Secretary-General's press encounter

SG: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Let me first thank you for coming in such numbers. And let me at the onset congratulate your new President, the new President of ACANU, Mr. Herbermann. I had hoped to stay in Geneva a bit longer but given the death of the Pope, I also have to change my plans and go to Rome. So we are having a rather brief press conference. But let me answer your questions. I suspect most of you heard my speech this morning.

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, thank you very much. On behalf of ACANU, I would like to ask you again whether it is possible to have a proper press conference next time. The UN has all the facilities and it will be much more convenient for all of us. My question is, on your reform agenda, the Chinese want to have a consensus among UN-members on the reform and they reject a deadline for the decisions. Is that a blow for your plans? What does it mean for your reform agenda?

SG: Let me first of all deal with the first part of your question. I would love to have a full-fledged press conference. Then, next time I come into town, we will make time for it. In fact, I would have stayed, but I had a very tight agenda. I am happy that we are having this session.

On the Security Council reform, let me say that obviously the Member States have to take the decisions. I cannot impose it on them. But I also believe that the Security Council reform has been on the agenda of the Organization for over a decade and the time has come for us to take some hard decisions. I think it is in everyone's interest to reform the Council and bring the structure and composition in line with today's realities. And I think that if we can expand the Council and make it more representative and democratic, it would also gain in greater legitimacy in the eyes of peoples of the world. Yes, consensus is always possible. It is always the best option. My suggestion was that ideally we should take that decision by consensus. But if consensus appears not to be possible, it should not be an excuse for inaction. And I would hope that the Member States will come to [the] General Assembly in September determined to make progress. And of course if they can reach consensus by September or before the end of the sixtieth session, fine. But if they don't, I think they have to have a mechanism for bringing the discussion to closure.

Q: Mr. Secretary-General sir, two questions that are very related. First of all, you talked just now in your speech about selectivity in the Human Rights Commission. I wonder if you could be blunt and tell us exactly what you mean by that. Second, relating to UN reform, the UN has faced a lot of criticism recently on the oil-for-food programme. You visited the major agencies here in Geneva today. How do you find the morale of the staff?

SG: On your first question, I think my statement was very clear. I argue that no one can claim complete virtue when it comes to human rights application, and that the new Council should have the opportunity periodically of looking at human rights records of every country, and that we should be able to apply the rules fairly and consistently across the board. I think you were expecting I would name names. I am not going to do that.

On the question of morale, I have met - first of all, the UN has gone through a very difficult period. You mentioned the oil-for-food [programme] where we've been criticised a lot. The two reports issued by the Volcker Committee identified some lapses in management and also the findings came up with some troubling questions which we are dealing with and taking steps to strengthen our management and accountability. But we must also not forget that the UN also continues with its work, its substantive work, and I've encouraged the staff to focus on their work and what they do best. We are all human. When your Organization is being criticised and being knocked, it does affect morale. But I think we are beginning to turn the corner. I met with the entire staff before I left New York. I met the staff of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and I will be seeing the [staff of] High Commissioner for Refugees this afternoon. I think the morale can be better.

Q: Mr. Annan, people in Asia have suffered greatly from human rights abuses during the Second World War. Now in the context of your proposed reform, public opinion in Asian countries like China and Korea is demanding that Japan should redress its past atrocities before it can become a permanent member of the Security Council. So I wonder if you find it a reasonable demand in light of the human rights ideals that you just spoke of.

SG: Let me say that I know this is an issue in several Asian countries. And some of these decisions have to be taken by the Government concerned. My hope is that when the Council takes up the issue of expansion, some of these issues would have been worked out within the countries so that the Representatives can come to the General Assembly ready to take decisions or with a clear position. I have followed the developments you are talking about. We should also accept that over the past 60 years, all the countries concerned have played their role in the UN and have sat on the Security Council in the past. And I hope that this will not be a major impediment to our reform process.

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, you said today that the reform of the Commission was one of the most dramatic parts of your package. But the question is then, why make it all one package, an all or northing, and not a la carte. Isn't there a danger this argument over the enlargement of the Security Council could drag on and therefore prevent any effective reform of a body which everybody agrees is in urgent need of attention.

SG: That is a very interesting question. My suggestion that they look at the proposal as a package was not intended to convey the message - take it or leave it. What I am suggesting is, look at it comprehensively. Let's look at the package comprehensively in the sense that you have three pillars and it hangs together - security, development, rooted in human rights and the rule of law. The President of the General Assembly has come up with a very good approach where they are looking at the proposals in various clusters. If you make progress in one cluster, I think you should lock it in and focus on the areas of difficulties so that we don't get into the situation you have referred to. And at the end of the day, you will have a proposal that the Member States can agree [on], even if one or two items does not command the support of the Members. So it is not intended to be take it or leave it. We should be able to move forward and I hope we'll make progress on most of the proposals. It is not going to be easy. It is going to be tough negotiations and discussions, but I am still hopeful.

Q: M. Annan, il y a une inquiétude ici à Genève à propos de la création d'un conseil des droits de l'homme, qui pourrait voir le départ de la Commission des droits de l'homme de Genève pour aller à New York. Est-ce que c'est effectivement un risque possible ?

SG: J'espère que non. J'espère que non parce que le Haut Commissariat fonctionne très, très bien ici à Genève. La question d'envoyer ça à New York n'est pas posée. Donc, je crois que tout le monde doit se calmer.

Q: Dans votre discours, vous avez dit que les forces de l'Union africaine au Soudan sont clairement insuffisantes. Est-ce que vous proposez d'élargir les forces là, et si oui, de quelle région seulement, africaine, ou ça serait ouvert à d'autres régions au monde?

SG: Nous sommes en train de discuter ça avec les leaders africains. On vient d'envoyer une mission sur le terrain, une mission dirigée par l'Union africaine, mais les Nations Unies y ont participé et également les États-Unis et l'Union européenne. Nous sommes en train de travailler avec eux pour augmenter la force, mais ça serait une force africaine. Si le Conseil de sécurité accepte ça, les pays africains aussi insistent que ça soit une force africaine. Donc, on va travailler avec eux. On va suivre les données, demander à la communauté internationale de les soutenir financièrement et de donner le soutien à cette logistique.

Q: Sur l'urgence de la réforme de la Commission, vous arrivez et vous avez dit, il est urgent d'agir, le temps est restreint, le temps est réduit. Pourquoi arriver seulement maintenant avec cette proposition de réforme?

SG: Je crois qu'après la guerre d'Iraq, j'avais fait une déclaration devant les États membres. Je crois qu'il y a deux ans dans l'Assemblée générale où j'avais dit qu'on est arrivé à un moment historique, un moment clé où les Nations Unies doivent décider de s'adapter, de pouvoir confronter les défis qu'on a aujourd'hui. Ou bien, je ne peux pas utiliser des mots «irrelevant», comme les autres disent, mais de se trouver dans cette situation, on ne peut pas confronter les «challenges» qu'ils ont aujourd'hui. Donc, il y a deux ans qu'on avait commencé à penser de ces choses là. J'avais créé un panel de seize hommes et femmes pour me donner des idées et ils ont travaillé pendant dix-huit mois pour me soumettre un rapport. Donc, c'est le rapport qui arrive aujourd'hui, mais on n'a pas commencé à penser à ça aujourd'hui.<