SG: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I'm very glad to be here in Geneva, and to have the chance to have an exchange with my friends in Geneva press corps. It's been quite a while. We've had sort of brief encounters, but a formal press conference, we have not had one in a while. As you know, I spent a good part of my working life here, and I've never underestimated the importance of Geneva as one of the nerve-centres of the UN system, or the importance of the work so many of my colleagues do here. Nor do I underestimate the importance of Switzerland, which may be one of the UN's newest members but a generous host country and contributor to the Organization from our earliest days.
But before I continue, I would want to start by expressing my profound sadness at the enormous loss of life and destruction caused by the earthquake in Pakistan, the damage extending to India and Afghanistan. I have directed the UN humanitarian community to do everything possible to assist the Government of Pakistan in their response. A UN team from Geneva has set up a reception centre at Islamabad airport to help coordinate arriving search and rescue teams and international assistance, while UN agencies, UNICEF and UNHCR, are offering stockpiles of emergency aid materials and World Health Organization is sending in medical teams and World Food Programme is airlifting high-energy biscuits to victims in affected areas. I was also saddened by the loss of life and devastation caused by recent storms in Central America. Every hour counts, and I urge the world to respond and respond generously and willingly. This past week has been a bad one in terms of natural disasters.
During my stay here in Switzerland, I was delighted to learn that this year's Nobel peace award went to the International Atomic Energy Agency and its Director-General, my good friend Mohamed ElBaradei. I take it as a message, a message that we should all tackle the issue of non-proliferation and disarmament with much greater urgency than hitherto.
I was very disappointed that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference] didn't make any progress and even more so, that the World Summit in New York last month could not even agree on a paragraph on non-proliferation and disarmament. I consider the Summit a success that provides us with a solid basis to move forward. We had a solid agreement on development and sustainable development and the environment. We had a clear commitment of the Governments, all the Governments, to push forward with implementation of the Millennium Development Goals by the target date of 2015. We have a framework for establishing a Peacebuilding Commission which would assist countries coming out of conflict.
We also have a commitment to the concept of responsibility, the responsibility to protect, which I think is a unique achievement that the Member States would agree that they do have the responsibility to protect civilian populations that are threatened with genocide, ethnic cleansing, or humanitarian crime. And I think this is important for the UN, particularly when you consider what we've lived through with Rwanda, Srebrenica, for the Member States to commit that they will take action. I think it's important and I hope, if and when there is a next time, which given the world we live in may certainly come. I hope, if and when there is a next time, which given the world we live in, may certainly come, I hope they will honour that pledge.
And of course, they also agreed to establish a Human Rights Council and we need to work out the details of that, and to strengthen the human rights programme of the United Nations and to double the budget for human rights. We have a very good Human Rights Commissioner and I think we should give her the tools to get the work done.
For the first time also, we had a political declaration on terrorism which I think was important. A Democracy Fund was established. And we have a basis to press ahead with management reforms. And these are very important steps forward.
Since I came here, I've had very constructive discussions with the Swiss President and other members of the Federal Council. One of the meetings that I've had here, which I'm sure is of interest to you, is my meeting with Detlev Mehlis who is the investigator of the UN International Independent Investigation into the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Lebanon, as you know, is going through an interesting but anxious moment in its history, and we, the UN, are playing a very crucial role there.
Before I take your questions, there is one other issue that has been raised through my stay here. It is the issue of international migration, and an issue you are all familiar with from the launch last week of the report of the Geneva-based Global Commission on International Migration. And more vividly, by the very serious situation migrants trying to cross from Morocco into Spain through the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla. I am convinced that this is an issue, and this issue of flow of people across borders, will consume far more of our energies in the years ahead. We're going to need to do a better job of realizing its many benefits while addressing the difficulties it can cause.
Next year, there will be a high-level dialogue on international migration and development in the UN General Assembly and it will be an opportunity to begin forging closer cooperation on this important issue. For the immediate, I think UNHCR has been active. It has three teams, one in Ceuta, one in Melilla and the other one in the Canaries. And it's in touch with the Moroccan Government and I hope they'll be able to send a team in very shortly and they will want to determine the status of these people, get them the assistance they need. So we are doing as much as we can, and we are on top of it. I will now take your questions.
