SG: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Q: Do you have anything you wanted to tell us about your trip, or do you want us to start…?

SG: It was a very good trip, particularly in [Democratic Republic of the] Congo, where they are preparing for the first elections in 45 years. It is a country where many of the citizens have never had the chance to vote, so this is an important event and it has to very well prepared. I did encourage all the parties to participate so that we have inclusive elections, and a process that hopefully will be unifying rather than divisive. I think the five men –the President and the four Vice Presidents –are cooperating well, but of course I also urged them to understand that the transitional government does not end its work until a new government has been sworn in and they have handed over.

I was also able to visit Kisangani. I was struck by the difference, because last time I went the tension was palpable and you could feel it, but this time it was fairly calm. I met with a group of women who complained about their condition, about violence against women, about their role in decision-making and also their desire to press ahead and play a role in the economic process and decision-making, and they were very eloquent. In fact, I met even a woman presidential candidate in Kinshasa. So the mood is good, but there are lots of hurdles ahead of us, and the UN team on the ground are working very closely with the Government and are determined to do whatever we can to help the Congolese population exercise their first right to vote in 45 years.

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, in your absence there has been a pretty serious rift in the Security Council on how to deal with Iran. Are you concerned about this, and are you concerned that we could be seeing something similar to what happened in the lead up to the Iraq resolution and conflict?

SG: I hope not, I hope not. Even though I've been away I've kept in touch, close touch, with those involved in the negotiations. What is encouraging is that both sides - the Iranians and the others - are maintaining that negotiations are still possible and that they would want to get back to the table, but I think the Iranians will have to heed the advice of Mr. [Mohamed] ElBaradei and convince the international community that their intention is only for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. I think it ought to be possible for them to come back to the table. There is a meeting in Berlin today amongst the four European ministers, and I hope they will be able to come to some understanding on their own position and then sit with the Iranians for further negotiations and discussions.

The issue is really who should deal with the file –whether it is at the technical level at the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] or should it come to the Council, or the Council should be able to give strong support to the IAEA whilst it deals with it, until such time that that process is completely exhausted and then it reverts back to the Security Council. I think it ought to be possible for them to find a way forward.

Q: Do you have any particular view on that? Do you think that, one way or the other, in terms of the IAEA versus the Security Council?

SG: I think the Council itself is very much engaged in this and is fully seized of the matter. But there are lots of technical aspects of the issue, which the [International] Atomic [Energy] Agency should continue to deal with.

Q: Have you heard the news from Nigeria today about Charles Taylor having disappeared? What is your reaction to this?

SG: I have heard the news. We are trying to get more facts about it. It would be extremely worrying if indeed he had disappeared, because the Nigerian government had indicated it will cooperate with his transfer to Liberia and to the Court, and so, it will be very disappointing if this is indeed correct. But I don't have the facts, and if he is not where he normally stays, where is he? Has he been moved elsewhere by the government, by the authorities? Did he vanish? These are facts that we need to ascertain.

Q: Do you intend [inaudible] back to the Security Council?

SG: Yes, I intend to talk to the Nigerian authorities about this.

Q: There are two items of unfinished business on the reform agenda: management reforms and Security Council reforms. I am wondering if you'd be with some of the delegations, that management reforms take priority in this. Or is it time once again to…?

SG: I think the General Assembly does have a very heavy agenda and has been moving forward systematically, from peacebuilding commission to human rights. They have the management issue in front of them, as well as the mandate review, and of course the Security Council is also on the agenda, as well as a comprehensive strategy for terrorism. I would not rule out the fact that, in the course of this session, Security Council reform will surface again. And I don't think one can say that one issue has been given priority over the other. I think the [Assembly] has a large agenda and is moving ahead methodically, but I will not rule out the fact that the Council will come up.

SG: Mr. ElBaradei, on the Security Council this weekend had some critical remarks, calling the Security Council ineffective. Do you share those sentiments, and do you believe the Council has lost its way in trying to provide security, considering the break in Iraq and Iran?

SG: I wouldn't entirely agree with that. Of course, everybody would have been happier if the Council had agreed on a statement, or on an approach on Day One, but you are dealing with a complex issue, and it is not unusual that these issues take a bit of time to sort out. What is certain is that the Council as a whole is supportive of the Atomic Agency and ElBaradei's effort, and I suspect whatever the Council does will be in support of that effort. There may come a time when the Council may decide to go in another direction, but I hope in the meantime all their efforts should be seen as supporting the Atomic Agency, and not competing with it, or trying to undermine it.

Q: The Israeli elections - the centrists, led by Ehud Olmert, are saying that if they win the Palestinians are going to have to forget about a negotiated settlement. The right, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, says that if they win, the Palestinians are going to have to forget about the West Bank altogether. How much hope does that leave you with?

And on a different issue, Western Sahara, there is now a new initiative by Morocco –autonomy versus the referendum. To what extent do you feel that the new initiative will change the dynamics in the Security Council?

SG: On your first question, as the Quartet, we have called on both parties to respect their Road Map obligations. The Road Map obligations include accepting the UN resolutions and trading land for peace, and so we would expect as a Quartet, to work with both parties in fulfillment of their Road Map obligations. Israel is today having elections, and I think we will have plenty of time after the elections to engage them on this issue.

On your second question which dealt with the Western Sahara issue, the Moroccan position has been for quite some time that autonomy is what they are prepared to offer. The Western Saharans have insisted on self-determination and autonomy and independence, and of course they refer to the agreement that was signed, and this is something that the Security Council is struggling with, and I think the Council will be guided by its own resolutions and the discussions that are going on between the two of them. I don't think a proposal by one side automatically negates all other understandings, or all other aspects of the …

Q: Will your next report reflect the proposal to the Security Council?

SG: Let me see the proposals first. I haven't seen it yet.

Q: I wanted to ask you about the Abdel Rahman case. It seems it's coming to a somewhat positive conclusion. The UN Assistance Mission there [Afghanistan] made a statement, but you did not make a statement personally as the Secretary-General. Since that has been finished, I guess the underlying question is, it seems that Afghanistan - the people, the judiciary and the government –are not adhering to the Covenant on Human Rights. Is the UN going to do something about that, and are you going to address that with the Alliance [of] Civilizations?

SG: The Alliance [of] Civilizations is not set up to deal with specific issues –it deals with a much broader issue of alliance and understanding between civilizations. On this specific issue, the information we have is that the charges have been dropped and he will be released and I understand he may wish to go into exile. My people on the ground are following this very, very closely. When they issued a statement, they issued it on behalf of the UN, and in fact were also speaking for me. I didn't have to issue a separate statement.

Q: Yesterday, you met with the US Congressional delegation. One, what was their message to you, and did you have a message for them? And second question, Congressman [Henry] Hyde said afterward that he had dropped his insistence that US dues be tied to reform. Does that make the proposed legislation any more palatable to you?

SG: Well, I have always maintained that withholding funds and dues which are legally binding is not the right way to push or enforce reform, and so I was relieved and encouraged by his decision to drop it. We did have a very good discussion on a range of issues –on Darfur, and on the Human Rights Council, which I thought was a good and credible basis to move forward. I was pleased that the US had indicated it will cooperate, and I hope they will not only cooperate, but in time would also join the Council.

Thank you.