Secretary-General's chat with journalists

SG: Well, it is not over yet.

Q: Well, your speech was good in Sudan and Chad…

SG: … I think that the visit to the refugee camps –both the IDP's and the refugees –it was important to see it for myself, to see the conditions in which they are living and the resilience. And in fact I was very impressed with my meeting with the women. There were some very strong women in the group who really knew, they knew what they wanted and how they are going to do it.

You'll recall when I asked the men, “In your council, do you have any women?” They said “no way.” And when I asked the women, “how do you organize yourselves to deal with the men?” They said, “ well we have selected a committee of three who liaise with them.” So they have their own system of telling you what they needed, why they came and what their aspirations are. And they are very coherent and they are strong, they are real leaders.

Q: Are you pleased with the agreement with the Sudanese Government and how confident are you that it is going to stick?

SG: I think, first of all, they made the agreement publicly. The whole world knows what they have said they will do. And we've set up a monitoring mechanism which will be Jan Pronk, my representative, and the Sudanese Foreign Minister. And the African Union will have a representative. Since they have monitors on the ground they can also feed in. So we will monitor what they have said they will do and they will issue fortnightly reports as to how they are doing. And we can put pressure on them as to how where they are succeeding and where they are failing. And the Council I believe should monitor this very, very strictly and take additional measures if they fail to perform. And the Sudanese Government knows that if they fail to perform there will be additional measures.

Q: How strong was that warning to them? I mean is that the thing that they are most worried about?

SG: I think to some extent they are worried about that but I think the other area that their greatest hope was that if they were to make peace they would be flooded with investments, debt relief, economic assistance –that is really an incentive. They would really want to see that happen because it is a country that has discovered oil, that it now has oil, they would want to exploit it, they would want to develop. They are thinking in terms of peace dividends and yet if they do not settle Darfur and make peace comprehensively, as I told them, nobody invests in bad neighbourhoods. Sudan would be a bad neighbourhood and investors will not come in and you will not get the assistance you need.

Q: Sir, can they do it, can they disarm, are they capable of disarming the Janjaweed?

SG: First of all, if it is correct that they have been working in alliance or together then they should be able to have control or influence over them, either caution them or tell them to stay away with their guns until they organize themselves with a disarmament plan to collect all these weapons. It will take time to disarm, you can't do it like that. But they have to take the strategic decision to disarm, come up with a plan, in the meantime deploy the police and the troops to protect the population and to ensure that the Janjaweed and the other rebels do not harass the population.

Q: Will you ask the United States and the United Nations to help? In which way do you see them helping in disarming?

SG: Well, first of all they have to come up with a credible plan. Obviously, they are implying that the disarmament will have to be voluntary and not forced, because if you enforce disarmament it always leads to trouble. In fact the incident we had in Somalia with the US troops, the genesis was disarmament. So most governments like to come up with a plan which is voluntary and you offer incentives. For example, we are disarming in Liberia. We are buying back the guns. We have a system. Depends on what sort of system or plan they come up with. They could need money. They could need other form of assistance.

Q: Are there any set time limits or is there a movement towards imposing time limits if there is no reaction soon, deadlines?

SG: That may come. That may come. What is important is the situation is urgent. The Sudanese government was made aware that urgent action was needed. If they were to be seen as dragging their feet, I am sure that the Council and the international community would act and we are all going to monitor it very actively.

Q: You are having a sort of video conference with the Security Council this afternoon. What will you be telling them? Particularly, are they thinking about resolutions?

SG: I would obviously share with them what I have seen, and my sense that security is number which they all agree with, the need to re-energize the political process and mediation, where the African Union is going to take the lead and we are going to work with them very closely and actively and that everybody should support this effort.

Q: The Chadians are happy to give the negotiation over to the African Union?

SG: They are all happy. I talked to both leaders, so they are happy to let it go. And in fact with Chad, it's even a relief because it's a tough situation to be in. And of course we will always talk about the humanitarian assistance and the need for additional resources from the member states, and the fact that we expect the government to honour the moratorium it is declaring. And we are going to gear up very quickly and put in as many people and supplies on the scene and other things as soon as possible.

Q: Would you ask the Security Council to maybe hold-off on a resolution against the Sudanese government to give them time?

SG: I think tactically it would be wise not to rush into the resolution but hold it over their heads. I think in some situations the threat is better because once you put your ace-card down, you have no leverage, so the threat is better. I think they should welcome their commitments and tell them that they want one hundred per cent performance and we are monitoring and if you fail to deliver we are ready to take further measures.

Q: What will some of your discussions with the Security Council be? Will you be upbeat and positive about what has happened so far or are you far more skeptical of things coming out the way you hope?

