Sir Shridath Ramphal served as the longest serving secretary general of the Commonwealth from 1975 to 1990. It was during the Guyana-born leader's tenure that the Commonwealth waged war against the forces of apartheid in South Africa, eventually leading to the dismantling of the racist regime and freedom for the legendary prisoner on Robben Island, Nelson Mandela.

It was a victory that did not come easily, and Sir Shridhath was involved in many disagreements with then British prime minister Margaret Thatcher before the Commonwealth launched sanctions against South Africa. After leaving the Commonwealth secretariat, the eloquent West Indian has taken the cause of equitable development for the world's under privileged. In an exclusive interview with Chief Correspondent Onkar Singh in New Delhi, he held developed countries responsible for undermining the environment.

How does the environment go together with development?

The two go together like the hand and the glove. If you left out development from environmental issues then you would be distorting the issues. You would be omitting the central purpose of securing a decent environment for the people of the world. The purpose lies at the heart in getting the environment right. We should have development that is sustainable for the people of the world. They are so closely related that they are almost one and the same thing.

In a world where hundreds of thousands of people live below the poverty line, is it not criminal to talk about environment for the handful of the elite?

I agree with you that we must not talk about the environment for the handful of elite. I would not do so. I talk of environment in the context of development. What has happened in the world is that the environment has been threatened by a handful of elite. Eighty percent of world resources are consumed by less than 20 percent of the world's population. It is their over consumption that has been hitting the environment.

This is endangering development for the rest of the world.

Isn’t it ironic that these 20 percent people now talk about how the environment is affected and how it should be protected?

It may sound strange, but this is true. They are talking about protecting the environment because they have become very defensive about their actions. They have become aware of what they are doing about CO2 omissions or cutting down forests. This is the work of loggers, not of poor people. Whatever it is, acts of vandalism endanger the world’s environment. If there is a hole in the ozone layer it is not going to affect poor countries alone, it is also going to hit developed nations as well. If because of carbon monoxide emissions the sea level rises, poor countries would be affected. Developed countries would also be hit.

So they have become conscious of it. Another reason is that civil society in the developed countries are a lot more organized. There are a great many voices of good and concerned people who are not only concerned about themselves but also the rest of the world. They are true internationalists in their outlook. The civil society in the United States, Britain and Europe is much more active than the civil society in the developing world. That is why all the movements are dominated by voices from the developed world.

Civil societies in bigger Third World countries like India and Brazil are making their presence felt. The environmental movements are very effective. They may not be marching on the streets of London, but they are very effective.

What bring you to India?

I am one of the trustees of the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. This is a time when they have the annual meeting of the Foundation's trustees. I am passionately committed to the causes of the organization that are very much oriented to development in India.

As a former Commonwealth secretary general, do you feel organizations like the Commonwealth have lost credibility?

What I would say about the Commonwealth is what I would say about all the organizations of the world -- if they go to sleep now they will die. They will die in deep slumber. They would not wake up. They have to be ginger groups of the world. They can speak for the world and act for the whole world. They have to activate multilateral organizations. That is why on political issues -- like when I was secretary general of the Commonwealth we had discussions about apartheid in South Africa. We discussed the international economic order. We were very active on such matters. When I say we were activists what I mean is we had to be active in the bold sense of ideas and action.

You are credited for dismantling apartheid in South Africa. You also had long running battles with Mrs Thatcher on this issue. How did you win those battles?

It is a privilege to have a chance in your life time to be on the side of what is intrinsically right. In my battles with Mrs Thatcher I was on the side that was right. It was a great chance to stand up against what was wrong. She stood for things that were regressive and what were essentially yesterday’s ideas. She had great intelligence and conviction. I regard my battles with her as a great chance because if someone is ready to listen to you then you have a chance to prove what you are saying is right.

How difficult was it for you to convince her that what she stood for was wrong?

If it was not very difficult it was not very easy either. She was a conviction politician who looked at things in a simplistic manner. It is easy to be a conviction politician if you are simplistic in your attitude towards life. Doubts creep in when you are exploring ideological edges. If you are simple in your outlook then you could go out boldly for what you think is right. It is far more difficult to make such people see reason and explain to them that what they see and believe is wrong. I found that she was always prepared to listen to you once you managed to win her respect. If you were willing to respect her intellectually, then she was willing to listen to you.

