OPENING REMARKS BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Good Morning, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have just come from the Security Council, where I joined Jan Pronk, my
Special Representative, to brief the Council on the situation in Sudan and
Darfur.

During my recent visit to some of the camps in Darfur and Chad, the men and
women I spoke to told me horrific stories of the terrible violence and suffering
that they had endured. Many are living in sub-human conditions, and they fear
for their future. It is clear that serious crimes have been committed and there
has been gross and systematic abuse of human rights. We, the international
community, must intensify our efforts to protect the innocent in Darfur.

During my visit, the Government of Sudan made a number of commitments, which
I welcome, including:

First, to stop and disarm the Janjaweed and other outlaw armed groups and
take steps to protect the IDPs;

Second, to suspend visa and travel restrictions on international humanitarian
workers and on material and equipment;

Third, to allow the deployment of AU human rights monitors; and

Fourth, to investigate all allegations of human rights abuses and punish
those found responsible.

As we reported to the Council this morning, implementation of these
commitments has so far been uneven. There have been encouraging steps on the
humanitarian front. Access has opened up. But there has been little progress on
human rights, even though human rights monitors are getting in, and I regret to
say that there are continuing reports of attacks by the Janjaweed.

I would like to emphasize how essential it is that the Government of Sudan
honour its commitments, and stop and disarm the Janjaweed and other armed
groups. The international community must hold the Government to its solemn
pledges and insist that they do perform.

But there is more that the international community itself must do. We need
money and more resources for humanitarian efforts. We need them now, not
tomorrow. Tomorrow may already be too late. We've asked for $349 million for
Chad and Darfur, and we've got pledges of $145 million. We are $204 million
short. I appeal to donors to make good on the pledges they have already made,
and to increase their assistance. We particularly need help with equipment –
including 6 helicopters to bring aid to people in remote areas of Darfur now
that the rains have begun.

We must also sustain and increase the pressure on all parties for progress on
the political front. Both the Government and the rebels must come to the table
without preconditions, and be ready to negotiate in good faith.

But as we focus on Sudan, let's not forget the fact that a number of other
African countries are working to resolve their differences peacefully.

In Addis Ababa, I hosted a mini-summit at which the Presidents of Equatorial
Guinea and Gabon became the second set of neighbours to reach agreement through
negotiations rather than the use of the gun. As you know, they've had a border
dispute on an island with oil resources, and they agreed to exploit it jointly
and continue to work on the border problem. And that, I think, was a good
example for others to follow. This is in addition to Nigeria and Cameroon who
have adopted a similar approach for the Bakassi conflict which they are also
working on peacefully.

I hope other African states, including Ethiopia and Eritrea -- and indeed
states around the world -- will take inspiration from the example set by these
neighbours.

I also hosted mini-summits on the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Côte
d'Ivoire, both at critical and difficult junctures in their peace processes. We
must sustain the momentum that was generated there. Indeed, I intend to join a
group of African leaders next week in Accra for a summit on Côte d'Ivoire.

I would like to repeat how encouraged I am by the strong emphasis that
African leaders are placing on good governance. And this was very much at the
centre of their discussions at the last summit. This must be the very much at
the cornerstone of efforts to meet the monumental challenges facing Africa –
including the fight against HIV/AIDS.

The Bangkok International AIDS Conference helped to raise awareness of
HIV/AIDS around the world. After so many years of misery and suffering, of
broken lives and shattered families, the epidemic is finally starting to get the
attention it deserves, if not the response and urgency required.

The report recently released by UNAIDS shows just how urgent this crisis is:

38 million people are infected worldwide. 25 million of them live in
sub-Saharan Africa, and 57 percent of that number are women.

10 million young people are infected worldwide. 6.2 million of them live in
sub-Saharan Africa, and 75% of that number are young women.

There were over 1 million new infections last year in Asia. Today, India has
over 5 million infected citizens.

In Eastern and Central Europe, 1.3 million are living with HIV. In Latin
America, the number is 1.6 million. Nearly a million people in the US are living
with HIV. Nearly 600,000 are infected in Western Europe.

To top it all, we've lost 20 million people to this disease in 20 years. 5
and a half million people have been killed in the last 3 years alone.

This is a global problem without frontiers of any kind. It's everyone's
problem. And it's urgent. The futures of entire societies hang in the balance.

While there has been a real increase in global funding, we need much, much
more. We need to spend about $12 billion next year. On current estimates, we'll
have far less than half that amount.

