New York: Critics of the Bush administration policy on Iraq, since it drafted a UN resolution this week, regard its sudden interest in obtaining significant United Nations support for post-war redevelopment as a classic case of eating crow.

Or viewed from the other end, as Al Jazeera puts it, “The very ‘relevant’ United Nations is called upon (only) to clean-up Bush’s bungled mess.”

In such times, to be the global perception manager of the world body founded in 1945 may not be an enviable lapel to wear. Under Secretary General Shashi Tharoor does exude the urgency of the situation, albeit calmly, as he does his diplomacy talk in between a flurry of phone calls. (One of them we realise is from actress Vanessa Redgrave to condole the lives lost at the bomb attack on the UN mission building at Baghdad).

It’s been a few days since the first UN casualty at Baghdad. Tharoor has been on top American TV stations and is on his way to the Fox News studio “to defend the UN”.

And though the interview has centred around the multi-faceted novelist-diplomat’s fond interests in cinema, journalism, writing and of late Nehru, whose biography penned by him comes out in November, we pin these excerpts to his less-glamorous, but highly significant day job.

Post the blasts at Baghdad where the UN headquarters was targetted, how much do you think the UN — a hitherto neutral body in Iraq — can continue to remain so?

We are very much an independent body in Iraq. We are not part of the occupation or the coalition. Ironically, had we been, we would not have lost so many lives — remaining under a fortified compound.

Instead, we kept a distinct presence and we acted as people who are there to help the Iraqi people regain their sovereignty and independence. There is no question of working behind a tank or sandbags. Now, the big issue is our responsibility towards our workers and the conditions they must work under.

A security assessment and political discussions in the Security Council are on. The key question remains — how do we make a difference? We need to do it well and do it safely.

The UN did provide tacit legitimacy to the US-appointed Governing Council that occupies Iraq. To what extent then can the body be seen as impartial on this issue?

Well, the language of the UN resolution did not particularly speak of legitimacy. But I take the point that certainly the Security Council, which in an earlier resolution had de facto taken note of the role of the coalition authorities in Iraq, has welcomed the Governing Council.

To that degree, yes, their existence as a fact of life has been acknowledged. Whether that adds up to legitimacy is a question you’ll have to ask the member states, we don’t take a position on that.

Also, as the situation evolves, we hope that in any case, Iraq moves progressively towards institutions of self-governance. We are after all the body that presided over the great decolonisation of the ’50s and ’60s.

To what extent do you think the international perception of UN has altered since the US went ahead with the attack on Iraq, despite the UN’s reservations on the subject?

On perception you’ll have to ask, perception, where? We had a consistently high rating in all parts of the world, except the United States, where of course, a lot of the ideologues had been critical of the UN.

In the rest of the world, wherever there had been a negative image of the UN, it’s because we were seen as an instrument of US policy. It’s one of the great ironies that we’ve suffered from.

But on the Iraq War we had two different kinds of problems. The disinclination of the Council to support the Americans meant that our image in the US went down.

The fact that we could not then prevent the war meant that our image elsewhere went down. So we lost out on both sides. I would think that in both cases, it’s a transient phenomenon, but nonetheless an example of the problems that we face.

What about the US opinion of the UN vis-à-vis the Middle East (where the UN has been sidelined in recent history)?

For a long time, the Middle East was seen as a UN problem. Indeed, Ralph Bunche, our Under Secretary General in 1950 won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to bring about a truce in Jerusalem. And UN mediators continued to deal with the problem until the 1973 war.

After that, both parties (Israel and Palestine) seemed to think that only the Americans could deal with the issue, so the UN then was seen as irrelevant. And frankly, the fact that the General Assembly was passing resolutions so critical of one side (the Israelis) meant that we were no longer seen as a credible mediator by the Israelis.

The kind of solution that is being talked about now, by which I mean the two-state solution (both Israel and Palestine living side by side) is one endorsed by the Security Council with the American vote.