Q: That's me, it's working. Mr. Secretary-General, first of all, on behalf of the Geneva press corps and our association ACANU, I would like to thank you very much for this opportunity to talk to you and we all hope that we will see you many more times this year and next year, especially here in press room three here for a proper press conference. Thank you very much. I've two questions on the UN reform agenda. First of all, I would like to ask you whether you have a time frame in mind for the various projects that have been agreed upon in New York. Secondly, in your introduction, you didn't mention the reform of the Security Council. Given the resistance of the Americans and the Chinese and others, do you think that it is still realistic that we will see a reformed and expanded Security Council in your tenure, until the end of 2006.
SG: With regards to the time frame, we are going to be trying to get as much done as we can by the end of the year. I hope we will be able to get the Peacebuilding Commission established, the Democracy Fund is established. We have about 40 million in pledges already. The discussions on sorting out the details of the Human Rights Council are also beginning. I believe that we are not starting from scratch. All the issues are known, and there was very good language which could have been agreed, but there were some tensions around it and it didn't make it into the Outcome Document. So I believe that we should be able to establish the Council, work out the details, if not by end of this year, definitely by the time of the next meeting of the Commission in March. On the management issues, we are pressing ahead with the management reforms and quite a lot of the things I can do on them on my own authority, others we need approval from the Member States and budgetary resources. On the issue of Security Council reform, I'm sorry, it was an oversight. As I said, I sort of focused on the agreements, but areas where they had not agreed, we are still working with them, pressing for an agreement.
It's not just on the Security Council reform, but also on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. When the leaders were in New York, I did challenge them to show leadership and not leave it to the negotiators if they are not able to do it and move forward with energy and vision to resolve this issue. On Security Council reform, I still believe Security Council reform is necessary. I don't think anyone can claim that the UN reform is complete without the reform of the Security Council. I expect the Member States to return to the issue later on this year and discuss it. I am still hopeful that we should be able to have some form of Security Council reform. As you know there are two options. And I don't know which one the Member States will adopt. But it is interesting that almost all the Member States believe some form of reform is necessary. What we need to agree upon is the nature and the type of reform.
Q: Here, thank you. Mr. Secretary-General, this morning, a splinter group of Darfur rebels have held hostage and released most of some African Union soldiers. The team leader and another person believed to be a translator are still being held. Are you concerned and also are you considering any stepping up security for UN aid workers, or possibly even putting on a temporary withdrawal?
SG: No, we are extremely worried about the volatility in that region. And not only action and attacks by the rebel groups, but also criminality in the region. We have suspended our activities in some parts of Darfur to protect our staff. But I think what happened with the African Union soldiers is completely unacceptable. And in fact, it was not long - I think it was about a week ago that we ourselves reminded the Government of Sudan that it does have the responsibility for the protection of the humanitarian workers and the peace keepers who are there on the ground. And they should do whatever they can to assist the AU peacekeepers and bring those responsible to account. They must also understand, I mean both groups, both the rebels and the Government must understand that if these incidents continue, it would impede humanitarian assistance and delivery. It's already impeding access to some of the people in need, and it may require a cessation of operations in some parts of the territory. But what they did with the African Union troops is absolutely unacceptable and a firm stand must be taken by the Government.
Q: Mr. Annan, I wonder why you saw it necessary to appoint your own Special Envoy or Representative on pandemic influenza, just a couple of months after Dr. Lee appointed his own, Dr. Margaret Chen. Because compared to two years ago on SARS, the whole world was very concerned with SARS as it is now was with this pandemic influenza. You did not appoint your own Representative. But of course, WHO then was very proactive and outspoken.
SG: Your question implies some sort of competition between WHO and myself. We are one family. There is no competition and I have a great deal of admiration for the WHO team here working on that issue. You should also know that Dr. Nabarro came to me after consultations with Dr. Lee and he is in New York to help me as my coordinator and adviser, but we are working very, very closely with WHO and of course the entire UN system. So we are working in tandem, not in competition, and I think it is going to be beneficial for the world and for the regions.
Q: M. le Secrétaire général, une question sur l'aide apportée aux pays touchés par le tsunami. Aujourd'hui nous avons un communiqué de presse sur le tremblement de terre qui vient d'intervenir au Pakistan, en Inde et en Afghanistan, vous en avez parlé. Est-ce que vous considérez que l'aide massive apportée aux pays touchés par le tsunami connaît de bons résultas? Est-ce que vous êtes satisfait? Et est-ce que vous pensez que des efforts doivent être faits pour accélérer la reconstruction qui, dans au moins un pays, le Sri Lanka, semble plutôt patiner.
