Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali is a renowned international figure of intellectual as well as political stature. He has worked through his leadership of various international organisations to help bring justice, development and a better quality of life to poor nations around the world. Dr Boutros-Ghali studied law at Cairo University in 1946, then pursued his graduate studies in France, studying for a diploma of higher studies in public law and another in economics from Paris University, and one from the Political Science Institute in Paris, receiving his PhD in international law from Paris University in 1949. His thesis studied the role of regional organisations.

Dr Boutros-Ghali was professor of international law and international relations at Cairo University, as well as head of the department of political science there from 1949 to 1977. He has also lectured on these subjects at various universities around the world, including Columbia University New York, Princeton University, New Delhi Institute of International Affairs, Warsaw Institute of International Affairs, Warsaw University, Geneva University, Zagreb University, Rabat University, Dakar University, Algiers University and Aix-en-Provence University, to name only a few.

He has received numerous honorary doctorates from universities around the world as well, and is a prolific writer in Arabic, English and French. In addition to international law and international relations, Dr. Boutros-Ghali has given special attention to African studies, as well as issues of democracy, development and the problems of the Arab world.

Dr Boutros-Ghali’s list of political positions is also long. He was appointed Egyptian minister of state for foreign affairs in 1977 and became vice prime minister for foreign affairs in 1991. He was chosen as secretary-general of the UN in 1992, a position he occupied for only one term. In 1998, he assumed the position of secretary-general of the International Organisation of the Francophonie (1998-2002). He has also been president of the International Panel of Democracy and Development, Unesco since 1997, and president of the Institute for Mediterranean Political Studies, Monte Carlo since 2002.

Dr Boutros-Ghali has had a long association with Al-Ahram Foundation, heading its Centre of Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo from 1975 to 1977. He founded and was the first editor-in-chief of Al-Ahram Al-Iktisadi (1960-1975) and was the founder of Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya in 1965, where he remained editor-in-chief until 1991.

Tell us about your memories of Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya. How did the idea of a periodical specialised in international rather than local or Arab politics emerge, and how was the project brought to life?

I was the editor-in-chief of Al-Ahram Al-Iktisadi magazine for some years. This magazine, issued every two weeks, was concerned primarily with economic issues yet with some political flavour, similar to the weekly Economist magazine from Britain.

In a discussion with Mohammed Hassanein Heikal, he proposed the idea of making Al-Ahram Al-Iktisadi a purely economic magazine while creating a journal specialised in politics, especially international politics. We discussed the frequency of this journal – whether it would be monthly or quarterly. After thorough consideration, we finally opted for a quarterly, following the example of most foreign periodicals specialised in international politics. After long discussions with Abdel Moneim Al-Qassas, we decided the journal should be a different size than all others then published in Egypt. Its price was set at 20 piastres, a price unheard of at the time. Al-Ahram newspaper was then sold for 1 piastre and weekly magazines were sold for 2 or 3 piastres. Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya was the first journal to be sold for such a high price.

Turning to format, we created a section for book reviews, another chronicling events and another devoted to the activities of international organisations. The journal was divided into two sections: one containing studies with footnotes, and the other short articles.

We then addressed the question of choosing subjects and writers for our first issue. We asked the dean of the Faculty of Economics and Political Sciences at Cairo University, Dr Zaki Al-Shafei, to write a study on the Geneva conference on trade and development, and he agreed although he was not writing much at the time. I also asked Mohammed Hassanein Heikal to write an article, as he had in the first issue of Al-Ahram Al-Iktisadi. But we decided we wanted to make Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya a specialised journal containing the work of political science professors. I wrote an article on China’s nuclear weapons, just three weeks after the country had detonated its first nuclear bomb. We asked Dr Ibrahim Shehata to write an article on South Africa and the UN. Sami Mansour wrote an article on the International Labour Organisation’s plan for Israel. Dr Abdel-Malek Auda wrote an article on the winds of revolution in the Caribbean. Dr Ali Al-Din Helal and Malek Gabr wrote on contemporary European issues. Ibrahim Amin Ghali wrote an article on Egyptian diplomacy in the Saad-MacDonald negotiations, and a letter sent by Saad Zaghloul to my uncle Wassef Ghali was published for the first time.