Once again, let me insist that leaders around the world, whether their
countries are developed or developing, rich or poor, must take a stand against
the epidemic. They must speak out, and they must put many more resources, much,
much more into the fight. This is a fight we have to win.

I am sure you have plenty of questions on these and other issues, so I think
I'll stop lecturing and open the floor.

            
Question: Mr. Secretary-General.  Welcome to this briefing.  Thank you very
much on behalf of the UN Correspondents Association.  On Sudan, on the basis of
what you have now said and what other information has come out over the past few
weeks, what is your new evaluation of the role of the Government of Sudan in
arming and supporting the Janjaweed?

            
The Secretary-General: There are conflicting reports, and, of course, the
Government has its own view, that it did not arm and control the Janjaweed, as
is generally asserted. But be that as it may, what is important is that, as a
Government, it has the sacred responsibility to protect its population. That
responsibility cannot be passed on, and if it cannot do it, it should ask for
help, maybe from the international community to do it. But that responsibility
is theirs.

            
When I was there, they did indicate to me that they are going to take measures
to protect the population and that they were going to deploy 6,000 troops –
6,000 policemen, sorry – to the region of Darfur to protect the people. I think
that would be a good start. They should deploy those police people and ensure
that the people in Darfur feel secure and have a sense of protection, and can
eventually get back to their villages. But, once you have deployed the police
and begin to stabilize, you then move on to disarm the Janjaweed and the other
outlaw groups. But it is a responsibility that the international community must
insist that the Government of Sudan lives up to.

            
Question: How long have you agreed, or realistically expect the Sudanese
Government to take in disarming Janjaweed? My other question is about the Middle
East, the recent events in the Palestinian territories. Have you been in touch
with President Arafat or Mr. Qurei? When was the last time you contacted Mr.
Arafat, or have you boycotted him, like the rest of the world has done?

The Secretary-General:
On your first question: we did not
set a time limit, but I think we should be able to judge, given that we have set
up a monitoring mechanism, which met last week under the chairmanship of [Jan]
Pronk and the Foreign Minister of Sudan. We should be able to make a judgement
if they are fulfilling their commitments and if they are doing it seriously, and
that the international community should work with them or come to a judgement at
some point that it is not working and that they are not fulfilling the
obligations they have made. Then, of course, the Council would be free to take
other measures and scale up the pressure on the Government.

But I think what is important is that we not only insist that they do
it, but that the monitoring mechanism works effectively. In fact, Pronk has
indicated that they are sending a field mission to
Darfur to assess on the ground what
is actually happening in the various locations where either attacks have taken
place; Janjaweed have been spotted, in order to be able to feed back into the
mechanism in Sudan. So we did not agree on a time frame as such, but they were
to start immediately implementing it; the situation was urgent, and they had to
move forward.

As I said, there has been some progress on humanitarian access, but that
is not enough. People need security. They need security to be able to return to
their villages; they need security to be able to continue their lives and not
feel threatened and unsettled. And the Government has to take steps to provide
them with at least that.

On your second question: I did speak to Chairman Arafat; I think the
last time we spoke was about six weeks or two months ago. I have not spoken to
him during the current crisis, but I have a Representative on the ground who has
been in touch with all parties, even though he is, for the moment, on holidays.
I think we are the only member of the Quartet that has a permanent presence in
the region, in the form of Terje Roed-Larsen. So that is the answer to your
question.

Question:
But he is away, and there is a
crisis. What are you doing about it?

The Secretary-General:
He has deputies and he is in daily
touch with the people, and he is given daily reports.

Question:
I’m going to follow up on the Sudan
question.  If there is no time frame, I think the outside world, and there are
more deaths accumulated, you are going to have a Rwanda situation, and you are
going to personally be taking the blame. Is there - or do you see - any pressure
on the Sudan besides public statements? There are no teeth in the Security
Council resolution, and there seems to be no teeth elsewhere.

The Secretary-General:
The
Council is fully seized of this. I know the current draft resolution that is on
the table, but I don’t think that is the end of the road, and I don’t think
anybody in the Council believes that is the end of the road, unless if the
Sudanese Government does not perform, the Council, I am sure, will take action –
and action that will go beyond what is in the current resolution.

Question:
But they are waiting for you to give
them the analysis, and when is enough enough, because they are not going to act
without you?

The Secretary-General:
No. That is the analysis that they
are getting now from my Representative. I was there with him this morning, and
we are giving them the facts. He is going to go back to the region. Quite
frankly, as I have indicated, we are using the monitoring mechanism, and we are
sending people to the field to obtain additional information. The Council is
aware of everything that is happening. I just came from the Council; in fact,
Mr. Pronk is still there talking to them. I think your question is, can’t one
fix a date so that, by such and such a date, if this and that have not happened,
then something will follow? That something will have to be defined by the
Council or by the international community.

