SPIEGEL:

Mr. Secretary General, the United States are now interested in the UN playing a stronger role in occupied Iraq, after all. Will you fulfill this wish?

Annan: Yes, we want to play a role in Iraq. But the security situation is so precarious at this point that I cannot justify sending my employees to Baghdad again...

SPIEGEL: ... from whence they were withdrawn following the devastating suicide attack on the UN headquarters in August, at attack which also took the life of your special envoy, de Mello.

Annan: The attack was a terrible tragedy. We lost a wonderful friend and some of our finest colleagues. I have just submitted a report to the UN Security Council on how we would like to proceed at present. Under my new interim envoy, Ross Mountain, our teams will now operate from Nicosia and Amman. Their mission will also include trips to Baghdad, at least until the security situation permits us to return to Iraq.

SPIEGEL: But this shuttle diplomacy is unlikely to be very effective in the process of Iraq's political transformation.

Annan: That isn't necessarily true. We can accomplish a great deal this way, if we combine our efforts with local personnel. In addition, we will meet with official representatives of the country at any time.

SPIEGEL: Before the Iraq war, the Americans were not overly interested in cooperation. Why should the UN now clean up the mess made by the Bush administration?

Annan: We should all be very concerned about the situation in Iraq. Chaos in this country would not just threaten peace in the region, but could possibly even plunge the whole world into a disaster. This is why everyone should be called upon to contribute to the stabilization of Iraq. No one may be content to remain a mere spectator.

SPIEGEL: Unfortunately, however, the US Defense Department now intends to exclude companies from countries that opposed the war, such as Germany, France and Russia, from contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Annan: I don't think this is a good idea. We should combine our efforts to reconstruct Iraq and avoid decisions that continue to divide us.

SPIEGEL: What are the conditions for a new UN mission in Iraq?

Annan: First of all, I would like to point out that we still maintain a presence in Iraq with a substantial number of local employees and a small number of international helpers, and that they are doing heroic work. The return of our international teams depends, as I mentioned before, on the security situation ...

SPIEGEL: ... which is unlikely to improve very soon. US chief administrator Paul Bremer expects the attacks to increase, even if the former dictator, Saddam Hussein, who is now in hiding, is captured or killed.

Annan: Our analyses also indicate that things could get even worse. Incidentally, UN involvement only makes sense if we are in a position to offer a provisional government in Iraq extensive assistance in the democratization process, in organizing elections and in developing a constitution. Only the end of the occupation is likely to trigger a new dynamic here and lead to a decline in armed resistance.

SPIEGEL: Couldn't a stronger UN presence provide for more safety, because it would make the Americans seem less like an occupying power?

Annan: Blue helmets in Iraq are not realistic. This would overburden our capacities at this time. However, one can assume that Iraq will require military assistance for years to come. A new Iraqi government must be able to depend on receiving support, if necessary - and not just from the ranks of the US-led coalition, but also from other countries, based on an international force operating under a Security Council mandate.

SPIEGEL: Mr. General Secretary, when you assumed office in 1997 many believed you were Washington's man. Nowadays, even in your cautious diplomatic language, you seem increasingly critical of America.

Annan: I have never made a secret of my opinions, and I have always expressed myself diplomatically but clearly. After all, I am General Secretary for all nations.

SPIEGEL: Nevertheless, it does seem that you have taken the Americans to task, and not just since the Iraq war. Recently, following the deaths of Afghan children in US attacks, you warned that the war against terrorism could not "be won at the expense of innocent human life."

Annan: There are events about which one cannot and may not remain silent.

SPIEGEL: Not even when the Bush administration assumes the right to apply force preemptively, thereby risking a violation of those international principles on which the world order has been based during the past half-century?

Annan: Yes, I made it quite clear that both I and many governments are concerned about the concept of preemptive use of force. If other countries begin to apply this same principle, we will begin moving in the direction of a world that is ruled by the law of the jungle.

