SG/SM/7259

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE BY SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN AT HEADQUARTERS, 14 DECEMBER

14 December 1999


Press Release
SG/SM/7259


TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE BY SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN AT HEADQUARTERS, 14 DECEMBER

19991214

The Secretary-General: A year ago today, in this very room, I told you that both in Kosovo and in Iraq we had every reason to fear the worst for 1999 unless people redoubled their efforts to find peaceful solutions. Well, perhaps the worst did not happen. Both those places have seen dramatic conflict since I spoke, in one case without even waiting for 1999. Meanwhile, we have seen other conflicts drag on in several parts of Africa, in Afghanistan and now in Chechnya. All too often in these conflicts one or more of the parties shows a shameful disregard for provisions of international humanitarian and human rights law.

It has been an extraordinary year and has brought unexpected new responsibilities to the United Nations. On opposite sides of the world, in Kosovo and in East Timor, people who have been through a terrible ordeal are now rebuilding their institutions and their future with the help of the United Nations.

The situation in Kosovo remains difficult, very difficult. The legacy of hatred left by such conflicts is not easily overcome. The United Nations Mission led by Bernard Kouchner is still short of manpower, especially in the crucial area of police work. Yet in all the circumstances, it is doing a remarkable job.

In East Timor, I am glad to say that the process of reconciliation is moving faster. No doubt this is due in part to the fact that the territory's political destiny is clear after the act of self-determination carried out in August under United Nations auspices. But I believe it is also a tribute to the statesmanship of exceptional political leaders -- Xanana Gusmao, who is working very closely with my Special Representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and President Wahid of Indonesia. I am glad and delighted that President Wahid has accepted my invitation to visit East Timor, which I extended with the full consent and encouragement of Mr. Gusmao. I hope this improved atmosphere will very soon allow the refugees who are still in camps in West Timor to return home in peace and safety shortly.

In the new year, as you know, the United Nations force will take over the responsibility for security in East Timor. I have decided to appoint a Force Commander from the Philippines, with a Deputy Commander from Australia, who will help ensure continuity with the excellent job done by the present International Force under General Cosgrove.

I deeply regret that we were unable to prevent the senseless bloodshed of August and September. But, if we compare the prospect now with that of two years ago, we see that East Timor is one more case where time and patient diplomacy, ably conducted in this case by my Special Envoy, Jamsheed Marker, have brought hope to what had been a hopeless situation. And that, I believe, should encourage those who are struggling to end other long-standing and intractable conflicts, for instance in the Middle East and in Cyprus.

As most of you know, the proximity talks on Cyprus are adjourning today, after 12 days during which both parties were engaged very seriously with the whole range of issues that divided them. I have invited the two parties to resume the talks on the same basis early next year, and the date will be announced in due course. We have all agreed not to engage in public discussion of the substance of these talks, but I can at least say that the new dynamic between Turkey and the European Union, and between Greece and Turkey, provides a hopeful context in which to continue them.

The Iraqi problem, meanwhile, remains very much with us. Throughout the year, the United Nations has been handicapped in dealing with it by divisions within the Security Council. I hope that today, or very soon, the Council will be able to agree on a new resolution. I hope this will enable us at last to move into a more constructive phase in which we can both verify Iraq's disarmament, as mandated by the Security Council resolutions, and bring to an end the long ordeal of the Iraqi people. I strongly urge the Iraqi authorities to make that possible by complying with the Council's decisions.

Ladies and Gentlemen: I am glad to say that this has been a year of progress also in at least some parts of Africa, and above all a year of renewed attention to Africa's problems in the Organization, from the Security Council and the General Assembly. The Council in particular devoted a special meeting to Africa in September, chaired by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. It will hold another tomorrow, and Ambassador Holbrooke -- who has just returned from an African tour -- has promised us no fewer than three such meetings next month. If Africans think the world has forgotten them, they should take heart.

I would not pretend that we are close to solving all of Africa's problems, but I believe we are now giving them the serious attention they deserve. In this I include not only the problems of bringing peace to the many African countries that have suffered long and bitter conflicts, but also -- and no less urgently -- the battle against AIDS.

