Sadako Ogata
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadako_Ogata
…..She was awarded a Ph.D. in political science from the University of California,
Berkeley in
1963. Ogata later taught international politics at Sophia University…..
…..She served as the Chairman of the UNICEF Executive Board
from 1978 to 1979 and as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from
1991 until 2001……
photos
http://www.google.hr/search?q=sadako+ogata&client=opera&hs=lWk&channel=suggest&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=N717Ucn3MYGPtAavsoCQDg&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=651
Interview with Sadako Ogata:
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/conversations/Elberg/Ogata/ogatacon1.html
Background
Please describe for us your graduate education.
I received my Ph.D.
from UC Berkeley in 1963. I first came here in 1956. I wanted to pursue
graduate studies in political science. Professor Robert Scalapino was looking
for a research assistant, so I applied and enrolled as a graduate student. I
worked the first year half-time, looking at Japanese "thought police"
documents for his research.
Was most of your course work in political science?
Yes. The areas of
specialization that I pursued were political theory, international relations,
and East Asian affairs.
And whom did you work with in international relations?
Professor Ernie Haas,
and I studied a lot of political theory with Professors Sheldon Wolin and
Norman Jacobson. I had marvelous teachers here.
What was the topic of your Ph.D. dissertation?
Japanese Foreign Policy-Making, 1931-1932 ; but I did the
research after I went back. I was here on campus for two years, took the
prelims, and then went back to do the research.
What are your memories of Berkeley?
Berkeley was beautiful, sunny, a very
exciting place. Whenever your intellectual curiosity grew into all sorts of
directions, there were always very outstanding professors to deal with it.
Intellectually, Berkeley
was a very expanding experience. Berkeley
was also a very liberal institution. I don't know how it is today, but this was
just before the Free Speech Movement, and people were questioning a lot of
values.
How did Berkeley
affect what you finally became?
Berkeley gave me the basic disciplinary
training that I needed, a training that I could expand in all directions as I
continued my research and began to do public work.
With your degree you went back to your country and became a
faculty member in international relations.
Eventually in
political science. It took me quite a few years before I finally finished the
dissertation. At one point I was not sure that I should finish the degree, but
I think it was Professor Haas who said "It's a union card; you'd better
get it done before you become involved." I am very glad that I finished
the degree because it facilitated getting jobs and so forth later on.
The transition that you've made from academic to high
commissioner must give you insight into the difference between the world of ideas
on the one hand and the world of action on the other. What is the difference?
I had shifted between
the world of thought and the world of public involvement twice already, because
after about ten years of teaching and doing research I joined the Japanese
foreign service, and I was in the Japanese mission to the United Nations in New York. I had lots of
involvement with the United Nations, and then I went back to academic work for
about ten years, and now I've moved again into the United Nations, so I've made
this transition before. While they are different, I find that the basic
attitude and the training that I received is valid in whatever capacity I am
serving. The way of thinking and analyzing and evaluating is there whether you
are teaching or whether you are involved more directly in public work.
In the world of action, do you have to put aside theories
more than you would have expected?
No. The theories help
me analyze situations a lot. It's second nature.
How did you become high commissioner?
I was professor of
international relations until January of last year, and I was appointed and
elected--the high commissioner is an office that is appointed by the
secretary-general but elected by the General Assembly. I had the honor of being
elected by the General Assembly to be the eighth United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees. I started working in February last year [1991], not
knowing that I would be facing the busiest time of the high commissioner's
history, because refugee problems have expanded in many directions, not only in
number, but in complexity. The mandate of the high commissioner is to protect
and assist refugees; also, to solve their problems. I have approximately
seventeen million refugees under my mandate. They are not only individuals who
were victims of persecution. Today we see many instances of large-scale exodus
of people. Especially, the end of the Cold War has had a direct impact on
refugees, and as a political scientist I find it a fascinating time. I never
thought this was an office that could feel the change of the world so directly.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees
Describe the evolution of the UNHCR.