This is something that may be
discussed, but at this stage - as I said in the agreement - we all stress the
urgency, the need for the Government to act immediately and for us to monitor.
It is going to be a judgement call. The question is, at what point do you – the
international community, the Council, myself and others – decide that it has not
worked, that they have not delivered, and that we need to do much more? I think
it is more a judgement call than an artificial deadline. But the urgency is
there, and the Sudanese Government doesn’t have forever. I think the pressure
will continue and the community will insist that it does perform.

Question:
How many countries have said they
are willing to contribute troops for the protection of the UN personnel - as
mandated in that resolution - and what does the total indicate about respect for
the UN after many of these countries said we have got to get the UN involved
there?

The Secretary-General:
We have about three or four
countries that have indicated some interest. I don’t think any of them has come
up with the size of force it is prepared to deploy; consultations and
discussions are going on. I have spoken to some who seemed interested but had
certain conditions. For example, I spoke to Prime Minister Musharraf about this,
who indicated that they would be prepared to contribute if the request were to
come from the Iraqi interim Government, and if there were other Islamic troops
on the ground, because they would not want to be the only Islamic force on the
ground. And, of course, there are discussions going on about the possibility of
the deployment of troops from other Islamic countries to the region, but I don’t
think that has been brought to closure yet.

As to your second question, I will leave the Member States to answer
that. The UN has an important role to play; the UN must be in
Iraq. Your question is, if that is
the case, why aren’t you protecting them and making it possible for them to go
back? I think that is a question for them, not for me.

Question: 
Mr. Secretary-General, going back to the
Middle East: it has been really a
bubbling crisis for the past few weeks. First we had the Palestinians taking
great umbrage at an assessment by Terje Roed-Larsen, your Special Envoy; now we
have the Israelis being very defiant about a resolution demanding that they tear
down the barrier. I was wondering what the next steps are. Do you see this as a
crisis for the Quartet in trying to get the peace process back on track?

The Secretary-General:
I think all the members of the
Quartet are worried about the latest developments. I really hope that, as
difficult and as complicated as the crisis is in Palestine, that they will
exploit this crisis positively, and move ahead and really come up with some
other reform structures which are required, particularly in the security area.
If they can use the situation to reform the security, put it under one head and
empower the Prime Minister and the Minister of Interior to really take charge of
the security apparatus and come up with other reforms that will allow the
Cabinet to work as a Cabinet under the Prime Minister. I hope Chairman Arafat
will see the need, in supporting this sort of reform at this stage, to be able
to move the process forward. If that were to be done, I think it would help the
Quartet’s efforts to implement the Road
Map.

            
I am aware of the statements the Israel
Government
has made with regard to the General Assembly resolution. Obviously, they don’t
like it, but the Israeli court itself also came up with a decision on the route
of the barrier and asked them to change it because of its impact on the
Palestinians. So one cannot say that the International Court [of Justice] was
entirely wrong. Obviously, this is an issue for the General Assembly, but I
think they should heed and pay attention to the Court’s decision. Even though it
is not enforceable, it has some moral bearing on what they do.

            
Question: I would like to congratulate you on a
successful tour of Africa, by any
standard, and the courage you showed in doing that, Sir.

            
Concerning the time frame
that we talked about, speaking during that tour to Jan Egeland, your
Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, he did say that the Sudanese
have promised to start disarming, but that they did tell you that that will take
time and it is not effective immediately. So, from the outset we expected this
process to take time. Secondly, even Jan Pronk, your Special Representative, has
said that the problem cannot be solved in one month or even one year, and that I
have on record. So don’t you think that we should give the Sudanese Government
the benefit of the doubt and some time to deal with this problem?

            
The Secretary-General: This is why I go back to the question of the
Sudanese Government’s responsibility to protect its citizens. There is a series
of actions that they have to take. One is deploying troops to protect the
civilians; ensuring that those who commit human rights abuses are brought to
justice and are penalized; to send a message to others that impunity will not be
allowed to stand; disarming the Janjaweed and the other outlaw groups.

            
Which comes first? What is the most effective step that the Government must take
to protect the people? When we were there, they said they were going to deploy
6,000 policemen and women. If you deploy 6,000 policemen and women to villages
to protect the IDP camps, you dissuade attacks. You dissuade the people, and
then move on to disarm them – to disarm not only the Janjaweed, but the other
elements. But you can take immediate action to show immediate results, and this
is what the international community is looking for.