Perhaps the same observation could be made about the world in general. We are not short of problems -- from global warming through weapons proliferation to the prison-house of poverty in which so many of our fellow human beings are still confined. The World Trade Organization Summit has made us all aware, perhaps more sharply than ever before, of the strains and stresses that accompany globalization and the need for shared global values and effective global institutions to underpin the global market. As I said in my speech there -- or would have said, if I had been able to deliver it -- these problems cannot be solved by putting yet more restrictions on developing countries' exports. But they do call for a strengthening of the United Nations system.

As the millennium dawns, I believe the world is gaining clearer understanding of its problems and of the need to tackle them through collective action. I hope and trust that this new clarity will shine through during the millennium year and will be matched by a determination to act, especially when heads of State and government assemble for the Millennium Summit here in New York next September.

Let me wish all of you a happy new year. Now I will take your questions.

Question: Before we go into specifics with the questions by my colleagues, let me ask you a couple of questions of a general character.

One is whether you are satisfied with the cooperation you have been getting from the countries of the P-5 during 1999. What kind of cooperation was that? How different was it from your cooperation with other Member States?

The second question is about terrorism, whether you feel that in 1999 the international community has done enough to stop terrorism.

The Secretary-General: On the question of cooperation with the Council, let me say that I have had very good cooperation from the 15 members of the Security Council. I have worked well with the P-5, as you have indicated. We have cooperated on many issues, from Kosovo to East Timor to the African crisis. As I have said before, we have also been able to organize a series of special meetings on Africa. You have also noticed that the Council has had many open meetings this year, which is a change from the past. We have worked very, very closely on that. So I am very satisfied with the cooperation I have had from the Council and I hope this will continue in the new year.

With regard to terrorism, I think it is a concern for all of us. I think we need to fight it together as an international community. We need to work across national boundaries to ensure that terrorists are not given refuge in one country or the other. But in fighting terrorists we need to be sure that international humanitarian law is respected. I have often said that if we fall into the trap of using the means that the terrorists use in fighting them, we will be doing their work for them. The public and the people may not understand, and it is not in the interests of the forces of good to use some of these means. But we all need to fight terrorism together. Therefore, as I have said, we have to respect international humanitarian law in our fight against terrorism.

Question: The State Department has sort of announced concerns about terrorist threats against American targets overseas during the millennium. Are there similar threats against the United Nations facilities in the same period?

And also, concerning the Taliban, there have been some conflicting reports of whether there were really child soldiers being used by the Taliban. Is that correct, and was your report correct?

The Secretary-General: We have not had any direct threats, as such, to United Nations facilities and staff. But, as you know, this past year has been rather difficult for United Nations staff, both civilian and military. So we have advised them to be on the alert and to take care whenever they go into situations that may be dangerous. So it is an ongoing challenge for our staff who work in difficult situations.

With regard to the Taliban and the question of child soldiers, the report I submitted based on information by my people around the region indicated that they had sighted some child soldiers. Yes, I think you raise the issue because when Mr. De Mul was taken to the border he said he did not see any children on that particular day. But in the report I had indicated that there had been.

Question: The panel that you appointed to investigate Rwanda is about to issue its report. Now that the work is almost completed, do you feel that the United Nations should have done anything differently in the case of Rwanda to prevent genocide there? And do you feel that the report issued is enough, or that there must be some kind of demonstration of accountability on the part of the Secretariat with regard to that massacre and how to prevent its recurrence?

The Secretary-General: First of all, I have not seen the report. That may surprise you. I did ask the team to do independent work with all files and archives open to them. I expect to receive the report tomorrow and will draw the right conclusions. But I think you are right that we should not -- and I do not intend to stop there. We have had two prominent reports. We have had one on Srebrenica, and now we are having one on Rwanda. We also have our own Lessons Learned Unit, which has analysed some of these operations, and we need to draw the right lessons and prepare better for the future and ensure that these things do not happen again -- at least that we take better steps in confronting the situation. As a human being, as an individual, I feel that it is painful and tragic that we could not have done more to avoid Srebrenica, to avoid Rwanda and to avoid what happened in East Timor. But we did the best we could with the assets we had under those circumstances, and, as I said, there are important lessons which I hope we will draw from these reports. I will move on further and make some proposals to the Member States and to my own staff as to how we can improve the situation. If the report requires that we do take action against individuals or groups, or if there is gross negligence, we will.

Question: A question on Macao. The handover is due in five or six days. I wonder if you have any comment on this. For example, do you agree that it is a fine example of the successful test of time and patience, of successful negotiations between governments and of the wise, passive role played by the United Nations since 1972, when it decided to drop Hong Kong and Macao off the list of colonies?