SG: Je crois qu'au début cela a très bien marché. On a pu aider les gens immédiatement. Il n'y a pas eu de morts à cause de maladies, à cause du manque de nourriture ou d'eau. Mais en ce qui concerne la reconstruction c'est lent, j'ai eu l'occasion de discuter avec les chefs d'État lorsqu'ils sont venus à New York le mois dernier et j'ai eu l'occasion de discuter de cela avec le Président Clinton, qui est mon envoyé spécial pour les pays touchés par le tsunami. Nous sommes en train de travailler avec les gouvernements pour accélérer la reconstruction des maisons pour ces gens parce qu'ils sont dans des "temporary shelters" qui ne sont pas très convenables. Donc il faut accélérer. J'admets que c'est très long et nous sommes en train de pousser les gouvernements à accélérer les choses.
Q: Good morning Mr. Secretary-General. Two quick questions. One on Darfur again. You said in your opening remarks that during the Summit, you got a commitment from nations to protect against genocide. Now the debate is still open as to whether genocide at one point occurred in Darfur or not. The United States believed it was so. Do you believe that more pressure must be exerted upon the Sudanese Government, will the Government listen to anything in order to stop the attacks that it has backed, in fact participated in. Then secondly, there are elections coming up in Iraq on the Constitution and also later in the year on Parliament. What prospects do you see for that, and do you think that the country is heading towards civil war.
SG: You ask easy questions don't you? Let me, on Darfur, say that obviously the US Government declared what had happened in Darfur genocide. The UN has not made such a declaration. The group that investigated the situation in Darfur made it clear that they could not describe it as genocide - and besides, genocide has a judicial connotation, a judicial determination - but in the process, when the ICC, the International Criminal Court, begins to look into these cases, it is not excluded that it may find individuals who had acted with genocidal intent but it didn't say that the Government as such was involved with organized genocide. But that having been said, it doesn't really matter what you call it. People have been suffering, women have been raped and crimes are being committed and we need to take action to stop it and also send a message out to the people that impunity will not be allowed to stand. So the pressure must be maintained on the Government but not only on the Government, on the two rebel groups - SLA (Sudan Liberation Army) and JEM (Justice and Equality Movement). In fact, what we are talking about, this one with the African Union troops wasn't the Government. It was the rebel groups that did it. And so both parties have to come under sustained pressure to respect the ceasefire and take the negotiations in Abuja seriously because without that political settlement, we will not be able to find a longer-term solution. And if the situation in Darfur persists, it may have a negative impact on the implementation of the comprehensive peace agreement, which is now moving forward between the north and south. But let me also stress that Sudan needs lots of assistance and when I say Sudan, I'm not referring only to Darfur. Southern Sudan has lots of needs. We have thousands and millions of people who are going to be returning to the south after 20, 21 years of war. There are desperate humanitarian needs and we need to assist them to resettle. I think it would be a shame having pressed the Sudanese to make peace and having worked with them to make peace, that we sit back and allow lack of resources to put pressure on the agreement and its implementation.
On Iraq, we've been active in Iraq, assisting with the political transition. We have had constitutional advisers working with the Iraqi authorities and as you know, just about a week ago, we had to put our foot down to get them to reverse an anti-democratic decision they had taken. And we are going to continue working with them. We had all hoped that the constitutional process would be a uniting exercise. We had expected or hoped that it would be as inclusive as possible and pool all Iraqi groups together, for each of them to see their future in a unified and democratic Iraq. We have a Constitution that gives lots of authority to the regions and the centre is not as strong as it could be. What will be the implications down the line, I cannot say. And even as we speak, some attempts were being made to try and improve the document so that it will to some extent assuage the concerns of the Sunnis. If we do not get a universal acceptance of the Constitution, the likelihood of the violence continuing is there. If it had been an inclusive exercise as when everybody had embraced the Constitution and everyone saw his interest protected by the Constitution, I think it would have been a rallying exercise. We are not there at this stage. The nature of the elections in December will depend on the outcome of the referendum. If the referendum succeeds, we will have an election in December that will establish a new democratically elected parliament. If the referendum were to fail, we will still have to go ahead with elections in December, to establish a new Constituent Assembly that would then have to begin the constitutional process anew. So there are questions down the line that only the future can answer.