The editorial for the first issue was on the Afro-Asian conference scheduled for 1 July 1965 in Algiers as the follow-up to the Bandung conference of 1955. With opinion divided over whether the conference would actually be held, I wrote two editorials – one to be used should the conference take place and the other should it not. As the conference was in the end cancelled, we printed the second.

The format of the journal has not changed much over the years. How was the first issue received?

The first issue was a big success despite the criticism of some who held that it was in effect a publication of the Faculty of Economics and Political Sciences – as the first article was written by myself and the second by Dr Abdel-Malek Auda. Yet this was the only criticism of the issue, which, with the inclusion of articles by prominent writers and rare documents published for the first time, was a resounding success.

You have maintained a close relationship with Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya. After your appointment as minister of state for foreign affairs, you requested to keep your position as editor-in-chief of the journal. How did this happen?

When I was selected for the post of minister, I intended to decline as I was already holding several international positions. I was also editor-in-chief of Al-Ahram Al-Iktisadi and Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya. Although Mamdouh Salem, the prime minister at the time, told me I could keep all these positions, I expressed my belief that this would not be possible due to possible conflicts of interest. International organisations, for example, sometimes issue verdicts against Egyptian policies. If Egypt was found to be in breach of the International Labour Agreement, for instance, the International Labour Organisation’s panel of experts would send a letter detailing the violations of the Egyptian government in this regard, and I would not have been able to participate as a minister. Mamdouh Salem then asked me which position I would like to keep, to which I replied that I would like to remain editor-in-chief of Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya as it was a quarterly academic publication that would not in any way compromise my position as minister. He immediately agreed.

On assuming the post of minister of state for foreign affairs, I sent a letter to the editor-in-chief of Al-Ahram, telling him that the prime minister saw no reason for me to surrender the post of editor-in-chief and that I would continue my work though without payment. I was subject to harsh criticism from some journalists, who wondered how a minister could receive a salary from Al-Ahram. A copy of the letter I had sent to the foundation earlier was the best reply, as it highlighted that I was working without financial reward and that I considered my job an honorary position that did not interfere with my work as minister.

Even when you assumed the role of secretary-general for the United Nations and were obliged to resign from all your posts, you maintained your relation with Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya. How did you manage this given the sheer weight of your responsibilities?

I used to send UN documents to be published in Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya, as well as various articles that I had written for foreign publications to be translated into Arabic, and lectures modified for publication as reports or studies – all with the aim of guaranteeing the continued presence of my name in the journal. My friendship with current editor-in-chief Dr Osama Al-Ghazali Harb and colleagues Dr Ahmed Youssef Al-Karie, Sawsan Hussein and Nabia Al-Asfahany has also helped me a lot in maintaining this relationship. Channels of communication have always been open and I am in regular contact with them. During my visits to Cairo, I always try to meet with the staff of Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya to discuss work policy. It has always been a nice gesture on the part of the staff at Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya to accept my recommendations and advice.

You were secretary-general of the UN from 1992 to 1996 and you have written many papers on the organisation and its work. Can you draw a comparison between the role of the UN in the early 1960s, ie in the early years of the journal, and its role today?

In the 1960s, the UN had to act in the context of the Cold War and the confrontation between the western and eastern blocs. The non-aligned countries, despite their weakness, frequently played a reconciliatory role between the two disputing blocs and defended the interests of third world countries.

The Cold War and the confrontation between the North and the South, at least on the political level, ended with the end of the apartheid system in South Africa. The Non-Aligned Movement effectively lost its reason for being and thus its international role as the world order changed from a bipolar to a unipolar system. The UN’s role also changed as it has became submissive to the US.

Was this at the root of the US objection to your renomination?

The international public may be under the impression that US domination in world affairs started after the 11 September attacks, but it actually started with the end of the Cold War, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of Soviet authority over the member countries of the Warsaw Pact. The international public at the time believed the US would enhance the UN’s role and support democracy and pluralism in international relations. Those people, including myself, were wrong when we thought the UN could assume a new leading role after the end of the Cold War. The US had decided to assume the role of sole global superpower and to manage the UN according to its own views. This triggered a clash between me and the US, which thus needed to choose a secretary-general more supportive of its policy.

What are the possibilities for reform of the UN and do you think it could be implemented in the near future?