The Secretary-General: I will agree that patience and careful negotiations have made a difference in the case of Macao, as it did in the case of Hong Kong, and I congratulate the Governments of Portugal and China for having concluded this agreement. I wish the people of Macao and China every success in the future, and I will be represented at the ceremony by Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello, who will be there representing the United Nations.

Question: You have just mentioned that you have extended an invitation for the January meeting with both parties of Cyprus. I understand that there is a very important situation which may block your good intentions. Mr. Clerides says that if paragraph 11 of last year's resolution is omitted, he will not come back to the meetings. On the other hand, Mr. Denktash says that if it is not omitted, he will not be coming here. How do you think these two opposite positions will be reconciled?

The Secretary-General: I am aware of those two positions. As you know, we spent 12 days together. I am aware of their positions, I am aware of the Council's discussions and the resolution on the table. But I am not discouraged. I am still hopeful that we will meet at the end of January. I hesitate to go into the details of all of these things, but I know that they are also talking to Council members directly. I just met both of them today, and I am looking forward to seeing them at the end of January. I hope we will make it.

Question: There has been some uneasiness with the partnership of the United Nations with civil society and with the business community. Do you think the influence of those two partners is here to stay?

The Secretary-General: Absolutely. I think they are here to stay. I made it clear three years ago that alone I can do nothing, and by alone I also meant the United Nations ? that we are living in a different world, and we have to work in partnership with civil society, with the private sector, with non-governmental organizations, foundations and universities. I have gone ahead and done just that in the past three years.

I know that non-governmental organizations are sometimes difficult. They are not always easy to handle, but I have to admit that on quite a few issues that they are often ahead of us. They can say and do things that we are not always free to do. They have been a force for good in many situations and in many areas. I do not want to keep repeating what everybody does -- the landmine ban, the International Criminal Court, the campaign for that -- but on many other issues on the ground, in development, in the environment and others, they have been a force, and I think we need to work with them.

We are getting into an era where people are very conscious of their rights and of the decisions that affect them, and they are going to want to be associated with that. They are going to want to be part of that. They do not want to be looked after; they want to participate. I think we need to accept this and organize ourselves and be prepared to work with them.

The private sector has become a major force in the globalized economy. It is a group that is creating wealth and employment. They have capital, they have technology, they have management, and we need to encourage them to open up to the third world and work with them through investment, the sharing of technology and the transfer of knowledge, because I do not think that we can develop the third world by going around and pushing for development assistance, which is constantly increasing. I think some of the donor countries have been rather -- well, I do not know if I should use the word, but let me say that they have not done as well as they should when it comes to giving. I would, as we move into the new year and this Christmas season, appeal to those countries with the capacity to give, to give and give generously to those countries and populations who are in dire straits and live in abject poverty.

Question: The United Nations Security Council is poised to vote on a comprehensive resolution on Iraq, potentially this afternoon. How soon do you expect United Nations inspectors to return to Iraq, and what hurdles remain?

The Secretary-General: You ask that question with a straight face. Let me say that obviously we are making some preliminary preparations as to the designation of a chairman and looking for monitors and inspectors, which is not going to be an easy task. But of course we also need to jump a major hurdle, which your question implied: getting the Iraqi authorities and the Government to cooperate. That, only time will tell. How soon we get inspectors on the ground I think will by and large depend on the answer to that question.

Question: Just to follow up on that question: what will you be looking for in choosing a chairman, and, at the risk of being chided by Fred for the second question, my main question was, how do you assess the progress of the Annan doctrine on intervention?

The Secretary-General: Let me say that in looking for a chairman, obviously I will look for a personality who knows about disarmament, a personality who has good judgement, who has people skills, who can be firm but correct -- in effect, I will probably be looking for someone like Rolf Ekeus.

Question: Rolf Ekeus [inaudible]?

The Secretary-General: No, no, I said somebody like him. I am not sure he would want to go back. It would be wonderful if he would come back, but I do not think he will. I will be looking for someone -- because you need firmness, you need to be able to get the Iraqis to work with you. We have a very difficult operation in Iraq. The United Nations inspectors who were there before, and if they are going, often cannot do much without the cooperation of the people. So, in addition to the need for fairness, you need to be able to get them also to work with you. I think we will find the right person to take the job.

