Good
morning, ladies and gentlemen. Let me start by wishing each and every one of you
happy holidays, and a peaceful and prosperous New Year.

The year
about to end has been a really difficult one -- from the tsunami to events in
Lebanon and Darfur and beyond. I will not attempt to sum up here the complex
challenges that have confronted us over the past 12 months, you are all keenly
aware of them.

Rather, let
us look forward to what we can and must do next year, and what we have to build
on.

The 2005
Summit made important strides
in a number of areas,
even if it did not fulfil all expectations.

One of the
things it did is that for the first time, it gave a broad definition of threats
as we know them and they came up with five categories of threats: poverty,
infectious diseases and environmental degradation; second, armed conflict, both
within and among states; third, organised crime; fourth, terrorism, and fifth,
weapons of mass destruction. And I think for the first time we have given a
broad and fair definition of threats faced by all regions.

The other
important thing that I believe came out of this Summit, is the fact that we were
able to link very clearly, establish the link between development, security,
human rights and the rule of law. And I believe at the end of that conference,
delegates went away with the understanding that you cannot have development
without security and you cannot have security without development. And you would
enjoy neither unless there is respect for human rights and the rule of law.

I think
what is also important is that the lead-up to the conference stimulated
important new pledges to help us achieve the Millennium Development Goals. We
urged a commitment by European leaders to set a time table to meet the 0.7 % of
GDP, [Gross Domestic Product] or the debt relief to the 18 least developed
countries, and so forth. And I think these were important achievements in the
lead-up to the conference.

It also
made progress on peace and security with all Member States accepting their
responsibility to protect their citizens from genocide, ethnic cleansing and war
crimes.

And it gave
us a serious programme for reform to work on. That programme now hangs by a
thread if the United Nations is stalled by lack of a budget. I therefore appeal
to all Member States to resolve their differences promptly, and agree on the
budget.

We now have
agreement on a new and improved Emergency Relief Fund, and a Peacebuilding
Commission.

I hope
that, in the New Year, Member States will follow that up by agreeing on an
effective, impartial Human Rights Council.

And I hope
they will agree on a package of management reforms that I shall put before them
in February.

The topics
I have just mentioned all fall in three priority areas I will focus on next
year: the fight against poverty and disease; peace and security; and reform of
the United Nations.

If there’s
one thing I would like to hand over to my successor when I leave office next
year, is that it should be a UN that is fit for the many varied tasks and
challenges we are asked to take on today.

That is how
I would like see the year ahead – in my last year as Secretary-General.

Let me now
open the floor and take your questions.

Q:  Secretary-General, welcome, on
behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association, and happy holidays. You
just briefly touched on the question of budget negotiations. This is not the
first time where political initiatives or political reform movements have been
stalled on budgetary questions. I mean, this is almost an annual event. Is there
some way that this process can be short-circuited so that the political agenda
is not derailed through budgetary disputes?

SG:  You’re right. We have seen
budget struggles over the past. But this time, it is different. It is different
in the sense that we are looking at major reforms for the Organization. We also
have our ongoing activities, which must continue as the new year begins. We have
various proposals on the table. My concern is that Member States do not take any
initiative, or take any decisions regarding the budget that will jeopardize not
only reform but the ongoing activities of the Organization. I have indicated
that we ought to be careful not to create a financial crisis for the
Organization. The financial situation of the Organization is precarious. I can
assure you that we will probably end the year with about $35 million in the
kitty. Of course, there will be operational reserves. But we will need to have
assessments and money beginning to roll in as of January. I have appealed to the
Member States to maintain the pressure on reform but, at the same time, approve
a budget that will allow us to continue our ongoing activities while we press
ahead with reform.

Q: Sir, I have two questions, both
of which you touched on. Can you elaborate more on what kind of a danger a lack
of a budget would be? It seems that just the last few days, the European Union,
which is sort of taking up your cause, and the G-77 have not been able to
initiate a dialogue.

Secondly, since everyone says that
there is no job description for your job of Secretary-General, what do you think
it should be, and what advice would you have for your successor?

SG:  How much
time do I have for the second question?

Let me say
that I think, on the budget, I know there have been some differences between the
G-77 and other groups of countries. But I think that they all want to see reform
and they all want to see the United Nations move ahead. I am hopeful that they
will be able to come to an understanding and agree a budget.

