(3 of 5)
A. I think this is recognition long overdue, of an extremely important idea with a very big future, which is the nonviolent use of soldiers by the international community, and using soldiers as a catalyst for peace rather than as an instrument of war. If we're in a state of evolution toward a better international arrangement, I think one can see the peacekeeping forces a little bit like the civil-police forces, which were introduced into nations in the beginning of the last century. They were considered to be completely ridiculous at that time, but it turned out this was a very powerful idea. I think peacekeeping forces could become a very important institution. Most people can't understand what the hell all these chaps in blue helmets are doing all over the place. It sounds very pretentious, but we have now developed the art of war to such a point where you really can't use it. I think you need an alternative, and maybe this is the beginning of the alternative.
Q. What's it like out on the peacekeeping beat?
A. It's not like being an ordinary soldier. You can't open fire except in the extreme case of self-defense. You have to stay above the battle, to talk constantly to both sides and defuse misunderstandings. And even to be on hand when somebody's chicken runs over the line into the other people's territory, so you don't start a battle.
Q. One time things didn't work very well was in 1967, when the U.N. agreed to withdraw peacekeeping troops from the Sinai. A war ensued, which led to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as other Arab territories.
A. Nasser ordered the U.N. forces out. U Thant was the only person who went to Nasser and said, "This is crazy. You can't do this." U Thant got all the blame for it because he was a very convenient scapegoat. Nobody ever mentioned that he really didn't have any alternative, particularly since there was no international backing to stop either side from getting into the war.
Q. You thought highly of Dag Hammarskjold.
A. He had this slightly visionary quality. He did push, much further than before, the idea of an active practical organization which could in desperate circumstances actually operate in the field and do something to try to calm things down.
Q. Kurt Waldheim has turned out to be the most controversial of the Secretaries-General.
A. I worked with him for ten years. He was not a very original man. He was a very hardworking, extremely ambitious man. I have totally revised my views about him, I have to say, because I find it totally unforgivable that he would have repeatedly given this total misrepresentation of his wartime career. I have never seen any evidence that he was in any normal sense a war criminal. But he was certainly in a particularly tough unit of the German army. To have told lies about this, for a public figure in that position of responsibility, seems to me to be absolutely unforgivable. It's particularly bad in that office because the Secretary-General of the U.N. doesn't have great divisions, or money, or sovereign power. His sole important weapon is his credibility. I had always accepted his own version.
Q. You had discussed his background with him?