Reform of the UN is possible in the near future in two cases. First, if the US elects a president who believes in pluralism and the significant role of the UN and other international organisations. It is worth mentioning in this regard that President Wilson formed the League of Nations and that President Roosevelt contributed to the foundation of the UN. I believe that the coming years might witness the election of a new president who could convince the US public that it is in the welfare of the US to embrace pluralism and international organisations on the level of foreign affairs. US public opinion does not support the idea of the US playing the role of international policeman and, moreover, the US will not be able to continue in this role indefinitely.

The second case would be the appearance of a new superpower in the near future, perhaps China, India or the EU. Russia might also restore its old position and assume a new role on the international level. This would cause a shift from the unipolar to a multipolar world order, which would enhance the role of the UN or any alternative international organisation.

Can regional organisations play a role in this regard?

No. Regional organisations work under the umbrella of international organisations. When regional organisations do not coordinate with each other, ie when they work outside of a common framework, problems arise.

Can you imagine a future regional organisation in the Arab world with Israel as a member?

This would be possible only if a Palestinian state came into existence. If we look back at the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, we find that its main objective was to establish a fair and permanent peace in the region, which still has not been achieved. If peace is established, normalisation can easily take place between Egypt and Israel as well as between Israel and the other Arab countries. I would hence see no obstacle hindering Israeli participation with Arab countries in any regional organisation.

What role do NGOs play on the international level?

NGOs can definitely play a role in the democratisation of international relations. On 16 December 1996, two weeks before I left my post as secretary-general, I submitted an “Agenda for Democracy,” in which I stated that it is useless to try to bolster democracy on the national level as long as the world order is governed by a single power and international democracy is lacking. In other words, if the world order is non-democratic and globalisation is not governed by democracy, how can globalisation enhance democracy on the national level? There is a contradiction between the calls for democracy on the national level and the absence of democracy on the international level. The first step to achieving international democracy is to enhance the democracy of the UN.

The second step is the participation of non-governmental organisations in the decision-making process related to globalisation. This can help make it more democratic.

We have tackled reforming the Arab League in several issues of Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya and have interviewed its former and current secretary-generals. How do you envisage the reform process and do you think it could be implemented in the short or even medium term?

The crisis of the Arab League is related to that of the UN. The UN is considered the model international organisation and hence if its credibility is damaged so is that of the international order itself, which in turn affects all other international organisations. The Arab League is not the only regional organisation facing a crisis. So are the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), the Organisation of American States and dozens of others.

The main problem is that the international community has lost trust in international organisations. I believe, however, that the international community will sooner or later find itself in need of an international organisation because of the process of globalisation. This could be achieved either through the reform of existing international organisations or through the establishment of new ones.

We can also imagine other organisations linking two or more continents. In this regard I recall in March 1977 the holding in Cairo of an Arab-African conference that aimed for the first time to link the Arab League and the OAU, even if the attempt was unsuccessful. The EU has also made efforts to consolidate its ties with Asia, the Arab world and Latin America – all attempts to link regional organisations in the international arena.

What is your opinion of the EU enlargement and will Europe compete with the US in the international arena?

The expansion of the EU is not as great as it may seem. It is more significant in geographical terms than it is in terms of added population. The populations of the Baltic states or Hungary do not exceed several million. The populations of the other countries that joined are smaller than those of certain areas of Cairo. Poland is the only member with a large population. The populations of Sweden and Norway, for example, do not exceed 5 or 6 million each. Turkey, if it joins, would be the only country of weight, given its population of about 70 million. The question is will the EU be able to overcome the forces of division within it and will the US welcome this process or will it seek to impede real European unity.

Is it in the interest of the US to impede European unity?

While the countries of Europe remain reluctant to concede their sovereignty for the sake of establishing strong European sovereignty, one can only speculate on the US position. There are countless reasons for this unwillingness on the part of European states: old memories and differences in language and in traditions. The result is that the EU does not have a unified foreign policy. There is still a French foreign policy, a German foreign policy, an Italian one, etc – as was reflected in Europe’s confused stance towards the war against Iraq. Some European countries – such as Spain, Italy and Britain – supported the US, while others – such as France, Germany and to some extent Belgium – stood in opposition.

Which countries do you think will rise to prominence on the international scene in the near future?

