In his nearly half a century-long career with the UN, Staffan de Mistura has held a number of offices within the organisation. He was the UN's special representative for Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Secretary-General's personal representative for Lebanon. His most recent role was the one of UN's special representative for Syria, an office he held until the end of 2018.

For N1’s on-going series “World in Times of Corona”, de Mistura spoke about the future of multilateralism, UN’s Secretary-General’s call to end conflicts around the globe, as well as the war in Syria. 

Recently, amid the pandemic, US President Trump announced that he would stop the financing of WHO, accusing them, as well as China, of not being transparent. How is this course which Trump has been on for some time now, especially withholding funds as one of the biggest donors for multilateral organisations, going to affect multilateralism?

Let me go back to the broader picture regarding this Covid-19 emergency, and then go back to the WHO and it’s current, and future, role. The only area which could be compared with what is happening now is the famous Spanish Influenza from 1917/1918. The lesson from that time was basically forgotten, because it was the end of WWI. Some countries were winning, and the end of the war came closely after the explosion of the Spanish flu. That disease did not start in Spain, it started in Kansas, US, according to a report that we’ve read. There are not that many, because history is written by winners, and victory then was getting close, and nobody wanted to spoil it. So, the disease started it Kansas and it was probably linked to an avian flu type outbreak, which spread from the military training camps, they have been contaminated by this type of virus which jumped from probably chicken to humans. It reached France, UK, even Germany, with which they were at war. The result is known. Many people were affected, young people in particular, and died. The worst moment was the second wave, which we shouldn’t forget, even in this case. So why do we call it the Spanish flu? Because Spain was the only country that was neutral at the time and Spain had it, and even the King got it. It became a big issue, and ever since it was known as the Spanish Flu. What happens in war is that the first victim is the truth. Neither France, nor the UK, nor the US nor Germany, at the time wanted to acknowledge that they had many victims among their troops. They were victims of the other war, the Spanish flu. And that has kept a cap on it for a while. And now, to go back to today. What is the difference between today and the Spanish flu? I’m not an epidemiologist so I won’t go into that aspect, but politically, geopolitically, historically? First of all, back then we had the First World War and that prevented the concerted, united, global reaction. We don’t have that today. We do have wars – smaller, but not a global one. Secondly, at the time of the Spanish flu, we did not have EasyJet, whereas now we do have all sorts of capacities for spreading the virus through speedy connection flights. Just look at the pictures showing how many flights were taking place between various parts in the world just before the outbreak, and just how few are taking place now. But the other element that didn’t exist at the time is the international structure. The League of Nations was not working, and there was a global war. Today we have international structure of organisations like the UN, or EU, or NATO, so there are ways for countries to work together. So here is the main question: is this the time to demolish them, attack them, even if – and this needs to be proven – they have made mistakes or aren’t perfect? I’m sure that everyone will recognise that there is room for improvement not just in the WHO, but in many UN’s agencies and UN itself, or EU, NATO, or any other international structure, but this crisis can be used to improve them, rather than punish or withdraw funds. The WHO is especially useful to those countries which don’t have the funds and the capacity to respond, and where the danger of a flare-up is extremely high, like in Africa or Latin America.

The world in which we live today is increasingly multipolar and we are witnessing a sort of an economic duopoly between the United States and China and the rivalry between these two largest economies in the world, which has only grown since Trump became president. On the other hand Xi Jinping has secured a life-long mandate. How do we pursue multilateralism with more and more selfishness being pursued for political purposes?