Q: M. le Secrétaire général, cette organisation que vous représentez symbolise l'espoir pour des millions de gens dans ce monde mais on a l'impression que, ces derniers temps, elle traverse une phase très très délicate. Indépendamment de ceux qui sont des détracteurs intentionnés, il y en a qui disent qu'il y a un dérapage, qu'elle connaît beaucoup de dérapages. Elle est devenue elle-même visée directement - si on se rappelle ce qui s'est passé à Bagdad - ces institutions se barricadent pour pouvoir continuer à exercer leur fonction qui est celle de protéger les autres. Sa voix s'est tue lorsqu'il a fallu dénoncer les dérapages. Ses symboles - je parle des composantes humaines - sont impliqués dans des procès, à tort ou a raison, de m'oeurs, de malversations, de mauvaise gestion. Ma question: à qui incombe la responsabilité dans ces dérapages, et est-ce que vous restez confiant que l'on pourra revoir cette organisation reprendre ces fonctions pour lesquelles elle a été créée ?
SG: Les Nations Unies, ce n'est pas un satellite quelque part. Les Nations Unies, ce sont les États membres. Les Nations Unies peuvent fonctionner, peuvent faire beaucoup de chose, autant que les États membres ont la volonté politique d'agir. Je crois que les idéaux des Nations Unies sont toujours valables. Je dis souvent, c'est comme la bible ou le coran, je vous le dis en anglais pour ne pas perdre les nuances.
We talk a lot about religion and faith. The problem is not with the faith. The problem is not with the Koran or the Bible. The problem is with the faithful, is with the faithful, and how they interpret or behave and I think to some extent it also applies to our Organization and our ideals and the question you have posed. Last month over 150 Heads of State and Government came to New York to try and look at the challenges and threats we face in the twenty-first century and how collectively we can organize ourselves to face it. And you know how difficult the negotiations were. In the end we did come out with an Outcome Document but it gets a bit disappointing that they cannot get away from the tendency to look at it from a narrow national interest, even though they all admit the issues we're dealing with today cannot be resolved by any particular country alone, however powerful. So it's a sort of educational thing that we need to go through but it differs from region to region. The European Group were very strong supporters of the reform. They are living the experience of multi-lateralism. They are not afraid of it. I'm not sure every other region is there. But I hope the European experience sets a lesson for other regions as to how sometimes and often the collective interest is also the national interest.
Q: M. le Secrétaire général, c'est au sujet du Conseil des droits de l'homme. Tout le monde a salué cette décision avec satisfaction. Cependant, le Conseil des droits de l'homme est une coquille vide, c'est-à-dire, on ne sait pas qui siègera dans ce conseil. Or, comme le dit Mme Arbour, aucun État n'a raison de pavoiser. Autrement dit, aucun État ne viole pas quelque part les droits de l'homme. Alors comment pensez-vous que l'on pourra parvenir à faire un choix équilibré et juste et avoir des États modèles?
SG: D'abord, ils ont pris la décision d'établir un Conseil des droits de l'homme. Nous sommes en train d'élaborer les détails. On doit pouvoir y arriver. Évidemment, on va aussi changer les méthodes de sélection. Aujourd'hui, si une région, selon le système de rotation, propose des pays comme membre du Conseil, ils sont automatiquement acceptés par l'Assemblée générale. Mais avec les changements, chaque candidat doit avoir deux tiers des votes. Donc, si un pays est proposé, et n'arrive pas à avoir deux tiers des votes dans l'Assemblée générale, on doit retirer sa candidature et proposer quelqu'un d'autre. J'espère qu'avec cette approche, on va pouvoir améliorer, disons, la liste des pays qui participent dans ce Conseil. On n'a pas encore décidé du nombre de membres. Moi j'avais proposé 30. Ils sont en train de regarder entre trente et cinquante. Je ne sais pas ce qu'ils vont décider, mais en tout cas je crois qu'on verra un changement avec cette méthode de sélection, qui peut nous aider.