The first high
commissioner was appointed in 1951. In the beginning it was a very small
office, dealing mostly with the refugees from the socialist countries in Europe, trying to help them, protect them, and make sure
that they were resettled. They left because of fear of persecution, because of
their political beliefs, or because of their racial, religious, or ethnic
background. When that was settled, an outflow of refugees started taking place
in Africa. This was a very agonizing time for
the office because it had never really been involved in the Third
World. In the sixties this massive exodus began with Algerian
independence and continued with other African countries as they began the
decolonization process. People were leaving; freedom fighters and members of
liberation movements left the country, and the high commissioner protected them
in the neighboring countries. So in the sixties the main interest of our office
was Africa.
Did the size of the organization grow?
Yes, because the
number of refugees grew. By the end of the 1970s, the world refugee figure was
something like eight million, and today it's more than seventeen million.
And how many employees are in your organization?
About twenty-two
hundred all over the world.
How is your organization funded?
We are funded almost
entirely by voluntary contributions of governments, but about 10 percent comes
from the private sector.
Who are your contributors?
The United States continues to be the largest
contributor, and I am very happy about that because although U.S. resources
may be strained, there is still a very strong commitment to humanitarian
assistance and refugee assistance. Last year the United States contributed more than
$200 million. The other large donors are Japan and the Scandinavian
countries. I would say these are the three largest. The European Community as
an organization has contributed greatly, too. The United
States, the EC, Japan,
Sweden, Germany, Great Britain, and so on.
Funding for any organization that is based on governmental
contributions is a perennial problem.
Funding is not easy,
but it's a challenge, too. If we manage the funds well, the international
community and governments do fund us, and this was proven last year. It is a
very important that there is international recognition that refugee protection
assistance has to be done. It's one of the major global agendas.
Do you submit your budget to the United Nations for
approval?
No. We produce our
own budget and it is approved by the executive committee, which is something
like a governing body of our operations. My mandate comes directly from the
General Assembly to protect refugees, so it is a fairly independent mandate. I
am not being ordered by any government or any office of the United Nations. We
do work very closely with other bodies of the United Nations.
What is the potential for influence on the policies of the
UNHCR from the major donor countries?
A lot a money is earmarked
for various projects. Some projects are better funded than others. The project
last year for the Iraqi refugees was very well funded. I think Cambodia would
be better than, let's say, the Horn of Africa. These are the facts of life;
this an ongoing fund-raising, fund-accounting process with donors all the time.
Governments do earmark certain of their money for certain projects, so there is
influence.
Do they otherwise try to influence the policies of the UNHCR
with that money?
No, I don't think
with money. I had to come out very clearly criticizing the U.S. policy on
Haitians, for example. The United
States is the largest donor, but they
accepted my position. That did not change the funding. I don't think
governments work that way, really.
Refugees
Would you define for us what a refugee is, and when your
organization becomes involved in their plight?
A refugee is someone
who has to leave the country for fear of persecution. This is the simplest
refugee definition that is in the statute of our office. Anybody who leaves a
country and seeks refugee protection comes under my mandate automatically. But
there are other cases in which a group of people because of war, internal
conflict, or violence leave en masse, and we see that a lot these days. Then we
are mandated to protect them, to make sure that they are accepted in the
countries into which they go, which are mostly neighboring countries. We ask
the host countries to keep them; then we bring a lot of assistance so that we
can help alleviate the burden that neighboring countries must bear. And today
the majority of the refugees, 85 percent of the seventeen million, are in Third
World countries, so it means that the Third World
countries bear an enormous burden.
What is the profile of these refugees?
In most refugee
outflows, women and children are the majority. More than 50 percent, some cases
about 75 percent, because a lot of these mass refugee groups are victims of
fighting, and the men in many cases continue to fight while the women and
children take refuge into neighboring countries.
What does your organization do for these refugees?
An example of a
traditional refugee outflow crisis is that of the Burmese Islamic people known
as the Rohingyas going into Bangladesh.
The first thing we have to do is to get the agreement of the host country, Bangladesh, to
receive these people. Also, we must set up and negotiate with the government
for a camp site, and then bring in shelter and food, provide medical
assistance, and assure water facilities--that kind of physical support. We also
try to register them to know their numbers and who they are. This whole
exercise requires a great deal of logistical support. There's a lot of work
involved, and we try to find partners to implement the assistance work. Many
are nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); the government itself very often
provides their services, too. The Red Cross is a very important implementing
partner in many cases.
