Shashi Tharoor is currently Under Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information at the United Nations. He is also an accomplished writer and is running for the post of Secretary-General of the UN.

Sir, can you just start off by telling us a little about your bid for Secretary-General and how it’s been going so far?

Well, as you know, the Indian government has only declared my candidacy in the middle of the month of June. So I’ve only been in that spot, in duration, for the last couple of months, not even two whole months. But what I’ve seen in the process of these last few weeks of effort is that there is a tremendous amount of interest and goodwill for my candidacy. Of course, the first poll has shown given some encouragement for us to go on with this. So, let’s hope for the best.

A lot of the other candidates in the race, however, have declared their candidacy a while back though. The Thai candidate was put forward two and a half years ago and the Sri Lankan candidate around a year and a half back. Is there any effect that you’re late nomination has?

I think the Thai candidate’s early declaration did not really stand him in sufficient stead, as it were, in the first polls. So, one could argue that perhaps it has not made such a difference. There is no question that as far as the race is concerned, a lot of surprises are still possible. A lot of twists and turns are still possible. New candidates could emerge even now; there is no bar against candidates emerging any time in the process. But we do have, at the moment, a credible field of qualified Asians and I think the world is looking to Asia to produce the next Secretary-General.

So what would you say you’re chances are now, if you had to hazard a guess?

I think it would be unwise to hazard a guess. I’d say my chances are certainly as good or as bad as anyone else’s. But there are too many unknown variables at this point to speak, either with confidence of a positive outcome or pessimism about the process. Neither is warranted but there is enough to be confident about but there are also enough unknowns. I think the key is to do what I haven’t had the time to do so far which is to present myself to the fifteen members of the Security Council and present my credentials to the world. And then we can see how things go subsequently. It’s not something we can predict.

Assuming that things do work out for you, what’s the first thing you’d like to do once you become Secretary-General?

Well I think the essential thing is to run this organization as a sixty one year-old institution that needs to be revamped for the twenty-first century. We have to be prepared to face the unpredictable challenges of today. The UN was set up at a time when the World had gone through horrors for the first half of the twentieth century. Two World Wars, civil wars, genocides, mass expulsions of populations and the horrors of the Holocaust and Hiroshima. Those who set up the UN at that time wanted a different sort of World. They wanted a World in which there would be common systems and institutions, where governments could co-operate with each other rather than go to war with each other, where there would be a basis on which countries could actually serve a collective interest. Now that we’ve been through the Cold War for forty five years and some post-Cold War disorder for the following fifteen, the last thing I want to see happen is for the old East-West divide of the Cold War to be replaced by a new North-South divide. Which is what has sadly has been happening at the UN over the last couple of years. I think we need to be able to build bridges to ensure that countries of the so-called North, that is, essentially, the developed West and countries of the so-called South, that is, by and large, the developing countries, can work together on the common problems that we all fear.

We hear a lot of talk about UN reform and a lot of countries say that they’re all for it. However, some like the US claim on the one hand to be very committed to UN reform but in reality, seem to be more wishy-washy about it. What are your views on this?

Unfortunately, reform is one of these words that mean different things to different people. And there is no question that there are some countries who, when they speak of reform, think principally in terms of what can, shall we say, save them financially in their contributions to the UN. There are others who when they speak of reform, they talk about reforming the institutions that reflect an outdated geopolitical reality, like the Security Council. There are yet others who speak in terms of management processes, which are in some ways, indeed, out of date. And then there are yet others who when they speak of reform talk about changing the political balance of the new organization. Now all of these reform agendas are classified under one label. What I’m talking about as a candidate are both, all of the above and none of the above. In other words, it is not my vision of reform that would follow any one of these approaches alone. Rather, my desire is to see that the scope of this organization is one that is ready for the challenges of our times and that does mean improving management in some ways, and revamping institutions where possible. But the UN is a body with 192 countries in it, and unless these 192 countries are prepared to agree on a way forward, we will have some real difficulties in achieving constructive and solid reform.

Can you tell us a little bit about your opinions regarding the expansion of the Security Council and the viewpoint you would take regarding the G-4 bid if you were Secretary-General?