Q: Mr. Secretary-General, I wonder if you can expand a little bit on what you said before the ExCom of UNHCR about reforms and the question of the protection of the whistleblowers, for instance. Does that mean if a whistleblower goes public –I'm thinking of the case of the former High Commissioner, for instance - does he or she no longer risk his or her job? And the second point, the same context, how is it possible that the former High Commissioner was exonerated by you from purported harassment charges and early this year he was forced to resign all the same? Thank you.
SG: First of all, I'm not aware that any whistleblower who has gone public has been forced to resign. We are indicating that we are coming up with better protection of whistleblowers and people who come up with the information and I think the idea of protecting them is something that we are serious about. And it will come out. On the question of the former High Commissioner Lubbers, I'm a bit surprised that it would come up now. I think we should sometimes let certain things lie and let me say that, and I like the way you said purported accusations. That issue was investigated and went through deep process. He had a chance to respond. And I came to the conclusion after consulting my own people and lawyers that the evidence did not support the accusation and a judgment was made then. But because of some of the things, particularly what you are doing now, hounding the gentleman, not letting the issue drop, go after him time and time again, in an organization that lives on voluntary contributions, with rumors and leaks, it was totally unfair to him. He has left in the interest of the Organization and I think we should leave it there.
Q: M. le Secrétaire général, au cours des débats de l'Assemblée générale, on a parlé, à droite à gauche, qu'il y a un comité qui va soutenir le Secrétaire général dans ses décisions au niveau du budget. C'est à dire que ce Comité a deux tâches, premièrement réduire ou alléger les tâches du Secrétaire général au niveau des dépenses, après le rapport "pétrole contre nourriture", et deuxièmement faire un petit contrôle sur les "activités du Secrétaire général". Deuxième question concernant la tâche et la mission de M. Mehlis au Liban. On a parlé sur le contenu du rapport que M. Mehlis n'a rien trouvé de tangible pour trouver la piste sur l'assassinat de Rafik Hariri. On a parlé que le premier ministre libanais a demandé, à vous, de prolonger le mandat de M. Mehlis pour deux mois. C'est-à-dire que le mandat se termine le 25 octobre, pour le 15 décembre. Est-ce que le Secrétaire général décide de prolonger cette mission sans savoir le rapport qui va être présenté le 21 octobre, s'il y a quelque chose de réel ?
SG: Je n'ai pas bien saisi la première question. Vous parlez du comité créé par l'Assemblée générale. Je ne crois pas que c'est le cas. C'est un Comité que l'on va créer, on va établir ce que l'on appelle un "ethics committee" et on a parlé de accountability : on va établir un groupe pour travailler avec moi. Et puis il y a aussi le concept d'inspecteur général qui existe aujourd'hui sous la forme de OIOS qui, déjà, est obligé de soumettre ses rapports à l'Assemblée générale, mais on veut lui donner beaucoup plus de moyens et le rendre beaucoup plus efficace.
En ce qui concerne la question sur M. Mehlis, effectivement, je n'ai pas vu le rapport. Ce rapport n'est pas terminé, donc je ne vais pas parler du contenu de ce rapport. Si le mandat de Mehlis doit être prolongé ou non, cela dépendra des besoins. S'il a besoin de continuer le travail, s'il a des choses à faire, je verrai. Mais s'il a terminé son travail, c'est autre chose. Mais je ne peux rien dire tant que je n'aurai pas vu le rapport de M. Mehlis.
Q: Secretary-General, you recently appointed Dr. Supachai to head UNCTAD and people say you have a passion for trade lifting people out of poverty. What is your message to the trade negotiators and ministers meeting in Hong Kong with reference to the poorest of the poor, in particular in Sub-Saharan Africa? And secondly, with reference to the threat of terrorism, how well prepared is the UN to respond a mass attack, a multiple attack, in many cities?
SG: I think on the question of trade, this is something that came up very much at the last Summit. I believe the best way to assist the poor, yes, development assistance helps, debt relief helps, but the big difference will come from a genuinely free and fair trading system that allows the poor to trade themselves out of poverty, and levels the playing field, with subsidies removed, and I can tell you, agriculture subsidies does undermine agricultural productivity and effectiveness of third-world producers. And I would hope that the Hong Kong Meeting will really make progress. This issue was also discussed at the GA (General Assembly) summit. And I was there with Supachai and others, and we did press for the elimination of subsidies, and a real attempt to improve the trading system for the poor. And, quite frankly, they will get much more out of trading than development assistance could ever give them. And so I would hope that would happen. And you raised a question?