SG: How about coldly realistic.

Q: Have you been pleased with what's been accomplished on your trip?

SG: Yes, I think it was important that I came down to see the situation for myself and to engage the two governments, Chad and the Sudanese government. And in fact you would notice in my statement to the African Union, I said if we did not resolve this issue, it can affect the whole region. And in fact I had Chad in mind, which was a rather very fragile situation. And these conflicts are often seen as internal but it spills over very quickly. We saw the impact Rwanda had on the Congo, with the DRC and others, and the persistence of that problem which I discussed with the leaders yesterday and you need to be careful. And I told both the Sudanese and the Chadians that they all have to cooperate to find a political solution to Darfur. The best way to help Chad is to resolve the Darfur problem. People stay or they go back and you don't destabilize they have their own problem. They've just got, their oil revenues are beginning to flow, they worked out these special arrangements with the bank, they have internal political tensions. Because there is talk of the government, the President amending the constitution, so that he can stay for a third term. So with all these tensions and fragile economic situation for a small country, you have two hundred thousand refugees and more could come. And of course the Janjaweed crosses the border to attack, you know it is a very awkward…

Q: Can I ask you about African leaders serving third terms? It seems to be something that's come up. What is your opinion about constitutions being changed so that people could run again?

SG: I thought that was very clear in my statement and what I said is exactly what I felt.

Q: How did you feel it went down?

SG: I think Chissano's comments after my speech were very good. And I think he emphasized the fact that if they are thinking of good governance and they have all said that they are putting good governance, at the centre of the African Union and NEPAD, then they have to take these issues seriously. He said the Secretary-General may be pointing fingers at some of us but he is telling us the truth. And I noticed the civil society wing of the room gave me much greater applause. (laughter)

Q: The journalists were applauding in the other room too.

SG: But I think generally it was well received.

Q: How do you feel about what is happening in Kenya, the constitution has not been change for the rulers to stay… and there are demonstrations. I am sure you were looking forward to going to Kenya but now in the light of what is going on, how do you view your trip?

SG: I think Kenya has just gone through a change with Moi leaving after over 20 years and there were people in the room who have been in power for 38 years and there were people in the room who head one party regimes and there were people in the room who were thinking of amending the constitution for them to stay on for three years. And the OAU, the predecessor of the African Union, took a decision that they would not recognize any leader who comes into office through a coup d'etat. If you maintain that situation, then democracy has to work and constitutional change of leaders has to work. Otherwise, some would argue that the only way to change leaders is through a coup d'etat. So they will they would not allow elections or they will not allow others to compete. So in order to respect that you have to have the proper rules.

Q: Is that your message to the Kenyan government when you go there?

SG: Well, I think the Kenyan Government has gone beyond that with the new leader because Moi is gone. But they need to respect the constitution. And really, you cannot keep adjusting the constitution because a particular leader has a certain ambition. It is for the long term interest of the nation and they should not fool with it.

Q: Other domestic issues have been at the top of the agenda but have other African leaders talked to you about the UN's role in Iraq and how they see the role of the UN progressing from here on in. Have they talked to you about Iraq at all?

SG: Iraq was not very much on the agenda. We talked about the crisis in Ivory Coast; we talked about the crisis in Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Sudan. We touched on Liberia. We talked about Burundi. Iraq and terrorism never came up as pressing subjects for them and this is why sometimes I remind my friends and colleagues in New York that we have to be careful when we are talking of priorities. Last year I had a meeting with all the regional organizations and arrangements including NATO, European Union, OSCE and Organization of American States, and I said we are trying to set priorities for the world. We keep talking about terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. And here in North America you get the feeling that those are the most important issues on everyone's mind. And I said if you go to your regions and you did a poll, these two items may not even register. You will get hunger; you will get environmental degradation, HIV and others, so in fact the eminent panel which I set up, is to look at threats, challenges and change. I asked them to look at threats in a broader sense. Because there is an economic basis to conflict and so they will be looking at not only weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, they will look at the other threats of poverty and others.

Q: But it is also an inherent problem for the institution. It is a global institution which now has the most powerful piece of it, which has a set of interests that are even further away from the rest than they were before now.

SG: Absolutely right. And in fact your question brought that up. Iraq didn't come up, terrorism didn't come up, weapons of mass destruction didn't come up. And I met lots of leaders so it shows what is on their minds.

Q: Does it worry you that Iraq and terrorism seem to have hijacked the agenda of the UN at times?

SG: I think the question of terrorism is of concern to everybody and we need to cooperate to deal with it. But Iraq in effect has sucked out all the oxygen and it has distorted the international agenda. It has taken up so much resources that we don't have adequate resources for other development issues.