This pandemic caught the whole world by surprise. And it happened at the worst possible moment, if you think about it. A moment which wasn’t like the one at the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the beginning of an atmosphere of international cooperation and frankly enthusiasm. We were all looking for this dream period of, not competition, but cooperation between not only the two blocs – the Soviet bloc and the Western bloc – but among every country, especially because there was no need for proxy conflicts, like they had in Ethiopia, in Angola and many other places. That enthusiasm didn’t last long, you saw it in your own, Balkan region, and we saw it in many other places. Covid-19 exploded not only in a time when there was no atmosphere of enthusiasm, it was the opposite. Countries, led by many leaders who had strong public and private doubts about the usefulness of the international architecture and international cooperation, rather a creation of new philosophy, going back in a way to the middle ages, which is – might is right. And then we go from there into the idea that wars can be won, and if we’re talking about military solutions, and then we expect the international community to play according to that military solution and call it a political solution. That attitude was taking place more and more in the world at the time of the Covid-19 crisis. And then you have another element, which is linked – although we have to see what the scientists will come up with – to the Covid-19, and that is the environment, the climate change. The fact that nature was reacting, because we have been touching too much the places where wild animals, wild nature should have been left untouched, uncontaminated – it was not supposed to be exploited by man – to the point that these things from nature entered into human beings. All those factors, together with some type of economic upturn, have been the worst possible timing for a response to Covid-19. So, where are we, then? Well, we have a few options. The first option, which we’ve all seen to a certain degree, under the pressure of the panic, many countries have attempted to go on their own, by the system – mine first, and then yours. Ventilators are mine first, and then yours. And then, some sort of cooperation took place later on. But, this type of crisis has no borders. And if it comes to Africa, god forbid, there will be no country in Europe, Asia, America, that will be able to avoid a new flare-up. The best outcome would be to say – this is the time to learn from the Spanish flu. We have a new enemy, a global enemy, in fact, an enemy which can become an opportunity for all of us to unify in order to stop something from coming. Imagine if we had a meteorite or aliens attacking the world, wouldn’t that be the moment when everyone stops fighting each other and works together to stop the enemy? Well, we have an invisible, devious, silent enemy, which doesn’t look at borders or ideologies, or power even.

UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, called for a stop in conflicts around the world, saying this pandemic has shown us the pointlessness of war. The wars have not stopped, what do you think of his initiative?

There has not been a sufficient response to the call for a global ceasefire. I learned this is Syria, when I proposed a ceasefire in Aleppo, all sides were against it. If two sides had accepted, the third side would have taken advantage of the ceasefire in order to regroup, rearm. That type of mentality, especially when the supporters of proxy wars see things the same, the lack of trust, may block it. Should the Secretary-General not do it? He should. And I’ll tell you why. By doing so, we’re not having ceasefire, but it can be sufficient to cause embarrassment and preventing that another batter for Aleppo, or Idlib, or a major attack in Yemen or Tripoli. After the ceaseire in view of the Covid-19 and the embarrassment it would produce in front of everyone, such a call may at least postpone it, and hopefully postpone it for much longer. In that sense, the ceasefire initiative is a very good initiative.

For a long time, we’ve been listening about the need to reform the UN- We’re hearing criticism ranging from sluggish bureaucracy, corruption, term limits, etc, but on the other hand, without the UN there wouldn’t be sustainable development goals, access to food and water, support for refugees, education and so on. If I were able to engage you as a consultant for UN, to give me a couple of bullet points of what needs to fundamentally reform, what would they be?

The first one probably would be that the position of the Secretary-General should not be under pressure by major countries whenever he or she would, as they should be doing, would stand up as a moral authority. In other words, when there something happening in the world, the Secretary-General should be allowed to speak up, without any country threatening to stop them, withhold support or funds. That moral authority needs to be respected. The moral voice of the UN, which is the voice the public opinion wants to hear, needs to hear, needs to be allowed and have that power. Look at what the Pope is doing – using his moral authority. The Secretary-Gerenal is, yes, a secretary, but he is also a general – a moral general – and should be allowed by the countries, the powerful countries who try to impose caution upon him, to actually be audacious. That alone would change a lot of perception in the world about what is the concept of what represents the people. “We, the people” is the principle of the UN, it is seen as the ultimate and initial defender of principles.

Second, Security Council, again, through this global feeling of embarrassment should not be allowed, not by law, but because it would be unacceptable in front of the people of the world, to use the veto whenever there is a humanitarian or a human rights tragedy. One of the biggest reasons why the UN is considered ineffective – and I speak from 47 years of experience – is that when there is a tragedy in a country in a country either protected or supported by a Council member, that member country will say no, this is an internal affair, we shouldn’t intervene. All the while a million of people are starving. That type of non-possibility of using the veto to stop the UN international or humanitarian intervention would be a huge boost to the UN’s capacity and credibility. Of course there are problems of bureaucracy, inefficiency, slowness. All of that exists in any structure that’s become very big and is actually struggling to prove its efficiency. But these two elements I mentioned could make a major difference.

We hear the word “solidarity” a lot. Did it lose its sense, its meaning in the world which is run by interests?

Yes. In this period of world history, where might is right, where I can punish you with sanctions if I don’t like what you’re doing or when I can start a silent or a proxy war without anyone being able to stop or criticise that, solidarity becomes a trade-off. Cooperation may be a better word. And now we go back to the primary concept. Yes, you can be a superpower, although today it’s not really clear who is going to be, who can be a superpower. We have a multipolar environment, where even superpowers cannot impose on other countries such as Turkey or Saudi Arabia, or Iran. The environment is multipolar, look at Syria as an example. But can you actually solve by yourself the challenges that the world is facing today, such as pandemics, climate, poverty? That is impossible. My hope is that all this may produce, as it has in the past, a return to realising there is a need for a more efficient UN, more efficient international cooperation, more efficient EU, but there is no alternative. Do you know what the alternative is? A jungle.