Q: Yes, with reference to the heightened threat of terrorism. Thank you.
SG: How the United Nations will respond to multiple attacks in various capitals, at the same time. I hope by responding, you don't mean physical action by the United Nations to deal with this?
Q: In the humanitarian sense.
SG: That will be an extraordinarily difficult challenge, if we have to tackle several of those situations at a time, may God forbid that, but obviously, one has to look at all scenarios, including worst case scenarios, and, in fact, we are seeing it today. There are natural disasters, and somebody referred to the tsunami, we referred to the earthquake in Pakistan, and we have the situation in Central America, which is also very tragic, but has been pushed off the front pages and out of television, because of the size of Pakistan. And yet, there are real needs there, and when you look at what has happened in the last couple of months, from Hurricane Katrina to Hurricane Rita, to Pakistan, to Central America, and to the tsunami, all this in one year, in a matter of 10 months. And all these crises are competing for resources from the same sources. They are competing for logistical support, and so I hope that, obviously one needs to think about the scenario you mentioned, but if it does happen, it's going to be a real challenge, not only in logistical terms, but in terms of resources and organization and getting things done. Obviously one of the first things you need is effective coordination, and you really would have to have good coordination teams at all the spots. Thank you.
Q: I would like to ask a question about the Spanish enclaves, what is happening there. Do you think, Mr. Secretary-General, that this is entirely a European issue and that the Europeans must solve this, or do we need an international approach, possibly even a United Nations approach, to such migration issues. Thank you.
SG: I think it is a question that requires cooperation, international cooperation. It is for that reason that two years ago I encouraged the establishment of the Global Commission on International Migration. And they delivered their report last week, and I hope you will have a chance to look at that as well. Obviously, it's a very complex issue, the whole issue of migration from the point of view of the countries of origin, countries of transit, and the recipient countries. There are benefits, and there are some disadvantages. What is clear is that when you take the European continent, and you look at the demographics, migration is going to be necessary. There are several European countries that cannot sustain their current level of economic development without immigration. One would also have to help the immigrants settle in, and the immigrants should also accept and respect the laws of the countries they are in. What is important is that we do not make a futile attempt to stop movement of people across borders and migration. It will not work. It's been happening for centuries, and today we have about 200 million people living outside their country, and the movement of people will continue. What is necessary is to manage the process, manage it fairly and equitably, in the interest of all, in the interest of the country of origin, transit countries, and the recipient countries, and above all, respect the rights of the migrant or those on the move. Obviously, there are criminal elements, we are concerned about human trafficking, people who move across borders with drugs, and all that. Yes, we should find ways of dealing with them, but we should not in the process brush aside people who have legitimate asylum claims. And so it is complex and has to be tackled.
Q: M. le Secrétaire général, l'ensemble des rapporteurs et des experts internationaux conviennent de la difficulté de la mise en oeuvre du droit international des droits de l'homme. Cela étant et même si les Nations Unies ne sont pas parties aux Pactes et aux Conventions relatives aux droits de l'homme, quelle est votre position sur l'applicabilité des droits de l'homme par l'administration des Nations Unies, et aussi de l'applicabilité des résolutions ou de la non-applicabilité des résolutions adoptées par l'Assemblée générale à l'intention de l'administration de l'organisation?
SG: Je ne suis pas sûr que j'ai bien compris la question.
Q: Je regrette de vous poser cette question, mais au vu des différentes démarches entreprises auprès de l'administration à Genève et à New York, sans réponse, j'ose vous poser la question de fond à vous : quelle est votre position concernant l'application des résolutions de l'Assemblée générale à l'intention de l'administration des Nations Unies et donc, quelle est votre position concernant la viabilité et le respect des normes des droits de l'homme par l'administration des Nations Unies. Par exemple, il y a des cas d'espèce, il s'agit simplement, en tout cas pour le moment de connaître votre position concernant ces deux questions.