Last night,
they were supposed to come up with their five top priorities on either side. And
I don’t think that exercise was entirely successful. Discussions are going on
this morning, and I hope they will be able to succeed. I spoke to the President
of the General Assembly this morning, who is very actively engaged. I, myself,
will be talking to some delegations. I suspect that we will be able to find a
solution. I haven’t given up hope yet.

On the
question of my job description: of course, the Secretary-General is supposed to
be the Chief Administrative Officer of the Organization, which is a rather loose
term. But, of course, the Secretary-General, in addition to being perhaps the
chief diplomat of the world – and his good offices and all the work he does in
areas of peacekeeping and humanitarian work – also has to ensure that this place
is run properly. I hope that the reforms that we are trying to put in place will
assist my successor.

Q:  Do you
have any advice for him?

SG: Advice for
him... This is an interesting question. I think it is easier to give advice to
somebody when you know the person, when he or her is in place and you know their
personality. But I think what they need, as I have been advised over the years
by quite a lot of experienced leaders and politicians, they need thick skin.
They need a sense of humour, and they should laugh a lot inside and outside, and
at themselves, if need be. They also need to be able to reach out and listen to
their constituents within the Organization and beyond and work effectively with
leaders across the world. It think that is enough.

Q:
Secretary-General, in your opening remarks, you mentioned that the situation in
Lebanon is posing one of the main challenges to the United Nations this year. In
an interview last week, Mr. Mehlis told me unequivocally that he believed Syrian
authorities were behind the killing of Mr. Hariri. When asked about the United
Nations reaction, your spokesman downplayed the significance of the statement
and said that, in fact, there was nothing new to it. Do we infer from this that
you concur with the views expressed by Mr. Mehlis? And in your opinion, where
does it leave the investigation? And doesn’t it, in fact, complicate the task of
his successor, whom you are about to appoint?

SG: I would
much rather not get into the subject. There is an ongoing investigation, which
could also lead to a judicial process. So, I do not want to say anything that
might have a negative impact on the investigation or on the judicial process.
So, I will let the investigation takes its course. Yes, you are right. I am
about to name a successor to Detlev Mehlis. I have worked out practical
arrangements with Detlev. There will be no gap. He will continue until the
successor arrives. I am hoping that they will be able to spend about two weeks
or so together for him to hand over properly. And then the successor will take
over. We do take the responsibility and the investigations very seriously, and
we are going to press ahead. I will name a very competent successor to Mr.
Mehlis.

Q:  Mr.
Secretary-General, you started out by saying that it had been a difficult year
for the world. But it is also been, I believe, a difficult year for you
personally, especially with all the oil-for-food and Volcker reports. I wonder
if you could comment on your own feelings at the end of what I believe must be a
very difficult year for you, and what you are hoping that your legacy to this
Organization is going to be? And in your opening remarks, you talked about the
key priorities for you here at the United Nations. But what do you see as the
big, global issues that are going to be confronting the world next year? 

SG:
 When I said that it was a difficult year, I wasn’t externalizing. It was both a
difficult year for the world and, obviously for me and the Organization. You did
mention the Volcker report. We have all looked at the report and drawn the right
lessons from it, and we are trying to take steps to correct the situation.

I hope you
ladies and gentleman of the press would also do some reflection on your own as
to how you have covered that event, how you allowed deliberate leaks and others
to lead you in one direction, and when, in the end, the actual story came, when
the full investigations were completed, with the documentation on the companies
and the countries, you missed a story. But anyway, I leave you to reflect on
that. It is not up to me to tell you how to do your job. But we all have to be
careful, whatever the responsibilities we have, not to be fed by people with
agendas.

You have two
questions. And you did talk about my legacy. That will be for others to
describe. But I think I have, in my term, done as much as I can for the
Organization whether in the area of development and the fight against poverty or
HIV/AIDS or reaching out to the private sector and civil society, bringing them
into partnership with us on the peace and security area and my own good offices.
There is quite a lot that has been done. But I will leave others to judge. I
think history will judge us quite fairly, I believe.