The Security Council is like a malady frankly, where all the doctors gather around the patient and they all agree on the diagnosis but they can’t agree on the prescription. That’s what we’ve got right now. I think everyone acknowledges that the Council reflects the realities of 1945 when the five victors of World War II converted their wartime alliance into a peacetime organization. So you have the undemocratic fact that there are five countries with the veto and others don’t have it. But there are other problems too. There is the fact that in those days, 11 out of 51 UN members were in the Council, that is 22% of the organization represent there. Today it is 15 out of 191 UN members, so fewer than 8% are represented there. That means that a larger percentage, as well as a larger absolute number of countries feel that they are not adequately represented there. Then you’ve got Europe with 5% of the world’s population occupying 33% of the world’s seats there. Of the fifteen Security Council members today, five are members of the European Union. I have great respect and admiration for the European Union, but where does that leave the rest of the world? These are the kinds of questions that countries are legitimately asking. But when you find solutions to this problem and prescriptions for the diagnosis, then countries disagree. And the disagreement is important because the UN Charter has set a very high threshold to be crossed for reform. You basically need two-thirds of the member states to agree on a particular solution. And then you need that solution, their amendment to the Charter to be ratified by two-thirds of the parliaments of the World, including those of all five permanent members. So, in effect, if you don’t have a formula that can attract that level of support, then you don’t have a basis by which India or any other country can pursue its aspirations for a permanent seat because at this stage you don’t know what the framework is to apply. So as Secretary-General, my only urging to member states would be to try to resolve their differences and come to a conclusion. But you know, as Kofi Annan has discovered, you can lead the horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

Coming to India, what would you most like to see changed in our country?

I think we have a number of people in positions of authority and leadership who have, frankly, very poor credentials to exercise – including people with criminal charges against them. There’s unfortunately an enormous amount of corruption in our politics. Something needs to be done about that. I think that ultimately it’s the Indian people who can take things into their own hands with their votes and elect people who are worthy into higher office. But I do want to say that my view on this is very much that our political system is democratic, and I’m very glad that we do have a thriving democracy but the quality of political leadership needs to improve. I’m encouraged by some of the youngsters who’ve come into Parliament that I’ve met. I’d like to see much more of that.

You’ve worked in several different countries around the world and lived abroad for almost 28 years, many of them in the US. Yet, you still maintained your Indian passport and a strong Indian identity.

My own background is very fundamentally Indian. I have two Indian parents, I grew up in India and the crucial years in which my sensibilities were formed, both cultural and intellectual, were spent in India. I attended school in Bombay and Calcutta, before joining St. Stephen’s College in Delhi. I carry my Indianness with me wherever I go and that remains very much in my spirit.

Despite being born in London and living abroad for so many years, you’ve retained your Indian passport throughout. Was there, at some point, any inclination to take a foreign passport?

Not at all. I mean, don’t forget that when I lived in Singapore I didn’t try to become Singaporean and when I lived in Geneva, I didn’t try to become Swiss. If tomorrow I’m packed off to Timbuktu, I would not become Malian. The fact is that it’s my job that places me here. I’m very proud of the Indian passport I carry and though by birth I’m entitled to a British passport, I’ve never exercised that right and I have no intention to do so either.

Along with your career as a UN official, you’ve also been a prolific writer. How do you balance Shashi Tharoor the diplomat with Shashi Tharoor the writer?

Well, they’re both essentially the same person. You know, I tend to respond to the world around me in a couple of different ways. On the one hand, I do my work here for the UN which I’ve been doing for 28 years and on the other hand, I fulfill my passion to write. They hardly clash with each other; I consciously try to keep them separate. I usually reserve my writing for weekends when I can sit down, think and write. It’s not always books, I write a lot of newspaper articles and columns as well. I had started a new book a couple of years back set in my native Kerala but I wasn’t able to finish it. I’m looking to resume that sometime soon, time permitting.

One of the criticisms leveled against you is that your website is highly self-promotional. A lot of critics have scoffed at this and it’s drawn a lot of flak. What do you make of this?

All writers have websites. It’s very normal for a writer to have a website that introduces him and his work. One is obliged to do that. If that is considered as being self-promotional, then I’m guilty as charged. But it’s purely a literary website, and it contains details of the books that I’ve written and links to the columns that I write. I think the problem that some people have with that stems from the fact that there are UN observers searching for me online and they stumble upon my literary website. I don’t have any professional UN material on that site at all.