SG: Let me try and answer the question, as I understood it. I think the General Assembly resolutions and Security Council resolutions are to be respected by the Member States of the Organization. They don't always respect them, they don't all always respect them, but they are expected to respect them. And of course, we as a Secretariat, have an obligation, not only to accept these resolutions, but promote their implementation and respect for these, whether it comes from the General Assembly or the Security Council. Thank you.
Q: Il s'agit d'une résolution en l'occurrence - il y en a d'autre - mais la 51/226 à l'intention de l'administration des Nations Unies et qui pour l'instant n'est pas mise en oeuvre. Cette résolution a été approuvée par l'Assemblée générale en 1997 et reconduite chaque année, et elle est traitée également à la cinquième Commission, toujours sans application par l'administration des Nations Unies.
SG: I see you have a special interest in this particular resolution. You have a special interest in this particular resolution, and I don't think all the people in the room are as excited about that resolution as you are. So I would suggest at the end of the meeting we have the administration, everything, we can discuss it. Let us move on to the next question please.
Q: My question concerns your proposition on resolution of Kosovo problems, and I also would like your position to other problems like Kosovo, for example Abkhazia and Ossetia, which were forcefully included into Georgia during Stalin regime. Thank you.
SG: With regards to Kosovo, I had commissioned a study, which was conducted by Ambassador Kai Eide. He gave me the report last week. The report revealed the progress in implementing the standards, and we had indicated that if enough progress is made in standards, we will move on to the discussion of the status issue. Having reviewed his report, I have recommended to the Security Council that we begin the status discussions. I shall name a Special Envoy very shortly, who will conduct those discussions. It is not an easy topic, we need to discuss it both with Pristina and Belgrade, and in doing it, we also have to be conscious that Kosovo does not exist in isolation, and be conscious of the impact any decision may have in the sub-region. I cannot tell you when I expect the exercise to continue, but we will get into it with determination and good faith, and try and find an acceptable solution. On Abkhazia and Ossetia, you know that on Abkhazia, I have a Special Representative in Tbilisi, who is working with the Georgian Government and with the Government of the Russian Republic on this issue. They meet periodically, here, the Friends of Georgia meeting. We haven't made as much progress as I would like, and our efforts continue.
Q: M. le Secrétaire général, j'aimerai d'abord remercier votre Directeur général qui nous accorde de temps en temps la parole. Ma question pour revenir à l'Afrique, car de plus en plus souvent, pour se faire bonne conscience, on parle de l'Afrique, mais quand il s'agit de réfléchir, les Africains ne sont pas là. M. le Secrétaire général, j'ai une question par rapport à l'affaire Habré. Le Président Wade du Sénégal vous avait fait la promesse de l'extrader. Est-ce que, aujourd'hui, la position des Nations Unies est toujours la même, c'est-à-dire est-ce que vous êtes pour que le Président Habré soit extradé s'il n'est pas jugé au Sénégal. Ma deuxième question : allez vous vous présenter après la fin de votre mandat comme président de votre pays.
SG: En ce qui concerne l'affaire Hissène Habré, j'attends de parler avec le Président Wade, je n'ai pas eu l'occasion de le faire encore. Mais évidemment il y a un cas contre lui et j'espère que... Je ne peux rien dire avant ma discussion avec le Président Wade. Je vais lui en parler. En ce qui concerne mes activités fin 2006, je ne serai pas un politicien, je ne serai pas candidat pour le poste de Président du Ghana. J'ai fait énormément de travail. Cela fait 15 ans que j'occupe un poste "à haute pression" si vous voulez, premièrement comme responsable du maintien de la paix, et bientôt dix ans comme Secrétaire général. Je crois que j'aurai besoin de repos après ça.
Q: M. le Secrétaire général, je voudrais revenir sur une expression que vous avez prononcée, celle de diplomatie multilatérale. Est-ce que ce concept n'a pas montré ses limites ? Vous avez cité certains dossiers - le traité de non-prolifération, la Conférence du désarmement, la crise iraquienne, la réforme des Nations Unies - à l'aune de tout cela, quel avenir, non pas utopique ou idéaliste, mais quel avenir réaliste voyez-vous pour ce concept de diplomatie multilatérale et est-ce qu'il n'a pas montré ses limites?
