SHASHI THAROOR, UN UNDER SECRETARY: Thank you.

MARK DAVIS: Last night's speech was a very important one for George Bush, how persuasive do you think it was for some of the more sceptical nations?

SHASHI THAROOR: Well, I think the President was attempting to put across, of course, a number of messages in his speech and I think they will have been listened to very attentively. All of us at the United Nations were interested to hear what he had to say about the organisation, about the larger purposes for which the organisation stands as well as what the US had in mind on Iraq. And I think we got a little bit on all of those issues.

MARK DAVIS: Well, the broad international response to Iraq specifically seems to have been that America broke it, America can fix it, perhaps with some help from other coalition of the willing members, Australia and Britain. Did George Bush's speech change that attitude in any way?

SHASHI THAROOR: That remains to be seen because, of course, member states in the Security Council still have a fair amount of discussing to do ahead of them. What's clear with this speech is that the President is reiterating his conviction that the US did the right thing in the right way to implement earlier decisions of the Security Council which he reminded the General Assembly were the right decisions, and then the question of what this means for the next steps is something the Security Council members will be discussing, we believe, in the next week or 10 days.

MARK DAVIS: Kofi Annan was unusually blunt in his criticism of actions like Iraq. What response were you getting from American officials after this speech?

SHASHI THAROOR: Well, I think there was a great deal of understanding for the way in which he put forward his concern. His concern was actually not just a criticism of the doctrine of pre-emption - which, of course, was there and was very clearly articulated, and which Kofi Annan said that we have to be sure that other people don't go around doing this because then we'll have a lawless world - but he went on to say to the member states, what about those situations in which the countries that are tempted to take unilateral action have very genuine worries, very genuine concerns. Can we find a way of meeting those concerns through effective collective action? So in other words, he was not just denouncing pre-emptive - the doctrine of pre-emption, he was saying if we want to avoid people being tempted by the doctrine of pre-emption, what can we do collectively within the international institutions of the UN to find them better solutions. And that was of a piece with his larger message that the institution which is so precious, so necessary for a world of laws rather than a world of force and might, needs revitalising.

MARK DAVIS: The Americans are likely to have seen today as yet another test of the UN's relevancy. Can the United Nations afford to spurn the United States for a second time?

SHASHI THAROOR: No, I think spurning is not really the issue. For example, none of the members of the Security Council with the veto power have talked about vetoing an American resolution whatever it may contain and there are, of course, others on the council who don't have the veto but who have also said they will not vote against the US. Everybody on the council is anxious to put behind them the divisiveness and recrimination that so bedevilled this organisation earlier this year. On the other hand, we have to ask ourselves whether agreement alone is enough or whether it has to be agreement that actually translates into something different on the ground.

MARK DAVIS: Well, this year's been a year of ups and downs for the UN - mostly downs, you'd probably have to say. What's the mood amongst the senior UN staff today?

SHASHI THAROOR: Well, the mood has been fairly grim for a while. We all suffered a terrible blow with the bombing in Baghdad on 19 August. A lot of us lost not just valued colleagues but dear friends. Sergio Vieira De Mello for instance was somebody I'd known for 25 years. One doesn't likely recover from a blow like that and for a long time now we've all felt ourselves metaphorically, if not literally, picking ourselves out of the rubble. Having said that, we're also conscious that this is a momentous occasion in the history of the UN, a time when looking at the shape of the new world that has been born after the cataclysmic events of the last couple of years - 9/11, the terrible World Trade Centre bombings in this country, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the divisions in the council - all of this has really meant a very unsettled international environment and we of the United Nations find ourselves, of course, at the centre of this feeling of being unsettled.

MARK DAVIS: The downs I was referring to are regarding the UN's survival and relevance. Just a few months ago Donald Rumsfeld was suggesting that the UN could or should be replaced with a coalition of democracies, a proposal which got sympathetic noises at least from Australia. Is there still a serious threat from America to the very existence of the United Nations?

SHASHI THAROOR: No, I don't even know how serious that proposition was when it was first uttered because, as you will recall, the severest disagreements on Iraq were amongst the democracies. It was democracies that argued very strongly against the US position and the UK position in the Security Council. So the fact that you have democracies almost guarantees you a forum in which there will be live and vivid disagreement. So I don't think that we should exaggerate the extent to which the Security Council either needs to be replaced or that any country is seriously planning to attempt to replace it.

MARK DAVIS: Well, ultimately the United Nations may not support the US in Iraq to the degree that America may wish, but what would it take for the UN to condemn the occupation and can you foresee that happening?

SHASHI THAROOR: No. To begin with I think you have to recognise that the UN is already supporting the US role in Iraq. So we are far from condemning the US action. In many ways, the council has extended real and tangible support to the United States. The question is would it take it further or would it let the US continue on its present course. Part of the issue lies in the very strong discussions that are taking place, the very real disagreements about whether it is appropriate for the occupation to continue for, let's say, another year or so, or whether there should be a more rapid transfer of sovereignty to Iraqi authorities with a view, of course, to eventually returning the full control of Iraq and its natural resources and its political processes to the Iraqi people.

MARK DAVIS: Well, right now there is a very serious threat to Iraq's long-term sovereignty - the American plan of massive privatisation, up to 100% of foreign ownership for key utilities and assets in Iraq. Under UN conventions, is this an acceptable action for a caretaker administration?

SHASHI THAROOR: The UN hasn't actually taken a formal position on that. There are rules governing the actions of occupying powers under the Geneva Convention of which the Red Cross is the custodian, not the UN. But I will say that economic policies, after all, can be made and unmade by governments. Whatever is instituted today, an elected representative, recognised Iraqi government is free to ratify or to amend in future years. So I'm not sure that we are going to be feeling this is an apocalyptic development.

MARK DAVIS: Shashi Tharoor thanks again for joining us.

SHASHI THAROOR: Thank you very much.