On your second question, I think we have a very active debate going on, within this building and outside, about this question of intervention. I think it is a healthy sign. It is important that this debate is going on. The Council wants to review it carefully, the General Assembly wants to set up a group to follow up on the discussion, I have a task force in the Secretariat headed by Mr. Prendergast, academic institutions are discussing it, and my hope is that, at the end of the day, in six months to a year, we will have enough ideas for the Organization and the membership to come to some understanding as to when we intervene and when we do not, and the bases for that action. That clarity will perhaps also help the Council in its action when it attempts to arrive at a consensus or a decision on issues.

Question: What kind of agenda would you like to propose to the General Assembly for the Millennium Summit next year, and do you intend to include Security Council reform as one of the agenda items?

The Secretary-General: The agenda for the Summit is being discussed by the Member States. I hope they will take some decision on it by the end of this week or early next week. The broad theme will be the United Nations in the twenty-first century, and it will have four sub-themes, including peace and security, development and poverty. We will prepare a report for the Summit. Hopefully, we will issue it, with revisions, by the end of March. And then, of course, the Member States will come in the fall.

As you know, the non-governmental organizations are going to have a forum here in May. The speakers and presidents of parliaments from around the world will also be coming here for a meeting in August. Of course, I have discussed the issue with some of the Member States, and they are thinking about it. We have to be careful not to find ourselves in the awkward situation of having invited the presidents and speakers of parliaments to come to New York, meet us and give us their input for the Summit, and of having invited non- governmental organizations to come and do the same, and then, in September, of sending them home. We have to find some way of getting the non-governmental organizations and the parliamentarians to present their views to the Summit, even if it means having representatives of the non-governmental organizations and of the parliaments providing their own inputs and presenting their own vision as to how they see the United Nations in the twenty-first century. I think that that gesture will be healthy, necessary and essential. And I hope the Member States will agree to it. I have a sense that they will. Otherwise, we may have another Seattle.

Question: Given the divisions in the Council on Iraq that you alluded to, what are the prospects for implementability? What are your concerns about the implementability of an omnibus resolution?

The Secretary-General: Obviously, we are dealing with a very complex and difficult issue on Iraq. I had hoped that the Council could have found common ground. I still hope it will find common ground and take a unanimous decision and that we can all work with the Iraqi Government in its implementation. Even then, that will be very difficult, for some of the reasons I discussed earlier. We know the history of the United Nations and Iraq. We know the history of UNSCOM and we know how difficult that task has been. I do not expect it to be any easier this time around, after the inspectors have returned. So we should be prepared for hard and difficult work. You are not asking me to bet as to what will happen, and I would not make any bets.

Question: You mentioned that you are looking for a new chairman for UNSCOM's successor, so to speak. What about the staff -- the inspectors, the experts, the scientists -- who have played a major role throughout the years? Do you expect there to be much continuity in the new UNMOVIC?

The Secretary-General: As I said, we are drawing up a list and looking for people who will undertake these tasks. The Council has indicated that provision should also be made for United Nations staff members in the resolution. The Department for Disarmament Affairs -- Mr. Dhanapala and his team -- and I are looking for people who will do the work. Once the Council has acted, we will try to put the two together as quickly as we can. But of course, it has to be done in consultation with the chairman. So I have to find the chairman first, and then work with them. I think we will find the people, but it will not be without difficultly. It will not be without difficulty because of the nature of the contracts that sometimes we offer these people. But we will find them.

Question: The question of United States arrears is still open. There are still all of these conditions that are attached to the payments. In your discussions with Member States, what is your sense of their feeling about accepting all of these conditions to get the money? What is the line now on that?

The Secretary-General: Let me say that I believe that the Bill was not ideal, but that it was a step in the right direction. As I indicated earlier, there are lots of issues and conditions in that Bill that will have to be negotiated with the other 187 Member States. I repeat, that will be a major challenge for United States diplomacy, for Ambassador Holbrooke and his team. I also believe that sufficient payment will be made between now and the end of the year for the United States to avoid losing its vote. I think -- I am certain -- that that will happen. But I think some of the key conditions, like the reduction of the United States contribution from 25 per cent to 22 per cent, will require major consultation and negotiation with the other Member States. How soon that will be concluded, and how successful it will be, I cannot tell, because negotiations have not begun in earnest.