SG: On a tendance, lorsqu'on discute ce genre de choses, à citer des échecs mais pas des succès. Par exemple, la communauté internationale, même concernant l'Iraq, a travaillé ensemble pour la première guerre d'Iraq. La communauté internationale a travaillé ensemble. On a vu, avec le tsunami, on a travaillé ensemble. Sur les questions des droits de l'homme, du droit international, les Nations Unies ont un devoir ; c'est les Nations Unies qui travaillent avec les États membres pour promouvoir les Conventions et tout cela. Donc, dans certains domaines ça marche. Si, aujourd'hui, on n'a pas pu avoir encore un accord sur la non-prolifération et tout cela, ça ne veut pas dire que l'on doit laisser tomber, que ça ne marchera jamais. Ca ne veut pas dire que l'on doit laisser tomber les idéaux parce qu'on n'a pas réussi aujourd'hui.
SG: You have to have an objective or standard to aim for. I hope you agree with me that dreaming is also necessary. You have to dream sometimes. Because if you don't dream, you cannot really reach out and do something. You have to first have the dream, and then you begin to implement it and push for its implementation and give it pillars. So don't dismiss dreams, or standards which are not achieved immediately.
Deputy Spokesman: We're running out of time, but I understand we may have time for one more question and we would like to give the floor to Gordon Martin who I understand is the senior journalist here who has been diligently working for over 25 years.
Q: It's wonderful again to see you sir, and thank you very much for being with us. We have in the room today the honour of having with us one of the most devoted and hard-working and courageous servants of the United Nations, namely my good friend Mohamed Sahnoun. Do you see any hope, sir, of the situation in the part of the world with which he deals, in Somalia and so on, do you see any hopeful signs there? Thank you.
SG: Thank you Gordon, and it's good to see you again, it always is. Let me say that the Horn of Africa is a difficult and a complex region. Starting with Somalia, we have not and they have not made much progress. They agreed in Nairobi to set up a Parliament, which they did, they elected a President and they set up Ministers, and they were to move back into Somalia to continue their work. But of course, we also know the insecurity in Somalia, and they needed to, first of all, establish themselves, ensure their own protection, and begin to rebuild governmental institutions. This has not happened. My Special Representative, Francois Fall, is doing all he can to assist them, but it is an extremely difficult situation, and in fact several of the Ministers have had to leave Somalia again. I cannot tell you when they are going to be able to return and security is not about to be brought under control. There was about four months ago, IGAD talked about sending in a force of 20,000 to try and calm the situation. I didn't think it was a viable proposition. They do not have the means, nor the troops to put 20,000 troops into Somalia and sustain them. It's going to require lots of logistical support and lots of resources, which is not available at the moment.
Then you have the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia, where the Boundary Commission came up with its findings. We have not been able to implement it. We have the peacekeepers on the ground. And this is something you cannot do unless the two parties cooperate. Eritrea insists that it should be implemented automatically. Ethiopia says we admit, we accept the Commission's findings, but we want to discuss before we implement it. So we have a sort of a stand-off, one is insisting on discussion before implementation, the other one is insisting on implementation before talks. And we've tried. I've sent in envoys to try and break it up. One side receives the envoy, and the other side refuses. And so we're going to try and see how down the line we'll find a way, what will break this impasse. And today you have a new political situation in Ethiopia. They had elections, the opposition did very well, and I think Parliament is supposed to open today or this week. And I think the dynamics in the Parliament and the issue of governance would also change, and I don't know what will be the attitude of the new Parliament and the Government on this issue, of the border.
On top of that, we have a serious humanitarian situation in the region, and we've been encouraging the Governments to take food security seriously, and to work with the international community to begin to draw up plans to ensure that they do establish a mechanism and a system of food security, so that we don't have to go through periodic famine, which kills lots of people and demands lots of resources. And properly planned, these resources can go into productive agriculture. I have been pressing donor Governments and the African Governments that we should take agriculture seriously. Unfortunately, of all the continents, Africa is the only one that has not gone through a green revolution. We should be able to have better agricultural productivity, we should be able to have better irrigation systems, we should be able to have more crop per drop, we should have effective food storage systems and food processing systems, so there is lots of work to be done, and I know that in discussions with the Ethiopian Government, they are beginning to look at this issue of food security very, very seriously. So while there are hopeful signs, there are lots of other difficulties in that region. And I think, Mohamed Sahnoun, who is here with us, has done quite a lot of work in the region, and he knows what I am talking about. Thank you very much.