, peaceful ways to resolve conflicts. So we want to protect that deal. And if there are violations against it, that’s very serious. We need to deal with that, so this launch, or the missile issue, was discussed in the Security Council just a few days ago during our presidency [on] the very last day in January. At that point, this was still just information … I don’t think

everyone thought that these were confirmed allegations. Now we know a little bit better what has happened, and so the next step is to discuss what effects this will have if they are violations of the relevant resolutions, but more broadly we believe that the credibility of the United Nations, the credibility of the Security Council, is also tested if we don’t react when there are violations of our resolutions. This is not just about Iran. This is about other countries that also seem to be violating United Nations Security Council resolutions — they need to be implemented. But as you know, diplomacy is one of tactics, it’s one of patience, it’s one of going up the ladder. There are efforts that are about dialogue, then you can increase pressure gradually, etc. So to my mind, we are still at a stage where we need to analyze what has happened, have the council come together, and then discuss the next steps.

 

 

You work every day at the Security Council with American diplomats. Can you tell us what their plan is for Iran?

 

The United States got their next secretary of state confirmed yesterday. So, I think it’s reasonable also to give Washington some time to get their foreign policy together. But for us, we are ready to work with everyone, and we’ve had our interaction with the new American ambassador here, which has been very nice. So I am hopeful. We work with everyone. There would be concerns if American administration starts pulling back from the United Nations or pulls back support, including funding, from the United Nations. That would be a concern to us, because as I said before, we believe in this organization. That does not mean that everything is perfect here in the UN, and we are also — as a big contributor and supporter for the organization — we are also keen that it reforms, that it improves and that it does away with obsolete things that may be happening today, but that is a discussion to be had.

 

Does the UN have any alternative plans for the scenario of America withdrawing from the UN?

 

No. As I said, we can’t base our policies on tweets, or things that have been said on an electoral campaign. So, we have to just calmly sit, and have a dialogue with the new American ambassador, which we already have, and start the engagement as we do with all knew ambassadors and administrations. So it is far too early to say where this will lead us. So we aren’t going to paint anything in dark

colors. There’s a lot of positive things happening including the new Secretary-General, a new working climate in the Security Council, a reinforced emphasis on diplomacy, on conflict prevention, on sustaining peace, etc. So we really have to build on the positives.

 

 

The Swedish PM visited Iraq and the Kurdistan region recently. Does Sweden have any plans to continue and increase support for Kurdish Peshmerga and Iraqi forces?

 

Absolutely. We are firmly and proudly a part of the international coalition against Daesh. I am glad that my prime minister was able to announce a big package of support when he visited northern Iraq, which includes humanitarian support, it includes training of forces, and it also includes quite a massive and stepped-up contribution to various stabilization efforts, which is about when now Mosul gradually — hopefully soon — is liberated from the horrendous crimes committed by Daesh. That there also very quickly an effort to help the population there and to rebuild and to come back to a normal life. That requires a joint effort by Iraq, but also supported by the international community, so this is an area that we are very much involved in.

 

The Security Council has ignored two sides of the ISIS war. One is post-ISIS reconstruction and Iraq’s own political future after ISIS.

 

I have only been on the Security Council for only five weeks. So I am not an expert on what has happened in the past. But we have certainly taken on this effort now. First, we’ve had a good follow-up, detailed briefing about the advances of the coalition in Mosul, so that we understood what was happening on the ground, so we understood the ongoing efforts to protect the civilian population, the humanitarian efforts that have taken place, etc. So that’s already happened. But I agree with you — and this is a conversation we just came out from this morning … With the United Nations presence in Iraq, as the liberation goes forward, what comes next? And I think the United Nations Special Representative [to Iraq] has made a very strong appeal to all of us, not just countries that are on the security council, but the whole membership of the United Nations to come up now to sustain its effort to Iraq and to the people and the government to ensure that the next phases now of preparing for elections, reconstruction, in where there has been where there was destruction, helping to get the economy back on track, etc., so that this effort is sustained. But of course in the end, these things will only work if it’s led by the Iraqi people, themselves. But we are certainly there to back it up to keep on supporting Iraq.