            
Yes, the disarmament of
these elements will take time and will require time. They need to plan for it
and they need to do it, but for the immediate they can take steps to protect
civilians. The fact that you deploy so many police and others may dissuade the
people from coming to the camps in any case, provided you have the right type of
police.

            
Question:
[inaudible] …as saying they failed. Do you go as far as saying that the
Government of Sudan has failed in disarming the Janjaweed and doing what is
expected from it?

            
The Secretary-General: I don’t want to put it that categorically at this
stage, and I think you have to put it in the broader context that I have defined
- the problem with the responsibility to protect. Protection means also
providing police, providing legal protection and disarming. So it is a
combination of starting with the most effective to be able to protect the
people, but the disarmament was part of the agreement.

            
Question:
I just wonder what you would say to the refugees, the displaced people in Darfur,
who are still seeing the villages being attacked, still seeing bombing –
presumably by the Government – and still seeing the Janjaweed around their
camps. Should they trust the pledges of the Government, and if not can they rely
on the international community to force them to do so?

            
The Secretary-General: I think at this stage, given the reports that are
reaching us, the Government is not taking adequate steps to protect the people.
I think they are right to be nervous, they are right not to have confidence.
They need to see practical measures that will offer them the kind of protection
that we are discussing here, and until they get that they cannot be confident
that security is around the corner.

            
As to the second part of your question, if the Sudanese do not do it should the
international community – if I get you right – make them do it or should the
international community go in and do it by itself? Basically, this is what you
are saying. I think, in the first instance, my sense is that the international
community must insist and hold the Government accountable and hold it
responsible for the commitments that it made, and insist that they must perform.
If they fail to do that, I think the international community cannot sit back.
They have to take measures. What measures should they take? Should it be
sanctions? Should it be sending in a force, and is that force available, and how
quickly? These are issues that the Council will have to take up, but we should
not sit back and say that the Government has not been able to do it and that is
it. That is why I am saying that monitoring is important, maintaining the
pressure is important, insisting that they perform is important. And then there
comes that moment of judgement, when a decision will have to be made that they
have not performed and that one cannot rely on them to perform.

           
Question:
Since you were one of the officers that were called on by the ICJ to act if
Israel fails to heed, as you call it, the Court’s decision, should sanctions be
imposed on Israel? My second question is about the same issue. Do you agree with
the ICJ that Article 51 does not apply to non-State actors, or with the Israeli
Supreme Court that says that, though the route is flawed, the fence is allowed
to protect Israel against terrorist attacks?

           
The Secretary-General: Let me say that I think the resolution requires me to
keep track of damages because of the barrier and report back. Of course, that is
a mandate from the General Assembly that I will have to find a way of honouring.
As far as the barrier itself is concerned, I gave my views in the document to
the General Assembly and to the Security Council. But on the question of
application of Article 51, as you say, I don’t want to take on the Court or do
their work. I am not one of the judges and I think that the judgement of the
Court will have to stand by itself. I am not going to second-guess the judges of
the International Court, but I should also say that I thought that the decision
by the Israeli court was also a courageous and a bold decision which has said a
lot for the Israeli judiciary system.

           
Question:
Mr. Secretary-General, many people in the world, well-intentioned and otherwise,
are saying that the time has come for the United Nations to get more involved in
Iraq, to get international staff back there. A Security Council resolution on
Iraq created this force to protect the United Nations in Iraq. You yourself, we
are told, had language inserted in that resolution that said “when circumstances
permit” would govern the timing. Isn’t it a fact now that the failure of
countries to come forward and staff that force – a relatively non-controversial
act – is seriously undermining the ability of this Organization to fulfil its
mandate to get seriously involved in Iraq?

           
The Secretary-General: I cannot but agree with you in the sense that
protection and security for the UN staff going back, or for anybody, for that
matter in Iraq – is absolutely essential, is a basic prerequisite. After what
happened last year, we made it clear that, if we are going to go in with staff,
we would need to be assured of protection.

So we were quite encouraged when
the idea of a dedicated force that would protect the UN staff and their
facilities came up, realizing that the Member States agreed with us and they are
taking our concerns very seriously, in addition to the phrase that we can deploy
“as circumstances permit”. But without that security, we cannot really deploy in
any sizeable number.