Question: As you yourself started out saying at the start of this press conference, last year you talked about Iraq and Kosovo and the problems that they were going to face. I was wondering if you could look into your crystal ball again as we go into the new millennium and tell us the most serious problems and issues that you see both the United Nations and the world confronting in the year 2000.

The Secretary-General: I think one of the major issues that we should all face seriously and tackle together is the AIDS epidemic and the damage that it is doing around the world. I think it is extremely important for us to be aware that it is not only killing parents and leaving many orphans, but that in some situations it is destroying the whole economy by taking away the professional people who are active in the economic, political and social life of the society. In other words, in some situations it is destroying the whole of society. We have not seen the end of it. It is spreading very rapidly, and there are many countries which are on the verge of an explosion of AIDS. As an international community, we need to work together. It is not a national problem; it is an international problem. AIDS is not over; it is very much present with us in this community and other communities. In fact, only this morning, I heard on television that about one third of people in this country with AIDS do not get help either because they cannot afford it or they cannot juggle the time they need for medical attention with their professional and other activities. So at the national and international level, we really need to come up with a strategy in confronting this. We have to fight it as a health issue, as a political issue and as a social issue.

The other issue I think we are going to have to deal with -- and of course what I have said about AIDS also touches on it -- is the question of poverty. We saw in Seattle the tensions and the strains that globalization, and the fear and the anxiety and the disorientation that globalization are bringing. To my mind, that also gives us in this Organization and in the international system a real challenge: a challenge in trying to work with others who manage the international system to come up with rules and values that will govern relationships. In a way, the United Nations family is one that has tried to do this. Every community needs values; every community needs rules. The international community needs them as much as a local community or a district.

I think the challenge on the global level -- what I will call global governance -- is something that is going to confront us all very, very starkly. I think Seattle is only the beginning.

Question: I would like to know why you chose not to go to the Panama Canal ceremony, why you thought it was not important enough. What was the decision not to go there?

The Secretary-General: It is a fact that I did not go, but let me tell you the reason why I did not go: do not say "Why do you think it was not important??. That was not why I did not go.

As you know, I have been here with the negotiations on Cyprus. I had the last session today on the Cyprus issue. The Government of Panama and I had discussed it, and I had explained it to them. They know the reason for my absence. I congratulate the Government of Panama and the people of Panama on the historic transfer of the canal to the Government. I hope it will prosper and have an impact on the economic development of the country. I congratulate them.

Question (spoke in French): The Srebrenica massacre took place nearly a year after those in Rwanda, so can we say that lessons were learned? What will be the purpose of the investigative report, and what follow-up will you give it?

The Secretary-General (spoke in French): I do not think we can say that we have learned the lessons, because a great deal of work remains to be done. That is why I said earlier that I would issue a document containing suggestions that could guide us in the future, a document that ought to be able to help the Secretariat, and perhaps also Member States, if they are ready to make use of it. I believe mistakes were indeed made; things were done that ought not to have been done; and there were things that could have been done differently. We need clear-cut mandates with the resources to carry them out, and we need more support from the very Member States that assign such mandates. And the Secretariat itself could be better organized.

So, there are lessons to be learned from this experience and practical follow- up to be performed. I hope that I do all of this in my forthcoming report.

Question (spoke in French): Will guilty parties named in the report be prosecuted?

The Secretary-General (spoke in French): Yes, if they are named, that is clear, as I have already indicated.

Question: With respect to the two Cypriot leaders, did you give them an unofficial file or a non-paper that contains United Nations proposals on a number of Cyprus issues so the leaders could study them before their next scheduled meeting?

The Secretary-General: We gave them no United Nations papers.

Question: Neither official nor unofficial?

The Secretary-General: We gave them no official papers, no non-papers, or papers in any other form or under any other heading.

Question: To begin with, the ?Annan doctrine? has already been mentioned --

The Secretary-General: The Annan doctrine!

Question: -- Obviously, very important comments by you to the General Assembly on the subject of humanitarian intervention. Are you concerned about some of the responses to what you said, and in particular are you concerned that the examples of Kosovo and East Timor earlier on in the year showed the potential for international pressure, but that what has been happening in Chechnya more recently shows the stark limitations?

On the lighter side rather than as a substantive question, I would also be interested, after you have told us that, in how you personally are planning to mark midnight on 31 December.