On the global
issues, I think the issue of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction is going
to be a major issue for us. I also see the situation in the Middle East. Here,
I’m talking about the broader Middle East. I’m looking at Iraq. I’m looking at
the situation in Lebanon and Syria. And I’m looking at the Palestinian-Israeli
situation. So, the Middle East will be a major issue for us. I dare say that we
should also keep a very close eye on Sudan/Darfur and the Democratic Republic of
the Congo.

Q: I want to go back to the
election year next year. Do you think the next Secretary-General should come
from Asia? As you know, there is a current of opinion saying that non-written
rules might change and that it might be the term of an eastern European. What
are your thoughts on that? And, secondly, do you regret having taken a second
term? 

SG: There is always a second
term curse, and I think lots of leaders and people who have gone through a
second term would probably tell you about that. But that too will pass, and one
overcomes it and moves on. The first term was easier than the second term; you
are right. But I still have work to do, and I have work to do next year.

On the question of the next
Secretary-General, I think it is generally accepted among the membership — in my
contacts with them — that it is Asia’s turn. I know some delegations do not
accept that. But that is an issue for the membership to decide. But as you look
back historically, we have established a pattern of rotation. Most Member States
that I talked to feel it is Asia’s turn. 

Q: It is no secret, Sir,
that you met with Serge Brammertz here at the United Nations on Thursday of last
week. We spoke to the spokesman of the International Criminal Court, who
confirmed that he got an offer and that he is very keen to take over the
position. I am not asking you to pre-empt your announcement, but the fact that a
six-month period has been determined in advance, like last time — seven-month
period by Mehlis … . The people in the Middle East do not think that befitting the Lebanese problem: that a person comes
for six months; has a learning curve; by the time he gets really involved in the
intricate question of the problem, he is gone, and we are looking for somebody
else. Mehlis himself said it might take months, even years if there is no
cooperation forthcoming. Are you happy with six-months’ period stint for these
very high-level investigators at this committee? And my second question: the
Lebanese people support an international court. And I am sure we would like to
hear from Kofi Annan if he himself supports establishing a court with an
international nature. 

SG: First of all, let me say
that Brammertz is one of the candidates I am looking at. There are of course
quite a few issues to work out. The highly qualified prosecutors that one would
need for this kind of job are usually employed or in some situation that you
have to negotiate to get them released. The Council’s mandate is for six months.
In fact, originally when the Commission was established and Mehlis was
appointed, we thought it could be done in six months. Now it has been extended
for another six months. I am looking at candidates and I will take all these
factors into consideration and appoint the best available candidate. My mandate
is for six months. I cannot appoint anyone for more than six months. So the
appointment will be for six months, as mandated by the Security Council.
Obviously, if there is a need for extension it will be another story that we
will have to deal with.

On the question of a court
with an international character, the Council has asked me to consult with the
Lebanese Government, with the prosecutor and my own legal office to make a
report to the Council. And I intend to submit a report to the Council on the
issue of the court and on the issue of assistance to the Lebanese for the
investigation of all assassinations dating back to October 2004. So I will be
submitting reports covering these two issues.

Q: (inaudible)

SG: I think that is a
question for the Council to decide. I do not think my personal support or lack
of support should make a difference here.

Q: On the reform of the
Security Council — or mainly on the enlargement — do you still believe that this
could strengthen multilateralism and revitalize the international Organization?
How do you put a priority on Security Council reform? Which part do you put on
your to-do list for the next year?

SG: The Member States have a
broad agenda of reform before them, including the Council. And I have made it
clear that I would want to see them tackle all these reform issues. I have also
made it clear that I am one of those who believes that United Nations reform
will ever be complete until we deal with the issue of the Security Council, and
that the Security Council should be reformed to reflect today’s realities.

Q: This is an end-of-the
year press conference, and you said you would need a thick skin for the post. So
here is a rare chance to go over some of these issues.

You said the press blew the
story on oil-for-food. I mean, here in the United Nations we did cover the
United Nations side of things, and others covered other aspects of it. Number
one, did … . Paul Volcker has said that he changed your testimony, or offered
advice, in that retreat where you took questions from the investigators. Can you
give your side as to what happened in that room? Joe Stephanides wants an
apology, and the United Nations appeals panel says he was treated as a
sacrificial lamb. Why was he not, in your view? And could you use your time now
to clear up the many questions people keep asking about this Mercedes? Did you
use your offices to give, and authorize, a diplomatic discount for your son in
this matter?