As these operations become more complex, is more
coordination required with other arms of the UN, such as peacekeeping forces?
If it is a
conflict-caused outflow, like that in Yugoslavia, the peacekeeping effort
becomes very important. Working with the cease-fire and peacekeeping forces, we
assist in the repatriation of the displaced people. In the case of the
Rohingyas going to Bangladesh,
we would take care of them, protect them, make sure that they are not forced
back, provide them with basic food and medicine and so on, and then expect some
kind of negotiations to take place with the Burmese government, which is now
occurring with the political wing of the UN. Once there's some kind of an
agreement, as was the case in Afghanistan
and Cambodia
(both took twelve years--I hope this one won't be that long), we can help the
refugees go back home. And when that starts we try to make sure that the
security of those who go back is assured and they're not forced back; so we
usually have to be on the receiving end, too.
How is policy developed within UNHCR?
We report to the
executive committee, especially on financial matters, and then we seek their
general guidance on policy issues, but as far as executing the policies is
concerned, it is very much left to the high commissioner and the senior
management committee to determine how to respond and what initiatives to take.
The Iraqi crisis of
last year was very interesting from a legal point of view. A painful one for
those who had to make decisions, because the refugee crisis involving the
Iraqis took a conventional form only as far as the refugee Kurdish people who
went to Iran were concerned. I did appeal to Iran
to keep its borders open, and Iran
as a consequence received 1.2 million Iraqis at one point. It is fairly
standard whenever we appeal to governments to keep the borders open that we
promise assistance, so we did go in and try to help the government set up. A
lot of the work is done by government, and this is one thing I'd especially
like to underscore, that while financial resources come mostly from
industrialized countries, the neighboring countries of refugee outflow bear a
great responsibility, and they are mostly Third World
countries, not very wealthy countries, receiving refugees from even poorer
countries. Iran
did provide a lot of assistance. They set up camps and so on. We assisted the
Iranians, but refugees who tried to get to Turkey had more difficult problems.
For various reasons, security problems and so on, Turkey did not keep the doors open,
and as a result, a lot of the refugee Kurds were stuck in the mountains. Now
traditionally our mandate would be to help those who cross the border. How do
you interpret a border? How do you assist people from across the border? This
is a logistical problem. How to reach them? And it was a very difficult
decision, and a difficult situation to cope with. The coalition forces decided
to move in and bring Iraqis down from the mountain to the Iraqi side. A formal
refugee law-related solution should be to take them out to the Turkey side,
but this solution was to bring them down on the Iraqi side. The natural
conditions, the mountain slope and so on, made it easier that way. At the same
time, it put us in the situation of needing to protect Iraqis on Iraqi
territory against a very hostile regime. It was a very difficult decision, what
to do, how to negotiate with the governments, what were the legal principles,
and so on.
We consult within our
own organization, as the legal division is very strong on providing us with the
legal provisions that we need. There are also practical problems. Though we
could not even gain access to the Kurdish refugees stuck on the mountains in
the winter, we at least assisted them where we could. Those were the decisions
that we reached, and we moved accordingly. The United Nations did negotiate
with Iraq to bring UN staff
to Iraq
to assist these people. These were the negotiations that were conducted. And
even today, with all that has happened, we have continued to work, protecting
Iraqis in Iraq
and providing material assistance. Of course we kept the executive committee
informed. The concept of protection is a very important one, but its context is
evolving today very much.
So Iraq
has been something of a test case.
This was the largest
refugee flow in a short time period, because in Iraq, 1.7 million people were
either across the border or on the border in refugee situations, and it was the
intervention by the coalition forces that brought them back so very quickly. It
was the quickest return, but return did not mean return to the status quo, so
we were faced with the problem of how we protect people who are back in their
country, but not back at home in a normal situation. We had to do a lot of work
inside Iraq.
In a situation like that where the states in the region have
very complex interests with regard to the Kurds, quite a bit of political
negotiation must go on, because solutions would affect the vital interests of
states like Turkey that have great concern about the movement of the Kurdish
people across their borders.