Talking about the jungle, I will come back to the call by both the Pope and Secretary-General to stop the conflicts right now, and your role in Syria. Before this crisis we were at a point of huge catastrophe in Idlib, we saw refugees on the European-Turkish border and we heard about the huge humanitarian catastrophe because neither UNHCR or other international organisations could enter those areas in Idlib because of the heavy air bombing from the Russians and the fighting between Assad’s regime against Turkey proxies on the ground. Where do we stand now? You quit in 2018, you basically said it was a mission impossible because none of the involved players wanted peace. Can Syria exist anymore in the future?
Since you’ve been to Syria, then you must have seen what I saw. Syrian people are wonderful and the Syrian country is a very proud country, probably one of the most authentic Arab countries which we’ve had. It had a tradition of multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural environment. The country will survive. It has survived for thousands of years and its people are very proud of being Syrian. So I think that will happen, but in what condition, how it will survive – that’s another issue because the conflict has been going on for years. Remember, Lebanon went through a terrible civil war when in fact families were fighting each other depending on where they lived and what type of identity they had, and they ended up in a model that is not perfect, but has kept the country going, and even going well for a long time, and hopefully still. So I’m optimistic because I know about the country’s stamina, the refinement of the Syrian people.

The issue of Idlib is a special case, and it’s a difficult one, because it’s also true that in Idlib there is the highest concentration of Al’Quaida at the moment – anyone who belongs to any kind of an extremist group, including Front Al-Nusra, ended up there, pushed by the sort of a diabolical approach by the government which worked by the principle of first siege, then bombing, and in the end letting those who want to go, to go to Idlib. The final battle didn’t take place because of the understanding between Putin and Erdogan, despite of all the differences you can see between the two men. They believe that this postponement will lead to some type of clarity. I’ve seen it, at least during my time, three times, there was a final touch of a talk between those two men, and then the crisis continued. But that’s only temporary and we know it. I can give you one example when it did work – it was just before I left, in October 2018, when an attack on Idlib was expected at any moment because in the south of Syria, there has been a major advance by the Syrian military in the south, and that was the moment when there was strong pressure on the Syrian military and, I presume, on the Russian military, to keep “momentum”, a key word in military terms. They were feeling the pressure, let’s have the adrenalin to move forward. I remember a group of women from Idlib – some of them linked to the extreme groups, but most of them not – they came to see me in Geneva. They told me that I must help them, there are three and a half million people there, and 30-40 thousand are members of extreme groups. I told her – dear ladies, you need to help me to help you. Put a candle in any window, broken or not, one night, and try to have some demonstration and show who you are. I need to be able to show the Security Council, and I did, that there are thousands of candles in the windows, that these are not terrorists, these are normal human beings, these are men, women, children, elder people, who don’t want to be victims of a battle between two sides who are taking over the city – one considered terrorists, and the other who wants a battle at any cost. And sure enough, after the Security Council, there was moral pressure that helped President Putin and President Erdogan, just before Christmas, to stop. There are ways by which, even when might is right, go over like an earthquake. Human nature, society, constructive environment, possibility of avoiding the worst – they’re all still here.

When you say avoiding the worst – it’s difficult to “swallow” that because of all that we’ve seen happen in Syria. In the end, you sat at the table with all of them. It’s been a year and a half since you left. We have the Geneva format still going on, we have the Astana format. But, in the end, which “might” will be the most “right” in Syria? We have millions of victims, tens of millions of Syrians are scattered all over the world because of Assad at the beginning, but also all those interests that intertwined on that territory. Do you expect these people to come back in the end, what kind of a Syria can they build?

