Angela Kane is a veteran German diplomat who has worked with the United Nations for 35 years. Earlier this month, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon named Kane to head the UN office for disarmament affairs, which oversees the world body's efforts to speed the global elimination of arms, especially nuclear weapons.

DW: Where will you place the emphasis in your work? The United Nations has, after all, not been as successful in disarmament issues in the past years as it would have liked.

Angela Kane: The fact is that everyone talks about the UN, but the United Nations are the multitude of member states which cooperate with each other. We as UN functionaries can only provide an impetus and work out proposals. But ultimately, member states have to accept and adopt these.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has spoken out on disarmament issues in the course of his first term - more than any other Secretary-General previously. I think that has a lot to do with his heritage as a South Korean. There is a lot of tension on the Korean peninsula, mainly due to nuclear issues, and he is therefore very committed to this issue. In January, he presented a five-point plan to reactivate talks on disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. He has declared this issue an essential priority in his second term. For me, this is a very important signal because it means that disarmament has priority and is being supported from the top, as it were. For the member states, it is an indication that this topic has been singled out.

How do you deal with the fact that UN resolutions on disarmament are not legally binding?

The UN General Assembly is about political consensus. That also has a moral significance for member states which say, we want things to move in a certain direction. It's a type of collective conscience of the international community, if you like. After a resolution has been passed, it's difficult to suddenly act in the opposite direction. So you have to rely on the moral responsibility, not only when it comes to disarmament but in other issues, as well.

Which mechanisms to monitor disarmament commitments do you think make sense?

Essentially all mechanisms that can be substantiated make sense. The respective mechanisms are negotiated between the countries. However, you have to consider that such monitoring mechanisms can often be very costly. There are many countries, foremost developing nations that do not have the financial means to carry out such monitoring. In these cases, the UN as well as the community of member states could help so that these monitoring mechanisms can be fulfilled.

The small arms conference is now on the agenda. It also involves implementing an action program which each nation has committed to. Every country has to prove in writing how it fulfilled the action program. This is highly important because it provides us with an overview of the development in reducing illegal small arms trade. The last review conference took place in 2006 and now we can determine whether progress has been made or not.

These small arms are often used in domestic conflicts. Have we concentrated on nuclear disarmament for too long and forgotten these conventional weapons?

Small arms continue to cause a large amount of damage in domestic and regional conflicts. In the area of nuclear disarmament, Iran's and North Korea's nuclear programs are alarming. The prevention of illegal arms trade and nuclear disarmament are a priority for the Secretary-General. So you can't say that one is more serious than the other. Both issues need to be preferentially dealt with.

How can successful disarmament policies be conducted when conflicts today are mainly domestic and the UN has few possibilities to intervene?

The problem has arisen several times in the case of Syria and previously in connection with Libya. In this regard, Libya was the first domestic conflict which the Security Council dealt with, because the population was endangered. We now have a similar situation in Syria. Here, Russia and China put their veto in, but the situation continues to be discussed in the Security Council in order to bring about a consensus.

Interview: Sabine Hartert / sac
Editor: Rob Mudge