The Secretary-General: Let me say that, on the question of humanitarian intervention, I did expect the reactions I got. I knew before I put the issue on the table that it was going to lead to a very strong debate and discussions, but I thought it was an issue we could not sidestep; it was an issue of our time that we had to face squarely and get a discussion going so that if we debated honestly and thought things through we might come up with some ideas that would give us clarity and guide us forward and steer us right as we moved into the future. I did not expect the debate to be settled overnight. I knew it would take time. You have given three examples, and, of course, you are right that how Chechnya has been handled and how Chechnya has turned out has been quite different from Kosovo and East Timor. It was these sorts of contradictions and accusations and a double standard and selectivity that I thought the debate and the discussions that are going on might clarify to some extent. They will not solve them, but might help clarify them.

You will recall some of the comments, particularly from [Algerian] President Bouteflika, who said this was intervention only for the weak and the small, as he was, in effect, implying. I can imagine what is going on. Some have talked to me about this whole issue of when and how you intervene. But this is an issue on which, as I said, at the end of the debate I hope the Member States will come up with some ideas. I think even in Chechnya you have to admit that the international community may not have been able to put in troops, but it has not sat with its arms crossed; efforts have been made. I issued several statements, and I have been on the phone several times with [Russian] Prime Minister Putin and with Foreign Minister Ivanov a few days ago discussing this question. Then, I have sent in Mrs. Ogata as my Special Envoy to work with them on enhancing humanitarian assistance. Today, Foreign Minister Vollebaek goes in, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference has sent in a team headed by Foreign Minister Kharrazi. So there have been quite a few efforts, despite the fact that there has not been a military presence. Signs are that things are beginning to -- well, let me not predict anything here.

On the question of 31 December, I will be here in New York. I will be having dinner with some friends and, I don't know, at midnight I will probably be dancing. But I cannot tell you which music or what I will be dancing to --

Question: Or who with?

The Secretary-General: Or who with.

Question (spoke in French): In your introductory remarks you did not refer a great deal to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. With the death of Julius Nyerere, are you involved in finding a new mediator for that region? As to the mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo expected for January, what role will you, yourself, be playing in finding a solution to the situation?

The Secretary-General (spoke in French): We have long been in discussion with the Security Council. We are currently deploying 90 military observers. In January, if the Council agrees, we will increase this to more than 500 military observers.

With reference to the death of President Nyerere, I believe that President Mandela has been chosen to replace him in the Burundi negotiations. But with respect to the facilitator for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, discussions are now under way. Former President Masire of Botswana has been mentioned, although I do not know whether this is settled or whether he has accepted. But I know there are discussions about his appointment and I would hope that this matter will be settled soon.

I myself have just appointed a Special Representative, who is already in Kinshasa, Kamel Morjane. He has begun his work and will be working closely with the involved governments and rebels in the region.

Question: The question of financial transparency or of financial controls is one of the thorny ones, as you well know Mr. Secretary-General, and you have a weighty responsibility. Are you thinking of renegotiating the Memorandum of Understanding on resolution 986 (1995), or something similar or parallel to it? How do you intend to deal with this issue, and do you personally plan to get involved in the Iraqi issue again to the extent of possibly considering going back to Baghdad? Or do you rule out the idea of going back to Baghdad?

The Secretary-General: Let me say that we are studying the issue, the financial implications and the vast amounts of money that will flow through the account, the escrow account, and the reporting systems which are required by the Council. I am not in a position to go into the details here.

On the question of my personal involvement with the Iraqi dossier, let me say that, as I mentioned earlier, we have the unit that handles oil-for-food. The Department for Disarmament Affairs will be now become quite engaged in the disarmament issue, until we set up the new body, UNMOVIC, with its own director.

Obviously it is an important dossier for the United Nations. I will follow it very closely and work with the Council members on this. At this stage, I don't think the question of a trip to Iraq is posed.

Question: Could you please comment on the role of the United Nations in the Middle East peace process?

The Secretary-General: We are supporting the process. I have designated a Coordinator, Terje Roed-Larsen, who is working with all the parties. As you know, we are on the ground. We are in the Golan Heights. We are in southern Lebanon, on the Israeli-Lebanese border. So not only are we following the political process very closely, we also have to anticipate the implications it may have for our own presence on the ground.