Well, our basic
position is rather clear: we always ask the countries concerned to keep the
borders open so we that we can come and protect, and also provide material
assistance. That is the basic position.
Dilemmas of Humanitarian Assistance
What are the particular problems raised when a government
turns against its own people? We saw that in the case of Iraq, in
previous Cambodian governments, and so on.
If the government
turns against its people and the people leave the country, then the international
community takes over and protects them. That is exactly the mandate I have; but
when the government turns against their own people within the country, it's a
very difficult thing for the international community to intervene. A lot of
discussion has been going on these days, a question of humanitarian
intervention, how far can you go, what is the right of an international
community intervening. I take a rather pragmatic approach, short of military
intervention. It's very hard for an international to go into another country
when it is in a state of civil conflict or massive violation of human rights.
The intervention is limited. What has evolved these days is something like
getting humanitarian corridors or zones of tranquility where for humanitarian
reasons the international community would negotiate or I would negotiate or
UNICEF would negotiate with the government to allow certain protection of a
limited sort. I think there is still a minimum need for government acquiescence
in order to move into any country.
How is the UNHCR policy of repatriation affected by ongoing
conflict or high-potential conflict in a refugee's home country, such as in Cambodia or South Africa?
The executive
committee some years ago set up the policy that repatriation should be carried
on in safety and dignity. To put this into practice is not easy because today
many of the countries to which refugees are returning are war-stricken,
poverty-stricken countries.
In Cambodia
the factional fight taking place right now is exactly on the route that we are
using to take the refugees back, but the Cambodian repatriation was part of the
Paris Peace Accord and the fact that repatriation is taking place in itself
should add to confidence building. The de-mining aspect there was a very
serious problem for us. We are not de-mining experts ourselves, nor does any
humanitarian organization have expertise on de-mining, but we did hire a
consultant to start verification so that at least the roads that the people are
going back on are not mined. Now the peacekeeping forces coming in have
undertaken some of the de-mining, so it's more secure. The Malaysian battalion
followed the convoy of buses this time, so the security aspect has been looked
after by this combination of the peacekeeping forces.
In South Africa,
too, it's true, there's a lot of racial fighting; at the same time, the fact
that the political exiles are coming back under conditions of general amnesty,
which we negotiated, is contributing to the confidence building. It is not easy
when there's total lack of law and order. A lot of danger is involved in the
kind of repatriation and refugee protection we have been doing.
Long-term solutions to these problems raise the question of
long-term aid and development to create economic, social, and environmental
conditions that allow the people to return in an environment that ensures their
ability to survive.
These are all
countries that went through a long period of war, internal war, and we're
taking people back to countries that are still war torn and poverty stricken.
For our efforts to succeed they must be assured of some kind of security and a
better future. We as a refugee organization are responsible for taking them
back and getting them resettled, but this is only the first step. We've found
this to be true all through Central America, where there was a great deal of
refugee outflow from Nicaragua,
El Salvador.
We are bringing them back and trying to bring governments and international
organizations together to launch developmental projects that will incorporate
the needs of the returnees. So we have to bring in development assistance too;
this is the only way they will have a chance to survive in their own country.
This broadens the definition of peace and security in the
new world order quite a bit.
I think so, because
peace and security today involves people who are victims of war--usually
refugees. Traditionally, peace and security involved combatants. The prisoner
of war was an important part of the protection afforded by the International
Committee of the Red Cross, but we are the ones who protect the refugees. More
and more we are expected to reach a solution, not just wait until people cross
the border. Protecting them and running camps is not considered by the
international community to be good enough these days.
And presumably you must make a lot of this up as you go
along.
It's a lot of
testing, trying.
Multilateralism and Refugees
With the end of the Cold War, there's been much talk about
the multipolar world we are in, the need for multilateralism, and so on. What
makes multilateralism work in the context of resolving these problems?