SG: First of all, let me say
that the report of the Volcker commission is clear, and you have all read the
thousands of pages of that report. And I am not going to rehash it here.

On the other issue of
conversations between Volcker or the investigators and me, it was part of the
investigations. And the report, as a result of all these conversations, has come
out. And I think, let the report stand by itself.

On Stephanides, yes, we did
cancel the decision to terminate his appointment and allowed him to retire;
which is an indication that the punishment was too harsh, and we admitted it and
corrected it. And I think we have also written to him indicating our position.
And I do not think there is any further action on our side. I understand that he
may appeal to the Administrative Tribunal, which is also his right.

[On the car,] it is part of
the report. I know you are all obsessed about the car. My son and his lawyers
are dealing with it. If you want to know more about it, please direct the
questions to his lawyer or to him. I am neither his spokesman nor his lawyer. 

Q: People who do not know
much about the United Nations do know that it has something called the
Commission on Human Rights, on which notorious rights violators sit. You
yourself have acknowledged that, when you proposed the Human Rights Council. You
said that the Commission on Human Rights brings discredit on the entire
Organization. My question is, at the moment the movement on the Human Rights
Council is very slow. There are major countries in the General Assembly that
have declared their opposition to it and, basically, have said they want to keep
the Commission on Human Rights. The way it looks right now, the Commission on
Human Rights will be back in existence in March and April. My question is, since
you have declared yourself on this, can you personally get involved, or have you
personally gotten involved, speaking to some of those nations, saying, This is
unacceptable and you have got to yield? 

SG: Yes, I am involved
behind the scenes, working with delegations and Member States. And, as you may
know, over the past 10 days to two weeks, I have spoken to all the Member
States, individually and in groups. I have addressed all the regional groups. I
have addressed the G-77. And I have met with smaller groups of Ambassadors, and
individually. Human rights is very much part of the issues I have been raising
with them. I have not given up the prospects for a Human Rights Council. It is
slow, but I am still hopeful that we should be able to establish a Human Rights
Council, if not by the end of the year probably early in the new year. And I
would want to see the Council established before the human rights group resumes
its work in Geneva in March next year.

Q: (interpretation from
French) You once said that poor governance was the problem in Africa. Do you
believe that there has been some improvement, or has there been no progress?

SG: (interpretation from French) There has been some progress in some
countries, but there has been none in others and, in fact, the
situation
has deteriorated. We need to continue to work with Member States and
civil society to improve the situation. But the
question of poor governance is a reality. In some countries, it has worsened and
thus complicated the situation in Africa. That weakness needs to be corrected. 

Q:  Well nobody will accuse me of trying to spread Christianity, so “Merry
Christmas.”

SG: You listen to a radio station I don’t listen to. I wished you “Happy
Holidays”, but I accept your “Merry Christmas”. 

Q:  To follow up a little bit on Richard’s question, last year you basically
punished two people based, one, on oil-for-food – which was Stephanides – and
the other for another transgression, which was your election advisor, Carina
Perelli. However, people that were mentioned for much larger transgressions in
the Volcker report have not been punished, including, of course, Benon Sevan,
who was allowed to leave the country, and Iqbal Riza, who asked for the
shredding of documents, and Abdoulie Janneh, who helped with that Mercedes-Benz
out there in Africa. The investigation into Dileep Nair is continuing way over
the deadline that was set for it, and last night there was a report that your
Chief of Staff, Mark Malloch Brown, was taking two salaries at the same time. I
don’t know the veracity of that report yet; maybe you can enlighten us. There is
a feeling among some staffers at the United Nations that there is a double
standard applied to punishment at the United Nations.

SG: I don’t know if there is a feeling among staffers or if it is your feeling,
but, be that as it may, we have taken action where action is required. I think
some of the things you’ve said this morning, for a serious journalist, are quite
libelous. I mean when you ask a question about my Chief of Staff taking two
salaries, it is patently false and you must know that that sort of story is not
even logical for you to accept and use as a basis of a question.

