Secretary-General's press encounter at Security Council stakeout

The [Security] Council just held its discussions on the situation in Lebanon, particularly the attack on Qana, and they will be conducting consultations and coming back this afternoon to continue their discussion. But they are all conscious of the need to take measures to contain the situation. They are worried about possible escalation. I think if we are not careful, what we are going to see is attack and retaliation, and further attack and further retaliation, and the situation could get out of hand. I appealed to the Council to take urgent measures to try and contain the situation. You heard the Lebanese government indicating that they will not continue any further diplomatic efforts without a ceasefire. I spoke to [U.S.] Secretary of State [Condoleezza] Rice in the region, who is working [on] the problem very hard with the Israeli authorities. I would hope that between now and 4:30, 5:00 when the Council comes back, there will be some understanding or agreement on how the Council will act.

Q: Are you confident that the Council might call for a ceasefire?

SG: Well, I have recommended that, and so let's leave them to see what they come back with.

Q: The United States Under-Secretary for Political Affairs, Mr. Nick Burns, just now rejected any call for a ceasefire. Now, he said he had talked to Secretary Rice and there will be no ceasefire call from the United States. So what can the Security Council do?

SG: As I said, the 15 members of the Council are going to be engaged in negotiations. In fact, discussions have started now and they are going to meet again later in the afternoon. Let's see what happens. I'm sure they will be discussing with each other here, and talking to their capitals. So let's not reject what they will do.

Q: Secretary-General, do you think they will be able to put aside their divisions and come together with swift action?

SG: What I can tell you, as someone who has been in the room, is that they are all really concerned about what's going on, and are aware that, if we don't handle it well, it could lead to further escalation and it could spread the conflict.

Q: Did you ask Secretary of State Rice about the two plane-loads of missiles that are coming in to Israel?

SG: No, I did not ask her about that.

Q: [inaudible] and do I understand you right, they will consult with capitals, return at 4:30 presumably with instructions, and at 4:30, try to resolve what it is they do today?

SG: That's correct, I think they are headed to a presidential statement, and they are consulting amongst themselves. And as I said, I'm sure there will be calls to capitals, but they are heading towards a presidential statement from my understanding.

Q: Secretary-General, just for clarification, what did [U.S.] Ambassador [John] Bolton say within the meeting, just so we understand?

SG: I think that Mr. Bolton is very eloquent; he speaks extremely well for himself. I don't need to be his spokesman. When he comes out, ask him.

Q: You expressed the message, the ultimatum from Israeli Defence Forces to UNIFIL to remove innocent people in both Ayta ash-Shab and Ramyah. You know, this is another tragedy in the making. What are you going to do about that, besides the Council does not do anything about it?

SG: The Council itself –this came up in the Council discussions. And let's see what they say in their statement because you know that we ourselves have been under attack. The situation is very unstable, where we are struggling to protect ourselves. It's not the time to undertake to evacuate villages. And besides, as I said, such requests would normally come from a government and, of course, I see the implication of your question: isn't a cessation of hostilities the only way to protect the civilians and let them get out of harm's way. We've asked for that too so, obviously, you have no argument with me on that.

Q: I know it, but I just want to understand is there –

SG: –any action that can be taken to protect the villages? That's what you mean? Go ahead.

Q: I was wondering if there is a certain time that you were told? That by such and such time [if] they are not evacuated, something will happen and you're responsible. And why is that you keep using the words “a cessation of hostilities” rather than “ceasefire? I'm sure you have a very good reason for that distinction in your mind. Can you share that distinction?

SG: I think I have made that distinction very clear and also with the Council members. Cessation of hostilities can be agreed upon by the parties for a limited duration or for whatever duration to stop the fighting for assistance to be given to civilians, to get civilians out of harm's way, to allow more time for diplomatic work and negotiations. Ceasefire is similar but it has to be negotiated in detail and usually takes time. So if you wish, cessation of hostilities is like a truce where the parties can agree to without detailed, nailed-down negotiations which is very time-consuming. I'm also interested in a ceasefire but that will take a bit of time and I wanted to see the cessation of hostilities.

Q: The UN charter enshrines the concept of self-defense, but I guess that was written at a time when you had a concept of two armies fighting each other. Now you have a situation where you have this asymmetric warfare, and one army or militia or armed group is interspersed and sometimes indistinguishable from civilians. So what does the right of self-defense entail when you have that situation? Or does international law need to be updated to take into account this different type of warfare?

SG: Obviously, law is being interpreted and adapted all the time to [certain] situations. But there's also a question of when you talk of protecting civilians, if you have to take military action in a situation where civilians are likely to be hurt or to be killed, what do you do. Do you go ahead with it, or you stick with the basic principle of sparing civilians and avoiding any action that could remotely harm a civilian? It's a tough call. But I think the idea of protecting civilians and sparing civilians and ensuring that non-combatants are protected and are not placed in harm's way, I think, should be high on the agenda of any fighting force regardless of whether it is a militia or a government.

Q: Just to follow-up on this as it cuts to the heart of the situation, does that then essentially give a militia that intersperses itself within civilians and hides behind civilian shields, the ability, practically, to attack another country, but have the weight of international law behind it when it comes to a response?

SG: First of all, I've made it quite clear that in this conflict, what Hizbollah did was unacceptable. Secondly, it is also quite clear that there is no military solution to this situation. There has to be a political agreement -- a political agreement that leads to the disarmament of all militia, including Hizbollah, a political agreement that allows the Lebanese government to strengthen its own army with the support of the international community and extend its authority throughout the territory. So the urgency of stopping the fighting and getting a political agreement is underscored by the exchanges that we are having. There is no military solution. Thank you very much.

Q: Sir, are you in contact with the Lebanese government? They said they won't talk to anybody.

SG: I did speak to the Prime Minister this morning.

Q: Are you urging him to return to the negotiating table?

SG: I did speak to him this morning and he confirmed to me that the government has taken a decision not to engage in any further diplomatic exchanges or efforts to resolve the problem until there is a cessation of hostilities. The situation may change but that was the position they took this morning.