We support the process, and I am very encouraged by the fact that Israel and Syria are meeting tomorrow in Washington to discuss a resumption of talks on that track. I very much hope that that will move forward and will be successful, because if we make a breakthrough on the Syrian front, we will also resolve the Lebanese issue. Of course, there has been some concern that the Syrian discussions do not take time away from the Palestinian-Israeli discussions, and the Israelis, in my own discussions with them, have indicated that this will not happen. I know that President Arafat is also anxious to move forward.

I would hope that, if the parties engage seriously, honestly, simply and straightforwardly, it is likely that we will see major changes in that region within a year. I think that economically, socially and politically, it would be a major boost for the whole region. So we will do whatever we can to support the process, and I hope it will be successful.

Question: Looking at the other side of the United Nations --

The Secretary-General: Which other side?

Question: -- as we are all aware, there have been numerous reports about United Nations corruption, misappropriation of funds and mismanagement, and even some of the affiliated agencies have been described as the organization of [inaudible]. All this we know. What would be your resolution for next year regarding this aspect? And also, we have not appointed a replacement for --

The Secretary-General: One question. I think what I would say is that I would encourage the oversight bodies to redouble their efforts. I would encourage managers and each staff member to do his or her work and remember what we are here for and what the objectives of these organizations are. With regard to your last question, we are looking at candidates, and we are moving forward and I hope to name a replacement for Mr. Paschke shortly.

Question: In your opening remarks, you referred to a new dynamic created between the European Union and Turkey with regard to the efforts to solve the Cyprus problem. Could you please clarify for us and explain how you see this new dynamic advancing the prospects for a peaceful settlement?

The Secretary-General: What I meant when I referred to a new climate in the region was that first of all that there has been a question of whether Turkey would be invited to join the European Union or not. It has been, but this question, whether we like it or not, generated some tensions. When you are dealing with this sort of crisis, in Cyprus, with major players engaged in it -- with the guarantor countries of Turkey and Greece -- if you are able to remove any tension, any situation that creates tension for the Member States, you are making progress. It was in the same spirit that I welcomed the improved relations between Turkey and Greece, an indicator that I hope would also facilitate our search for peace in Cyprus. Their improved relations could not but be helpful in our search, because we are working, also, closely with them.

Question: Although you were not able to give your address in Seattle at the World Trade Organization meeting and although the protesters took away from some of the message of what WTO was trying to do, what did you take away from the potential to address some of these labour and environmental concerns in future Trade Organization talks? And how do you see the United Nations being involved in it?

The Secretary-General: I think that even though I did not make my statement, it got wide distribution thanks to you, ladies and gentlemen of the press, because I did release it with an embargo at 10 o'clock and I think everybody assumed, or some assumed, that I had read it, and so went with it. So I want to thank you for publicizing the speech which was never delivered.

But let me say that quite a lot of what I said in that statement is very clear on the question you raise. Earlier this year, in January, at the World Economic Forum, I encouraged the private sector, the big corporations, to pay attention to human rights, environmental standards and labour standards. In fact, I invited them to enter into a compact with the United Nations, and I had with me at that meeting Mary Robinson, Mr. Topfer of our environmental unit and our colleague from ILO, Juan Somav¡a. At that point, I indicated to them that if they did not pay attention to these standards, we are going to find a situation where it will be tagged onto the trading system, which is the wrong thing to do, in my judgement.

I think standards have been established for the environment, labour and human rights. Corporations operating around the world need not wait for the local government to apply these standards which their own governments have endorsed. You do not have to have a national law to pay your staff a decent salary. You do not have to wait for a national law to respect the human rights of your workers; they should do that as a matter of course.

My own sense is that if you try to tag all these things onto trade negotiations it is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible. So I think we should apply the standards. We should work at the national and international levels to apply these standards. But we should not load the trading system with domestic and institutional policy failures.

You also realize the tensions that idea generated in Seattle between the North and the South. As it is, the poor countries and the countries of the developing world believe that they are unfairly treated by the international trading system, that there are unreasonable and unfair tariffs against them. So any attempt that will exacerbate the problem and create the impression that people are making money on the backs of the poor is going to generate very strong reactions from the developing countries. This became very clear in the world.

What we need is a trading system that is open and fair, a trading system that will permit the poor countries and the poor to trade themselves out of poverty. In fact, if they gain access and improve their conditions, perhaps they will do much better than with the development assistance they get.

* *** *

For information media. Not an official record.