On the question of Mr. Riza, there was no finding against him. He is a staff
member who served this Organization well. What was destroyed were extra
documents which staff members often keep close to them for their work and, under
the rules, are allowed to destroy after a year. The papers that were destroyed
did not impede the work of the Commission, so do let that go. This is not
something similar to the eight minutes in the Nixon White House. I think you all
see that kind of similarity, and I think you should understand and let go. We
have dealt with the transgressions in the Organization according to the rules of
the Organization, and I stand by what we have done and I have nothing more to
add.

SG: The reunification efforts on Cyprus failed last year in April. You have said
that you regretted the Greek Cypriots’ rejection of your plan. The Greek
Cypriots are still adamant about not coming to the negotiating table under your
plan. You said at the same time that it was a great disappointment for you, and
you called on the European countries to help alleviate the plight of the Turkish
Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriots still live isolated from the world, especially
Europe.

Mr. Gambari is going to go to the region very soon to rehash the issue and
restart bringing the parties to the negotiating table. Why should the Greeks
come to the negotiating table? What do you have in mind? Are you going to make
another plan carrying your name?

SG:  I don’t think the name of the plan is important. What is important is that,
in the end, there is a plan on the table that rallies both sides and they both
agree and unify and live in peace. I indicated that the last time I spoke to the
leaders, but during the General Assembly session I saw both the Turkish and the
Greek Cypriot leaders and indicated to them that my good offices are still
available, but of course I will have to make a judgment as to whether the
situation is ripe for us to resume negotiations and if the parties genuinely are
ready to get into the necessary give-and-take that will lead to a settlement.

I have not concluded that we are there yet, and I had also, as you know, engaged
the Greek Cypriot side as well as the European Union. The European Union has
attempted to assist the Turkish Cypriots and did approve a substantial amount of
money to help with economic development, but there are some bureaucratic issues
which have not permitted them to move ahead with the disbursement. I hope the
issue will be resolved shortly.

I also gave a report to the Security Council indicating that we should make
attempts to assist the North. The Council is still sitting on the report; they
have not reacted yet. But we will keep engaged. I will be sending envoys
periodically to test the ground, to talk to the leaders concerned, for me to
make a judgment if and when the time is right for me to proceed.

Q:  In the vein of my colleagues – shalom. In the spirit of what Edie was
saying, one of the most important things that the Office of the
Secretary-General has, the most sacred thing, is high moral authority. The
Office of the Secretary-General has taken a lot of beating in the last year.
What is it that you can do and ask your advisers to do in order to elevate it
back to the position so that your moral voice is heard across the world?

My other question is: There is a great divide between the developing and
developed world in the thinking and the perception and so forth, which is
reflected in the talks on reform and management and budget. What is it that can
be done to overcome that and to bridge the divide?

SG:  I think, on your first question, obviously we need to press ahead and do
the important work that is ahead of us, and speak out when we have to. I am
pressing ahead with my work and dealing with leaders around the world, and I
think, interestingly enough, quite a lot of the leaders around the world and
quite a lot of the Member States understood what was going on in the past year,
and I think quite a lot of you also knew exactly what was going on. There has
been no difference in my dealings with them and we do have lots of work to do
that we are going to press ahead with.

On the question of the North-South divide, I think the only way to deal with it
is for them to dialogue, is for them to sit across the table, look each other in
the eyes and explain their positions and work in the spirit of give-and-take to
make progress. They should put the interests of the Organization above all else,
and if they do that I am sure they will succeed.

Q:  Happy holidays, Sir. In the spirit of that, I am wondering if you think that
the complex budget and reform negotiations down in the basement will be done by
Christmas, or whether you think it will be more of a New Year’s cliffhanger.
Also, I am sure that you or your people have been spending a lot of time down
there in the negotiations. Can you describe why, in this now-or-never moment, as
you put it, on United Nations reform, there is so much resistance or inability
of these delegates to come to some kind of conclusion? 

SG:  Let me say that I
would prefer to see the budget issue and the reform discussions brought to a
conclusion before Christmas. But, of
course, if we fail that, then we will have to come back after Christmas. And I
think the Member States realize that they don’t have much time, and they may
have to come up with some creative ways of ending their work. One option they
are looking at is instead of going through the resolution of 250 paragraphs,
perhaps come up with a shorter document that they can agree on, and complete
their work and move on. As of yesterday, of the 250 paragraphs, I think only
four paragraphs had been approved, and so I don’t see them finishing if they
continue on that track.