As I said earlier if anyone is willing to listen to you then you have a chance. In the end, of course, we won the big battle. She was not convinced all the way, but she was convinced enough to let it happen.

At any point did she tell you, 'Mr Ramphal please do not mention this topic at all'?

(Laughs) Yes, she came pretty close to doing so from time to time. But we had good relations. You can fight with people at the level of ideas, retain their respect and then have a sensible dialogue. She was the prime minister of Britain, but I conveyed to her my sentiments and the sentiments of the majority of people of the Commonwealth. I needed great strength to say to her that what I was telling her was the sentiments of all the leaders of the Commonwealth. Most leaders of the Commonwealth did not show any racial connotation.

Both Mrs Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi were closer to the African leadership on this issue. Even the leaders from Australia and Canada had common cause with India. That is why the Commonwealth never broke on racial lines.

Aren’t you annoyed at current developments in South Africa where corruption and crime rules the roost?

I think nobody can be happy at the developments in South Africa, least of all South Africa itself. Mr Nelson Mandela and his successor would like to see more development in South Africa. South Africa became independent at a very difficult time when the world was undergoing economic recession. Redressing the wrongs of more then half a century has not been easy.

What about the developments in Zimbabwe where white farmers are now at the receiving end?

What is happening there is because of the bad handling of land reforms. This has happened because the British government went back on its promises. Thirty per cent of white settlers took possession of 70 per cent of land. They had to give back the land to the black farmers, the people from whom this land was stolen. It was agreed that the new government in Zimbabwe would have international support in distributing the land to its people.

The sole idea was that black farmers who have been tilling the soil should own their land, that in any case is legitimately their land. After independence the whole thing went horribly wrong. When Robert Mugabe won the election the British government went back on its promises to assist him in administration.

Was the British government looking for a puppet government?

I hate to say so, but they were interested in installing a puppet government in Zimbabwe. Mrs Thatcher told the British people her government would support Mugabe’s rival Bishop Abel Muzorewa.

Do you think the United Nations has gone to sleep?

Yes, it has gone to sleep because it has been put to sleep by the West. Developing countries have tried very hard in the General Assembly and in the Security Council to be effective.The overflow of veto power has hampered the development of the United Nations. The organizations that need to wake up are organizations like the Commonwealth. I think of the old Non Aligned Movement. I think of G-77. I think the South has failed very badly in showing solidarity and to demonstrate effectiveness.

I have thought for a long time that there should be an organization of the South so that we have a South secretariat. We should be doing research on the basis of South-South cooperation. We have not made a great effort towards this end, and whatever little we have done is not doing so well.

For example, when the confrontation took place between developing and developed countries in the World Trade Organisation but for the stand taken by the minister leading the Indian delegation the South would have lost many battles. I would like to see India leading the Third World. I want to see this kind of activism from India.

Do you think there is a need to relaunch the Non Alignment Movement?

There is a need to have a movement of the South that would serve non-alignment at the political level of the old days and the Group of 77 on the economic side. Non alignment has lost its rationale as an alignment between East and West. But the spirit of non-alignment against the developed countries needs to be revived. It has to be both economic and political. The lines are becoming very blurred. The new movement has to be a world movement of the developing countries for internationalism. After all, that is why Pandit Nehru was reaching for. This is precisely what is under threat.

The Americans are bent upon spreading new imperialism. They make no bones about it. This is a period in which they are exercising mastery over the world. They will tell you it would be liberal, and that it would be very democratic. I have not heard of someone being democratically autocratic before. This is the threat we face today. The threats of war against Iraq are being handed down day in and day out. We are now headed towards American imperialism. We have to resist it.

Do you feel the UN headquarters should be moved to another country?

I always thought it was a mistake to have the UN headquarters in New York. The time has come to move it out, but I can also tell you it will not happen because the permanent members would exercise a veto.

Image: Dominic Xavier

The Rediff Interviews