A mediator can only be effective only if the two sides have decided they have reached a point in which they know they cannot win the war or when their sponsors, which is the case in Syria, feel that it is economically, or politically, or militarily, not worth it, or when the sponsors reach a deal over their heads over whatever other reason or agenda. That hasn’t happened and because one of the two sides – the one supporting the revolt – became deeply divided, extremists got involved and then because the US decided that Syria wasn’t worth any type of excess investment. That made it clear that, through the Russian involvement – which was a game-changer – and the heavy Iranian involvement, the war, territorially, was virtually won by the government of Syria. That doesn’t mean we’ve reached the end, because we see what’s happening in Idlib, Turkey is very present and there is still a large part of Syria still under control of those Kurds who are close to the US. Everybody knows however that the writing on the wall is in that direction – territorial victory of the government because of the increasing momentum in that direction and because of what was put on the table on one side, and not on the other. Here comes the point: territorial victory, perhaps. But is the government going to win the peace? That is the difference. To win the peace, you need to stabilise the country, you need to rebuild it, you need to be inclusive, you need to be able to ensure that the large majority – which is not made up of Alawites, but of Sunnis, Christians, Kurds – will be able to actually rebuild the country. And how do you do that? With funds. And those funds come from where? Iran? No. Russia? No way. From China? They said they would do something, but very little comparing to what is needed. The only part of the world which could do it would be Europe, which does want refugees to return and does not want more refugees which have destabilised Europe and produced a lot of internal political changes, including in the credibility of the EU and even to a certain degree Brexit, which can be considered a collateral effect of the disappointment of how Europe has dealt with the refugee crisis. Will Europe pay for this, especially after Covid-19 when they need so much more money for their own economy? They could participate, but they need to feel that the country is opening up. The first gesture would be to release prisoners, the second having a constitutional committee, not to have it postponed or sabotaged like we’ve been seeing in the last two years. And the third would be to accept elections with UN supervision. Then, there could be funding and rebuilding and if that takes place, there will be some type of re-launch. I believe the pandemic has been a wake-up call for the US, even for Russia, and Europe.

The most of your work was – in more than 20 countries in the world – basically it was always for the people. For saving one life, for conflict resolution. I heard one lecture you once gave in Stockholm, about Kosovo, you mentioned the importance of the hug. We are now living in the world without that kind of a human contact. I would like to hear your experience from all those countries where you worked and met people who lived in various difficult circumstances – what is the importance of this particular part of our humanity?

I didn’t want to be a UN diplomat originally, I wanted to be a fire fighter. After that, when I grew up a little bit, I felt I wanted to be a doctor. But then, my father, who was a Venetian-Dalmatian, like many others felt the horror of the WWII, felt that it was important that I spoke more languages than average people to be a doctor. That has helped me to help in impossible missions all over. Because human nature is tempted by war. My first experience was in Cyprus, the conflict between Turks and Greeks, when I saw a child killed by a sniper, a child that had nothing to do with it. It produced a kind of outrage that helped me to volunteer in every mission that UN has offered, regardless of how dangerous it was. That doctor helped me to see that not all diseases can be treated. But will the doctor give up? No. Is the doctor not going to try to revive someone or give them treatment? No. The doctor will try to keep the patient alive, to provide some pain killer, something to keep the patient stronger, to reduce the pain because tomorrow, the day after, there will be a treatment, as it was for tuberculosis, as it was for malaria. So during the Cold War, the Security Council was paralysed, but we were able to do things with only one parameter in mind – helping people. That’s how we organised the airdrops in Ethiopia, that’s how we broke the siege of Dubrovnik. It didn’t change the course of the war, but it did change the lives of many people in Dubrovnik who are today grown up and alive. I know that every side will try to say that they are right and that war is their right; but when you look at the consequences of war and when you interfere in order to save lives, then you are in a way helping the moment when sanity will come back. And that’s what I feel strongly. That helped me during the Kosovo conflict,that was the case you were referring to. There was a lot of refugees being pushed away into Albania, North Macedonia. I was there with UNHCR and what I saw was that the refugees were traumatised, but were not just in need of clothing and shelter, they needed a hug. They needed to feel that we were able to tell them – you are not alone. We are together. We will help you. You are no longer under fire from someone on that mountain in front of you. And by hugging thousands of people upon their arrival, I felt that their dignity, in particular, was recognised. Dignity.

The tragedy of this invisible enemy which is everywhere and catching, democratically, anyone it wants, from the highest to the lowest, is that we cannot hug each other. We cannot even shake hands. But look at what happened some days ago, at this global event which I found wonderful, when musicians all over the world through the music, through the digital capacity to bringing it to each of us, gave us a global embrace.

You can even now show others you are ready to hug them. There is a saying that we are all angels, but only with one wing and we can only fly if we are holding each other’s hands. If there was one moment in history when, through a tragedy, we have the opportunity of turning the page and looking at our relationship in a multilateral, cooperative way, hugging, believing that humanity has values that can keep us going through this crisis – it is now. Like every crisis, Covid-19 is a horrible crisis. But in every crisis, there is one opportunity