            I think the
atmosphere is also a bit tense, and once again, I think they need to really talk
to each other. Tempers are high, and there’s quite a bit of mistrust. There is a
sense that they are operating in an atmosphere of threats and intimidation,
which some of them say they resent. But quite frankly, I think the only choice
they have is to sit down and talk honestly and sincerely and frankly to each
other and try and come to an understanding. But they have to put the interests
of the Organization first, not narrow interests.

Q: (inaudible) If you don’t
know what that means, that’s “Happy New Year” in Arabic.

Q:  Don’t look at me!

SG:  But it’s not Arabic.

Q: It is Arabic, but it
(inaudible) doesn’t mean “Happy New Year”; it means something else.

Q:  It had the word
“Mercedes” in, but I took it out. Just to comment on the Mercedes before I ask
my question. The Volcker report says that the Mercedes was bought in your name,
so as the owner of the car, can you tell us what happened to it and where it is
now?  Now, my question is that, it’s true that we missed a lot of stories in the
oil-for-food scandal, and the UN hasn’t made it easy. And even your answer today
on the Mercedes so far hasn’t made it easy. Some of your own stories – your own
version of events – don’t really make sense. I’d like to ask you particularly –

SG:  I think you are being
very cheeky here.

Q: Well, let me – Sir, let
me ask my question.

SG:  No, hold on. Hold on.
Listen, James Bone. You have been behaving like an overgrown schoolboy in this
room for many, many months and years. You are an embarrassment to your
colleagues and to your profession. Please stop misbehaving, and please let’s
move on to a more serious subject.

Q: (inaudible) my question.

SG:  No, move on to a
serious –

Q:
There are inconsistencies –  

SG:  No, move on to serious
journalists. You go ahead.

Q: 
James, are you finished?

SG:  No, go ahead. 

Q:
 Okay. Mr. Secretary-General, I was waiting for
this question. I believe that I was even before James Bone. But, anyhow, here is
my question. On Kosovo, Sir – and it’s my destiny to ask you only questions of
Balkans – do you foresee, as your Special Envoys did say yesterday to us, that
the question of Kosovo will be somehow solved in the last year of your mandate,
although somebody is seeing it as a “mission impossible”? And do you think that
if it is going to be solved (inaudible), is going to improve or worsen the
legacy of the United Nations in the Balkans? 

SG:   I have put in
charge of that dossier a very experienced mediator, and Mr. Ahtissari, whom I
spoke to also yesterday, has been travelling the region, consulting with other
leaders. He’s been to other capitals in Europe and in Washington and is going to
begin his work in earnest in January. Obviously, when you start any negotiations
of that kind, you try to have a target date and a time frame within which to
operate. And ideally, he would want to complete his work in the course of 2006.
What the final decision will be and what the outcome of the discussions and
mediation will be I cannot prejudge. But if we are able to come up with a
solution – a solution that does not create additional problems in the subregion,
a solution that helps clarify once and for all the situation in that subregion,
and of course we also have the issue of Montenegro, which is building up – then
the United Nations would have made a contribution. But I don’t want to judge the
outcome. 

Q:  But do you think that is
going to improve or worsen the legacy, which is a very bad legacy in the
Balkans? 

SG:  I think that’s an
awkward question – to say whether the solution to the case will worsen or
improve the United Nations’ legacy. I think let’s see what happens with the
mediation. You are jumping the gun a bit.

Q:  Since it’s directly
under the auspices of the United Nations, Sir. 

SG:  I still don’t get your
question. 

Q:  Mr. Secretary-General,
given that there is a possibility that we’ll enter the new year with a budget
crisis, what role would you see for the Organization on a shoestring budget? 

SG:  It would be very
disruptive, and we may have to take some drastic measures. I’m not sure if the
light in this room can – will be on. But I really, really hope the Member States
understand the implications of a budget crisis and will do everything to avoid
it. 

Q:  Secretary-General, this
morning US Ambassador Bolton described the reform situation thusly: he said the
pressure to reform is coming up against a culture of inaction at the United
Nations and there is a question now of whether this irresistible force meeting
this immovable – it is a question of this irresistible force meeting this
immovable object and the question of who will win. So my question to you is: do
you agree with that characterization of the, sort of the United Nations culture
of inaction, an immovable force? And, also, has Ambassador Bolton’s rhetoric on
a number of issues, such as the allegation that you mishandled the situation of
Carina Perelli and that Louise Arbour’s comments were illegitimate – has he
contributed with this kind of rhetoric to the intimidation – atmosphere of
intimidation and fear that you just referred to? 