            
We have taken
risks and gone in to do essential tasks. The fact that I did not have an SRSG
did not prevent us from sending in Lakhdar Brahimi to do his work – and the
electoral team. But for us to go in and support the elections – which we want
to; we would want to do everything to help the Iraqi people – that security
force is essential. Otherwise, we will not be able to deploy in any large
numbers.

             
Question: What is the UN response to
subpoenas by US congressional investigators on the oil-for-food programme? Will
any documentation be privileged to the UN investigation, or can you see
documents being released to US investigators?

 The
Secretary-General: We have not been
subpoenaed by the Congress – if that is your question. We have not received any
subpoena, and we are very clear on the rules about release of documents. All the
documents have been given to Mr. Volcker, who has indicated that he wants to do
a comprehensive job and release a report – a public report - as quickly as
possible. We would want to keep it that way, and so does he. Because you don’t
want to have the documents flying all over the place, and we have made our
position very clear.

 Question:
Sir, how concerned are you that any
action against Sudan by the Security Council, which is led by the big Powers,
could be perceived as action against a poor African black country, and to what
extent is the outcome of the war in Iraq an impediment to action in Sudan?

 The Secretary-General:
I think the issue was discussed actively during
the OAU summit, and I must say the African leaders faced up to the issue of
Darfur; they didn’t duck it. Not only did they not duck it, they talked about
even increasing the force that they are sending in. They have 120 monitors and a
320 protective unit – a formed unit – to protect the monitors, and they were
thinking of increasing it. They also became very engaged in trying to find a
political solution. And the talks took place in Addis. So the leaders in Addis,
with Sudan present, were very anxious that something be done to protect the
civilians on the ground and for the situation to be brought under control.

 On your second question as to whether Iraq makes it easier or difficult, I
would say, perhaps, that it does make it difficult. We are still dealing with
Iraq; we are not out of Iraq yet. And any discussion of intervention in Iraq
will be looked at very, very carefully by Governments.

 Question:
Intervention in Sudan.

 The
Secretary-General: Sorry – any
proposal for intervention in Sudan will be looked at very carefully by
Governments, and I am not sure how quickly and how enthusiastically one will get
support for that initiative. We have to be very clear on that.

 Question:
Sir, let me ask you a question on a
different part of the world, namely, the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. The
UN is actively involved in a peacekeeping operation in Abkhazia, but it seems
that another crisis is looming in a different part of Georgia – I mean South
Ossetia. For 12 years, Russian and Georgian peacekeepers have been able to keep
it under control, but now the situation threatens to slip out of control. There
are some suggestions that there could be some international involvement. Could
you foresee any meaningful role for the United Nations in South Ossetia, and
what would be the prerequisites for such involvement?

 The
Secretary-General: No, we are
monitoring developments very carefully. As you have rightly pointed out, we are
there with our peacekeepers. We saw what happened in Adjara, and now we are
looking at Ossetia. We have not taken a decision to deploy to that part of
Georgia yet, but with my Representative and our team here, we are monitoring it
very carefully. And I would hope that discussions between the Russian Federation
and the Georgian Government will help calm the situation. In the last couple of
months they have had a very good discussion. When I was in Moscow myself in
April,  the next day the Georgian President was coming to see President Putin -
and we had a frank discussion about developments in Georgia. I also had a sense
that the two men were developing a good and useful relationship. I hope that
relationship will help them work out their differences and not lead to an
explosion. But we are monitoring it, and we hope it will not get to the
worst-case scenario that you have described.

 Question:
Mr. Secretary-General, I am wondering
what is your comment on the IAEA’s inspector returning to Iraq. Does that mean
the UN is going to tie up the loose ends on the WMD issue? Do you think it is
safe for the inspectors to return?

 The second question is: last year, when Chinese premier Wen visited the UN, you
said you were going to visit China this year. Has a time been set up for your
visit?

 The
Secretary-General: On your first
question, I know that Mr. ElBaradei said that the Iraqi Government has asked
them to come back. Some Council members are also looking down the line at what
UNMOVIC will be asked to do. So I would want to wait to see the Council
discussions to make a judgement as to where we go from here. I think the Council
will have a word to say about this, and I would much rather wait to have that
Council discussion, both on the missile, biological and on the nuclear. Whether
we go back in or not would be determined by that discussion and, of course,
under what circumstances. As you rightly point out, is the security there for
them to go back and continue their work, and if not, when do they go back?

 On your second question, probably in the Fall. I would hope to take a trip in
the Fall.