During the Cold War,
those who fled from communist countries were readily welcomed by the Western
world, and so the formula was rather simple. Now, those who are fleeing are
fleeing from all sorts of indigenous internal conflicts--nationalism, ethnic
conflict--the causes are much more complex. To deal with them requires much
broader consensus building, and I think in that sense organizations like mine
have a real role to play in bringing various governments and nongovernmental
organizations, the whole international community, into an agreement to respond
in a humanitarian way. So much more multilateral consensus-building work has to
be done today.
What are the important resources in this work?
I think media plays a
very important role. The media tends to concentrate on certain areas and not
others. Public compassion is aroused by seeing the plight of these people, and
so that arouses much more response and facilitates mobilization of resources. I
would like to take the media with me everywhere so that the plight of refugees
would be reported widely.
Is there a dark side to what's happening in the world?
Didn't the Cold War, despite its dangers, keep a lid on many of these great
ethnic and national conflicts?
Exactly, and with the
lid off, much more of the dormant nationalistic, ethnic, self-centered
sentiments emerge.
And with the end of the Cold War, the numbers of refugees
that we are seeing has increased dramatically.
There is also
potential for decrease in the number of refugees because, for example, in Cambodia there
was a long-term internal conflict backed up by Cold War rivalry, but now the
Paris Peace Accord presents the possibility of Cambodians going back to their
country. That's one example of possible decrease. There are other examples --
Afghan refugees are the largest single group, some six million -- 3.5 million
in Pakistan and the rest in Iran. With the
peace negotiations, the possibility of their return is growing, which means
that that enormous load of refugees may decrease. At the same time, with the
end of the Cold War, the ideological and political control over various
countries has loosened, and the growth of nationalism, in Yugoslavia for
example, does lead to displacement of people. So the end of the Cold War may
have an increasing effect on displacement of people and refugee outflow. On
balance we'll just have to wait to see which way the world goes.
How can we encourage a more positive outcome?
By learning how
devastating the consequences are going to be. We will probably have to go
through a period of rather cruel experiences and fighting, and that's the dark
side of the current world in transition. But I think human beings will learn. I
hope.
How will the UN be transformed in dealing with issues such
as refugees?
For a long time, the
problem of refugees was dealt with by the United Nations and other
international organizations because it is such a politically complex issue that
a national government cannot address it effectively. Today a lot of peacemaking
effor ts are given to the United Nations. Frankly, the United States and Soviet
Union bilaterally could have solved a lot of problems, but that is
no longer the case, so it is transferred to the United Nations. However, the
resources are not necessarily given to the United Nations, so the United
Nations is in a very difficult situation today of being assigned major
peacekeeping in Cambodia or Yugoslavia in addition to the work they have been
doing all these years. There's a great increase in peacekeeping and peacemaking
efforts.
What about the need for the UN to respond to changes in the
global balance, for example, the economic power of both Japan and Germany? Do you think the influence
of those countries and other rising powers will have to be demonstrated more in
the UN?
I suppose so, because
if you look at the world in the economic field, Germany
and Japan
are clearly the leading countries. You cannot discuss world monetary matters without
these countries, but in the United Nations neither Japan nor Germany is a
member of the Security Council, which means that these countries are often
outside the decision-making procedures, and this is something of an imbalance
in that particular organization.
The Changing Global Balance
There's much discussion in Japan of its increasing involvement
in things like multilateral peacekeeping missions and so on. Do you think we
will see more Japanese involvement in these efforts?
I think it's going to
come, but it is a very touchy subject because for a long time the Japanese
public has decided that Japan's contribution to world peace will not be through
sending military personnel, even the military of the UN, which is not of a
fighting or combat nature. It is very hard for them to perceive that the
military can also have a peacemaking role, and this is taking a little time.
And this is also true of Germany, of course.
Yes, very much so. I think it has to be dealt with very
carefully.
What is your estimate of the U.S. role?
The United States will continue to play a very major
role, but I think the United
States will find it increasingly difficult
to mobilize support because the opponent is no longer there. The United States, as the leader of the free world,
mobilized security and financial support on account of a very formidable
opponent, the Soviet Union. Now that that is
gone, there has to be a much different way of building cooperation, building
support, and I don't know whether the United States is ready to deal with
other countries on the basis of consensus and support rather than assuming that
everybody follows them.