SG:  Reform is an issue for
the Member States, and the only way you make progress in this Organization is
for the Members to talk to each other, to persuade each other and to move ahead.
The most effective ambassadors I have known in this building are the ones who’ve
been able to sit across the table, reach out to their colleagues and persuade
them to take a course of action. They are the ones who have been able to build
alliances across regions and have been able to work with like-minded ambassadors
to move a reform, or whatever agenda they have on the table. And I would suggest
to all ambassadors who want to make progress to go that route.

On the question of remarks
by Ambassador Bolton, and its impact on the other delegations, I will leave them
to speak for themselves.

Q:  Secretary-General, what
are your thoughts on some of the criticisms we heard yesterday that the
Peacebuilding Commission will actually pave the way for the big Powers on the
Security Council to even strengthen their hand further in the GA? And as a
follow-up to that, when you look at what the Americans, the French and the
British, and possibly others, are trying to do in the Middle East and Africa
south of the Sahara, do you feel that the battle for sovereignty and
independence of the fifties and sixties is being waged all over again? Or are
you more positive about what those Powers are trying to do? 

SG:  In
Africa, you mean?

I think on the Peacebuilding
Commission, we have got a Commission. There are aspects of it that not everybody
is pleased with, and I think the problem they have with the P-5 was the fact
that the P-5 will automatically be there, and some of these Governments feel
they have a privileged position in the Council and this need not be repeated in
any new body that is set up. But they have been able to come up with a
compromise which everybody seems to have accepted. But I think the key here,
with the Peacebuilding Commission, is that you do have the Commission, which
will offer advice and all that, but when it comes to country-specific, the
composition will be quite – let’s take, for example, if you were to have a
country-specific group in Haiti, it will include the troop-contributing
countries on the ground in Haiti, countries that are making major contributions
to Haiti and the World Bank, IMF and the others. The composition of the group
that would be looking at a similar situation in Sudan or Liberia could be quite
different, again based on who is involved and who’s on the ground. And it is
those country-specific committees that are really going to make the real
difference. And I think we should really focus on those groups, rather than so
much on the Commission as such, which will offer advice and policy.

On the question of whether
we are going through the wars of the past, it is a difficult question to answer
in the sense that, at the end of the cold war, everybody thought, “The world is
moving on to a new phase”. But we should also remember that some of the wars –
civil wars and wars in Africa and other parts of the world – were proxy wars.
The big Powers had influence; the big Powers were involved; they could influence
it; they could turn it off; they could supply weapons; they could refuse to
supply weapons. At the end of the cold war, it became almost free for all: each
one for himself. And some of these rebel leaders and groups have been supported
by all sorts of groups, or they have exploited natural resources of their own
countries to sustain the conflict and the civil war. There is some outside
involvement, but I would not say that we are reliving the colonial era.

Q:  Mr. Secretary-General,
happy holidays. And we know you have made a great effort on the United Nations
reform in the 60-years celebration of the United Nations. And you just mentioned
the next year is last year you’re being UN Secretary-General. And my question
is: In your last year, which – what things the most important thing for the UN
reform? In another word, if you – there is only one thing you can do for UN
reform before you’re leaving Secretary-General’s position, what thing you will
take? 

SG:  I don’t want to pick
and choose. I’ve given them a broad agenda for reform, and I think they are
interrelated, and I would want the Member States to work on that agenda. And I
would not want to give them an item that I think is the most important that they
should focus on. I would urge them to act on all the reform proposals. 

Q:  Mr. Secretary-General,
in defence of James Bone, he’s a hard-working journalist trying to get to the
bottom of issues of transparency within the Organization. As a public servant,
you understand the need for transparency, and when issues of money and conduct –
professional conduct – come into attention, they need to be looked into. But be
that as it may, we’ll leave that aside.

A couple of questions I’ve
got. In the wake of the oil-for-food scandal, the ongoing bloodshed in Darfur,
we’ve got issues of misconduct within the procurement division that are still
going on, and investigations. In your estimation, as you reflect on this, in
lessons learned and that you are learning, are there certain things that maybe
the UN should not be involved in? And then a couple other follow-up questions.
What, in your estimation, is the single most important reform that you would
like to see happen within the Secretariat?