 Question:
Mr. Secretary-General, there have
been reports from human rights groups that the Sudanese police force have been
recruiting Janjaweed to, sort of, be integrated into this police force. Have you
heard whether these reports are at all credible, and do you personally think
that it may be wise in the not-too-distant future to think about imposing
sanctions or calling for Chapter VII intervention? Or will you wait for your
instructions from the Council on that?

 The
Secretary-General: On the question of
the role of the Janjaweed and their induction into the police force, or even
into the army: I have heard rumours about these things happening – in fact I
confronted the Government with it and they denied it. But there were rumours
around, even when we were on the ground. And we did tell the Government that
they have to be careful not to – it must be a no-no for them to recruit
Janjaweed into the army or the police. Because for the villagers to see the same
people who are attacking them appearing the next day in uniform, saying “We are
coming to protect you”, would be tragic, and they will not believe anything that
the Government says. I really have no hard facts to say that, but we did hear
the rumours and we warned the Government about it and raised it with the
Government.

 On the question of at what point one goes to the Council to say, “Impose
sanctions” or “Adopt a Chapter VII resolution and take action against Sudan”, I
think I will stand by what I said earlier, that we should hold them to the test
they must perform. And we are going to monitor it. When that point of judgement
comes, I cannot really tell you. It may be sooner, it may be later. It is in the
hands of the Sudanese. If they don’t want the international community to
intercede or to interfere, as they seem to indicate, then they have to perform:
it is in their hands. If they do not, I do not think they will have a right to
insist that the international community has no business interfering in ensuring
that their people are protected. The first responsibility is theirs; if they
don’t do it, the international community will need to take action. But when that
point comes is something that I cannot tell you now.

Question
(interpretation from French): First, on
the DRC, the report of experts shows that Rwanda had supported the Congolese
rebels and that they fired on MONUC Blue Helmets. I would like to have your
reaction to that report. Did you speak about it with the President of Rwanda,
President Kagame?

Secondly, the Accra summit on Côte d’Ivoire: is that still planned for 29 July?
What do you expect from that?

           
The Secretary-General (interpretation from French): I did take a look
at the report on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and I did speak in Addis
Ababa with President Kagame about that. But that was before the report was
published. As you know, the Rwandan Government rejected the report, so we need
to find a means to discuss that with him. For the time being, we haven’t had an
opportunity to do that. I hope that a detailed response will be forthcoming in
writing so that we can study exactly what happened. But I did see the report and
will continue to work with our people on the ground and with the Government of
Rwanda. But I am sure that we need to have something written. The report is out
now, so that will be done.

            
Yes, the meeting on Côte d’Ivoire that’s going to be on the 29^th – I
hope that we will be able to encourage the Government and the rebels to start
re-creating Government, because the Government isn’t working. The rebels and
others have left the Government, but I hope that in Accra we will be able to
encourage them to get together and resume the process of reconciliation. A real
dialogue needs to be established. If we manage to bring that off, that’s not too
bad.

            
Question: The US Government is threatening to withhold funds for some UN
agencies. Is there anything you will say to the Bush Administration to try to
convince them otherwise? And, very briefly, given the kind of violence we have
seen in the world in recent times, would you say that this is a safer world than
it was, say, two or three years ago?

            
The Secretary-General: My answer to that last question is no. I cannot say
that the world is safer today than it was two or three years ago.

             On
your first question, I think already there are funds being withheld for the
activities of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). UNFPA is doing very
essential work on reproductive health. When we consider what is happening in the
world today - one of the topics I talked about is HIV/AIDS, which today has a
woman’s face, which today is producing so many orphans. We have 15 million
orphans, and most of them get it through breast-feeding, and through
mother-to-child transmission, which we are trying to do something about. This is
an area where UNFPA is doing very good work with mothers, with communities and
societies, and really needs help.

           
I hope Governments will support UNFPA and not extend the decision not to
fund its activities to other agencies. In fact, I was very encouraged yesterday
when the British Government announced £80 million in funding for UNFPA
activities. That was a shot in the arm that they needed. I would encourage other
Governments to support the essential work they are doing.  Thank you very much.

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO: The
report of
the group of experts monitoring the arms embargo against foreign and Congolese
armed groups and militias operating in the eastern Democratic Republic of the
Congo was issued today. In the report, the experts note the porosity of the DR
Congo’s borders and provide evidence of rear-based support from neighbouring
countries to armed groups operating in the DR Congo which, in the view of the
experts, is in violation of the arms embargo. The experts have provided the
sanctions committee dealing with the arms embargo with supporting evidence of
their findings, for possible future measures by the Security Council.