There is no doubt, in my mind, that the coming superpowers are first China and then India, both of which can be expected to play an important role in international politics. Russia might also regain its position. In 1942, German forces approaching Moscow destroyed several Soviet cities – Stalingrad, Leningrad and St Petersburg. Less than 10 years later, Russia was a superpower. With such political will and strength – not to mention a special geopolitical position, stretching from Asia to Europe, and abundant natural resources – it is possible that Russia could regain its former position and power within 10 to 15 years.

In the Egyptian and Arab media there is generally little coverage of Latin America. Do you think the continent has in any way lost its importance on the international level?

No, Latin America has not lost its importance. The Egyptian foreign policy when I was minister focused on Latin America and Africa, and this focus was reflected in the volume of studies and research written in this regard. The recent visit of Al-Ahram editor-in-chief Ibrahim Nafie to Latin America, however, indicates a renewed interest on the part of Egypt and the Arabs in the continent.

Latin America continues to be of special importance in the context of the South. I am personally interested in the continent as a result of my presidency of the Organisation of the South, headquartered in Geneva. This organisation includes among its members the Latin American giants Brazil and Mexico, India and Indonesia from Asia, and Senegal and Tanzania from Africa. The organisation aims at activating cooperation between the countries of the South, ie between Latin America, Africa and Asia, despite the considerable differences between them. Some Asian countries can actually be considered part of the North: Japan, for instance, is closer to being a western country, as is South Korea. However, all the countries of the South share the common problem of poverty, regardless of the tremendous technological developments of some. Most people in India, China and throughout Africa live in dire poverty, while alongside them there is an elite that is as culturally and economically privileged as the leaders of the West.

How do you view the rise of the left in Latin America?

The rise of the left across the continent is part of a general trend in poor countries. The presence of leftist thought and ideas is necessary to deal with poverty and to narrow the gap between the rich minority and poor majority in these countries.

Do you perceive a change in the long-running Middle East conflict? Would you consider it now more of a Palestinian-Israeli conflict than an Arab-Israeli one?

The conflict is still an Arab-Israeli one: there are still unresolved disputes between Israel and both Syria (over the Golan Heights) and Lebanon (over Shebaa Farms). In addition, a major concern for all Arab countries is the status of Jerusalem, which means that alongside the Palestinian-Israeli conflict there remains an Arab-Israeli track.

Would a Palestinian state be able to sustain itself?

Without a Palestinian state, we will never be able to talk about peace in the region. A Palestinian state is the only way for there to be security in the region… a Palestinian state that enjoys all opportunities for success, not only control over Gaza, but also the West Bank.

What do you think of the continued Arab criticism of the Camp David accords?

As I once noted in an interview on the Al-Jazeera satellite channel, there is a tendency to attribute all the problems and failures we experience in the Arab world to the Camp David accords. Was the war between Iran and Iraq a result of Camp David? Is the crisis in Darfur one of Camp David’s consequences? Can the differences between Algeria and Morocco over Western Sahara be linked to Camp David? Of course not. Such assertions only serve to reflect the backwardness of the Arab world as it seeks to justify its failures. In the past, we used to blame everything on occupation, and next it will be discrimination against the Arab world and hostility towards Islam. I believe that the root of this backwardness lies in the Arab mind and not in the economic or social domains.

How would you evaluate the performance of Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya over its 40-year lifespan, and how do you think it could be improved?

Overall the performance is good. I believe, though, that Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya should move away from its traditional approach and pay more attention to the phenomenon of globalisation. Specialised journals such as Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya should not focus solely on relations between states and the role of international organisations; they should focus on the new phenomena that need to be studied and researched, especially those related to globalisation. There are many types of globalisation: globalisation of ideas, of media, of telecommunications, of economy, of environmental problems, of terrorism, of drug trafficking, etc. Other journals have appeared with the sole aim of examining globalisation.

Can such specialised journals influence the policies of countries and governments?

At the very least, such journals make the public and governments aware that a new phenomenon exists that needs to be examined. We usually find that governments endorse traditional ways of thinking, ie bilateral relations, bilateral differences, and relations within regional or international organisations. They pay little attention to the problems of globalisation, although no government can avoid these problems by ignoring them. By devoting more attention to the problems of globalisation, Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya could help the Arab public realise how important it is to bring intellectual isolation to an end and to be open to the world in order to actively engage in the process of globalisation.

Go to topAAAAAAAAAA