 

About the hundreds and thousands who are still captive under ISIS, and what many see as genocide. Does your organization support their case being referred to the Insertional Criminal Court?

 

I share the tremendous frustration and sorrow of what has happened against the Yezidis, the way their women have been treated by this horrendous group. I absolutely believe that there has to be accountability. Iraq is not a party to the ICC, so would hope that, that could change because that would be one way forward. I would hope that otherwise the legal system in Iraq be reinforced and supported so that there is real accountability on this. I think there proposals already coming, and I hope that very soon we’ll be back discussing this in the Security Council, and I would gladly support that.

 

Will you support referring the Yezidis case to the ICC?

Whatever works. Right now, it’s about finding out what has happened, protecting and helping those who need to have support. And then bring those who have committed this to justice to my mind, whether that takes place in Iraq or the ICC; it’s not the main

problem on my mind. It’s about the fact that we have to start moving away from impunity for these kinds of crimes. Whether it is in Iraq, or in South Sudan, or against the girls in Nigeria … it’s one of the most worst things that have happened in the last few years, and that we have somehow accepted gross violations of international humanitarian law to just pass because we haven’t understood how to deal with it in a proper way. So I hope that the ICC will come into action and that there are strong justice systems established in countries where such crimes have been committed.

 

 

On the idea of creating safe zones in Syria. The new US administration says they support that idea. What is your position on that?

 

It is not a new concept. It has been done before. It has been tested before, some successfully, sometimes less so. We have to draw conclusions from where it has been conducted successfully including in northern Iraq at one point many years ago when there were implemented no-fly zones – the government somehow accepted that all this took place. So you just need to have enforcement. If you say you are going to have a safe zone, and you fail to implement it by the right type of protection, etc., then it could be a trap. It could be a horrendous mistake. It just has to be done properly. If it works, we are all for it.

 

Do you think establishing the safe zone in Iraq can be successfully emulated in Syria?

 

I hope that we are beyond it. I hope that the issue now is to have a ceasefire. There has been a diminishing of violence or clashes on the ground already thanks to the efforts of the guarantor power, now. What has not improved is the humanitarian situation there.

There are still huge problems in access, etc. But as I said, if things go well and as you know, we have really boosted a new round of UN-led talks in Geneva that will happen later on in February. If we can get all this going, there should be a ceasefire, there should be humanitarian access and there should be work on a political solution in line with the Security Council resolutions. And if that happens, hopefully, the safe zone or not is not an issue anymore in Syria.

 

And in all this process, Syrian Kurds have been sidelined and not invited to Geneva. What is your view on ignoring an important ethnic minority like that?

 

That’s a concern to us. We believe that and we have said this all along and we say it now at the Council again, these talks have to be inclusive, and any solution that is going to be sustainable and credible in Syria has to be inclusive. This is true in Syria, as it is true in Iraq, as it is true in Yemen, as it is true all over. We just hope that there will be ways to ensure that everyone feels represented — first at the talks that we are looking forward to, and then at whatever comes in terms of finding a political solution moving forward.

 

Russia proposed a constitution to Syria recently which paves the way for a federal system in Syria. Has this been discussed at the Security Council?

No. No, not during our term on the Council.

 

Can you tell me why the new Geneva talks are important this time around?

 

Everyone is very supportive of it. Some feel that it should have already been held earlier. But hopefully it helps that there is less fighting on the ground. This will cause people to come together. I really hope … Everyone is saying that there is no military solution to the situation in Syria; it has to be a political one. And the vehicle for this is the Geneva process. That is the one process that exists. I hope everyone will take this opportunity to come forward, and also with compromises. Because, not least, must the regime understand that this is not business as usual. There must be a change.

 

Previously there were talks that failed. What is the difference between this round and the previous talks?

 

I do not know. I just hope that after six years of war people will come to their senses, accept that it is simply not the way forward to keep fighting, that there has to be compromises and an inclusive political process, and a new way of looking at this.