During the past 58 years, we all accepted the idea that the justifiable use of force is only possible under two conditions: in self-defense, when a country is attacked, or when the Security Council sees a threat to international peace and security, as was the case with our opposition to Iraq's aggression against Kuwait during the first Gulf War.

Now they are trying to convince us of the logic of preemptive military strikes, even when there is not a clear and direct threat. This could lead to very dangerous developments.

SPIEGEL: Should weapons of mass destruction fall into the hands of terrorists, so say the Americans, we must be capable of attacking. They believe, however, that the United Nations is not in a position to take such action.

Annan: I also see this as a problem, and I believe there is a need to strengthen the UN's ability to respond. In fact, we must ask ourselves how we, as an international alliance, should collectively respond to such situations. And how we should adjust our current rules to be able to handle this terrible threat.

SPIEGEL: Are you bothered by the impression that the sole remaining superpower treats the UN as simply a tool to be used when needed, but otherwise considers it a necessary evil?

Annan: I firmly believe that the UN is important for all countries. The United States needs the UN, and the UN needs the United States as an important member, but not as one which acts unilaterally. We must all be aware of the fact that in an interdependent world, collective interests often coincide with national interests. Even if the USA says that the United Nations are irrelevant, there are many states that could not do without UN crisis management. Ultimately, the relationship between the United States and the UN depends on the policies of the administration that happens to be in power in Washington. The current administration takes a different approach to international issues than previous US administrations. Tensions have developed in this regard, and we must eliminate these tensions.

SPIEGEL: For years, the member states have been debating a reform of the UN and a new composition of the Security Council that reflects the true balance of power in the world. Have you given up hope of expanding the most important UN body to include new permanent members?

Annan: By no means. This is and remains one of our most important objectives. For some time, there has been substantial support for the proposal that at least Germany and Japan, as well as three developing countries, should be added to the circle of permanent members.

SPIEGEL: You don't seriously believe that, following the Iraq confrontation, Washington will upgrade Germany, of all countries, to the status of permanent member?

Annan: In politics one should never say never or give up hope. The proposed reforms are still on the table, and I hope they will be brought to a vote at some point. But we shouldn't always talk only about the Security Council.

SPIEGEL: You also want to redefine the concept of security. According to your interpretation, military intervention, terrorism and genocide are not the only threats to security. You also include poverty, hunger, poor quality of drinking water and epidemics such as AIDS. In practical terms, what does this mean for work at the UN?

Annan: That all member states and, for example, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank must make greater efforts to combat extreme poverty and guarantee basic standards of health care. For many people in the world, the risks of being threatened by terrorists or attacked with weapons of mass destruction, or of becoming victims of genocide are rather relative when compared with the threats of extreme poverty, hunger or poor health.

More than 8,000 people die of AIDS worldwide each day, and we cannot even come up with five billion dollars in aid money per year. We are spending about 50 billion in Iraq. This is why I caution against ignoring these other threats to international security. We must have the political will to do more.

SPIEGEL: Three years ago, at the UN Millennium Summit, a declaration was issued that was filled with talk of equality and justice. Success in this regard has been extremely meager since then.

Annan: Well, we did make the first move in our fight against poverty and illiteracy. The international AIDS fund raised an additional two billion dollars, which is not bad. But it is true: Our full attention is once again focused too heavily on war. We run the risk of once again forgetting our sacred promise to guarantee basic human rights and effectively combat human suffering.

SPIEGEL: At the outbreak of the Iraq war, it looked as though the United Nations had finally been relegated to playing a minor role. This was also very troublesome for you on a personal level. Is the world organization finding its way back to a leading role again, after all?

Annan: We shall see. We must find international consensus again on the Iraq issue. In any case, I do not want to experience once again such a crippling division in the world community, simply because a few states, including two permanent members of the UN Security Council, believe that they can wage war unilaterally without a UN mandate.