So we’re on the same boat after a long time, putting behind us the days when either the Russians or the Europeans would put forward resolutions that the US would veto.

Now the road map is endorsed by what is known as the ‘quartet’ — which includes the UN secretary general, the EU commissioner for foreign policy, the US secretary of state and the Russian foreign minister. So in Washington there is much more regard for us and our involvement in the Middle East.

Presently, is there a damage control exercise in operation within the UN, vis-à-vis its low global ratings since the Gulf War II?

The UN is a body of a hundred and ninety-one voices. And one has to analyse this in a realistic way. Many countries have chosen to act militarily when it has suited them to do so.

Even though the UN has made a lot of progress to promote a norm of peace, as a forum through which resolution of disputes can occur peacefully, we always recognise that there will be situations when countries act on their own.

Even strong supporters of the UN like India have gone to war in the past without the UN having much say in the matter. So I think it would be unrealistic for us to assume that the mere existence of UN will make war disappear from the planet. But having said that, it doesn’t make the UN irrelevant for a number of reasons.

The first is its universality. I hear trivial comparisons of the UN to the League of Nations. But the fact is that by WWII, two important powers of the time — the US and Germany — were not even members of the League.

And so the body could have no influence on their actions or policies.

We face a contrary situation. Last year, even the fiercely nationalistic Switzerland voted in a referendum to join the UN. Any club that attracts every eligible member cannot be called irrelevant.

But what does mere universality of an organisation entail?

From universality comes its legitimacy. Some resolutions of the UN are not always honoured in practice, but in most cases they are. And the binding resolutions such as sanctions resolutions certainly are. There is no other body in the world that can claim such authority.

Also, the issue of UN’s relevance is unfairly focussed on one thing – the Iraq War. The UN is about much more than war and peace or Iraq.

Even on war and peace situations, while the council was unable to agree on Iraq, at the same time, they were in agreement on a host of other issues — Congo, Cyprus, Afghanistan... Who is to say that the lives of the people in those places are less important than of those in Iraq?

Beyond that, there is a host of, what the secretary general (Kofi Annan) calls “problems without passports” — refugees, drugs, terrorism, the deadly combination of poverty, famine and AIDS in southern Africa, which has cost more human lives than Iraq ever did.

And in those issues, the UN is unquestionably the world leader in trying to work for solutions. The UN there is not just relevant, but indispensable.

The long-standing bone of contention is the veto power enjoyed by the five-member club that can thwart any process, regardless of the majority opinion among UN member states.

Yes, it’s true that the veto power confers a special privilege on these governments. But it is rarely used. If it is used nonetheless, my answer is, would you not rather have a world body that is anchored to the globe’s geo-political realities? Or one that lives in an illusionary idealistic world escaping the realities of power and politics?

If there weren’t a veto power, for example, the US would not participate in such an organisation when it came to peace and security issues. Without the US, there is a genuine risk of the UN becoming a League of Nations.

So one has to accept this imbalance. And the imbalance of the five as you mentioned is one thing. The other is the reality of super power dominance.

Mainline papers in the west have recently dubbed you as the man being groomed for the UN secretary general’s post.

Where do you read all this stuff? (laughs). Well, the Straits Times in Singapore and a couple of other publications have reported this. But I think frankly it’s not only premature, it’s actually ridiculous.

First of all, we’re only into the second year of the secretary general’s five-year term. Secondly, I don’t believe the successor to the secretary general is likely to come either from the organisation or from India.

Traditionally this job has gone to international diplomats from smaller, non-controversial countries. He (Annan) is a rare exception, who worked his way up the ranks.

But from your career’s perspective, this would be the next possible step — worth an ambition to pursue?

It would not normally be, no. As a career position, my ambition should have ended with the directorship. I achieved that and then was privileged to have been elevated to the political ranks, as the under secretary general, which are normally nominated by governments. Now that I am there, I have already exceeded what I had any reasonable right to have an ambition for.