What would enable the United States to move toward more
consensus in the way you are describing?
There are several
ways. First the United
States should not assume that everybody will
automatically follow, which I'm afraid is a tendency that Americans have had.
Also I think the United
States will have to show its economic and
social strength. By far, the greatest strength of the United States is in the military field, and I
think it will be important for the United States to have overall
strength.
Let's talk about the
universities, because I know that area the best. I was here. The American
academic community was very, very outstanding. I think it still produces the
best research and can bring together the best minds, but the really wonderful
thing about the American academic community is the openness, the capacity to
bring in people from other countries, the best brains. It is a very fair and
open system. This is the most important part about American leadership in the
intellectual world and the academic community. My country, Japan, although it
has very outstanding research and intellectual capacity, does not have that
openness to draw people from other parts of the world, and in this sense, I
think, intrinsic excellence is going to count.
I don't know whether
you can say that you have the same kind of leadership role in the business
world or in the manufacturing world. I think there's some imbalance in your
social policies. America
is a land of opportunities, but the fact is that you do have serious social
problems. And I think it would be in these areas that the United States'
leadership is going to be tested.
One other American impulse has been the humanitarian one,
especially important in refugee work.
The United States
has shown a very clear humanitarian commitment, not only in their
contributions, but in the concern of the humanitarian sector. This concern is
very global, and the kind of information that Americans have is very global.
Also, the American-based NGO community, the nongovernmental organizations, are
extremely powerful and large in their operations, so the private sector matches
the government's commitment. I'd like to see more countries matching the
humanitarian capacity of the United
States.
Will the United
States continue to be able to demonstrate
our cultural strengths if our economic base is eroded?
I think the economic
base causes a great deal of problems to the United States.
What will be the role of the national state in the world
order that is emerging with the end of the Cold War?
Take the example of
state and people. The number of states that exist in the world today is
somewhere around hundred and eighty, but if you look at the ethnic groups and
if you define people in terms of language base, there are many more, three
thousand or something like that. What is the integrating force that will bring
different peoples together to form a state? This is the basic question that
many states are facing. The splitting of states is going to make a much more
unstable world, because unity of people is based on tradition, culture,
sentiment, which in themselves are very important components of forming a
state. But there is the other problem: economic viability. Western European
states are moving into a single market to make their economic base stronger. So
on one side is the need for a viable economy to sustain the state, and on the
other side are states splitting on an emotional basis. Again, during the Cold
War, people didn't have the liberty to split into small units because the
danger of being forced into one zone or the other was very serious, so the
liberalizing effect of the post-Cold War period has a very dangerous undertone.
The free market system has a possibility of greater viability, but at the same
time, the disintegration of state is a very strong destabilizing factor.
The Cold War was a
critique of liberalism, whether in terms of a liberal economy, the movement of
people, ideology, and so on, and the post-Cold War world order will have to
regain liberal principles. And this is why I think consensus building among
people and among states is going to be crucial, and there will have to be much
more conscious efforts at negotiations and discussions, trying to agree on
minimal principles, because survival is an issue.
Do you have any suggestions about how students should
prepare for this multipolar world?
What I would like to
underline is the fact that the changes in the world political system affect the
movement of people a lot. Whether it is refugees, asylum-seekers, immigrants,
or people on the move, how you get order out of that is a very very serious problem.
If I were to teach a course in international relations, ethnic and societal
issues would have to be a bit more emphasized, because we are very limited with
regard to these subjects in the whole international relations area. I think
most international analysis is based on states rather than society, but what
composes a state will have to be examined much more today, bringing more
sociology into political science.
What strengths will students need in the world that is
emerging?
Independent thinking
is very important. Berkeley
is a place that can produce these independent-thinking people for the future.
UN Women Executive Director Michelle Bachelet meets with
Sadako Ogata, Special Advisor to the Japan International Cooperation Agency
(JICA)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/unwomen/8183495387/?q=sadako%20ogata
TICAD 20th Anniversary Symposium “20 Years of International
Assistance toward Africa” on 30 November 2012
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63970428@N08/8232492114/?q=sadako%20ogata