And then, lastly, as you
reflect on the year that’s passed, what one thing stands out most that, if you
were given the chance to go back and fix it or make it right or put it on a
different course, what would that be?

SG:   I think James would be
happy to know he has a lawyer in the room. Unfortunately, he’s gone, but I’m
sure others will tell him.

I think, on the issues that
you’ve raised, we are, as I said, taking action on quite a lot across the board,
not only on the Volcker, but on the procurement area that you asked for. I would
also ask you to put things in perspective, and also to look around you. We have
submitted ourselves to incredible scrutiny, and I think very few organizations,
as far as I know, have subjected themselves to such scrutiny. And, I daresay, if
any organization were to do that you will find things wrong; it’s normal.
Organizations are not perfect, and each organization has something to – And when
you look around you, and you read your press, which I’m sure you do since you
gather the news, you discover that there are quite a lot of things going that
have also gone wrong in other areas, in other systems, in other Governments, in
other institutions, which are being corrected and should be corrected. The
important thing is for us to recognize that things have gone wrong and action
has to be taken. And we are taking them.

On your question of the –
the most important thing that I would have – I think if I go back in the recent
years, I think one thing I would have liked to see done is for us to have done
everything that we could have done to avoid a war in Iraq that has brought such
division within this Organization and the international community. And that is
one thing that I must say still haunts me and bothers me: that as an
organization, as an international community, we were not able to do. I did speak
to lots of Member States, lots of organizations; I was on the phone. Anyway, we
were not – and with our inspectors – but we were not able to do that. 

Q:  And in terms of things
that maybe on reflection the UN should maybe not be involved – 

SG:   I think one of the
things, and I have said it very clearly: I’ve said it very clearly that the
oil-for-food programme, which was a
sui generis programme that was given – it’s not a normal United Nations activity
– I have said very clearly that I hope the United Nations will never be asked to
take on an operation of that kind again. 

Q: 
Since you brought it up, I hope you won’t mind me
resurrecting the ghost of the oil-for-food
programme again. It’s a ghost that seems to have been haunting very, how
should I say, discreetly. The oil-for-food
web site says that the currently – $10 billion had been handed over to the Iraq
Development Fund. And I saw last week newspaper reports that American military
officers were taking $200,000 a month in bribes for disposition of those funds
to contractors. And I was wondering, in view of the fact that the international
monitoring board that was tasked by the Security Council with examining the
disposition of those funds, and the US Government inspector who failed to find
out what had happened to them, whether there’s been any recent information on
what happened to the $10 billion from the oil-for-food that no one seems to care
about.

But secondly, last year also, perhaps your biggest
achievement that no one also mentioned was the “responsibility to protect” being
smuggled through, without the delegates being aware of what they were doing,
perhaps. But people are still dying in
Darfur. Will you – do you
expect to see, before you finish, any sort of ratification or codification of
the responsibility to protect, beyond a vague declaration that we will be nice
in future, and put some teeth into it in, for example, Darfur. 

SG: 
 Let me start with your first question. Obviously, the auditing board is still
in action. I haven’t spoken to the Chairman lately. And they have issued several
reports, and I’m sure other reports will be coming out. But I think it is
important, when these things come out, that each Government follows up and takes
action. And some Governments are taking action; others have not been that
active. But I hope all of them will pursue the information that has been put
out.

And you are also right that the “responsibility to
protect” was a major achievement. It didn’t get much press space, but it was one
of the, I think, major achievements of the
Summit. Having said that, I
would hope that the Member States, having pledged solemnly to protect
populations at risk, will honour that pledge when the time comes.

And you have mentioned
Darfur. In fact, recently
I’ve had lots of discussions with Governments on it. We have an assessment
mission on the ground with the African Union Force, and the United Nations has
sent members along with that. And one of the mandate is for them to look at the
way forward, how we strengthen security on the ground. We are also dealing with
the African Union and finding ways of re-energizing the political discussions on
Darfur, which is taking place in Abuja, because I think that is the only way for
us to have long-term stability in Darfur and in Sudan. The Government itself has
set end of December as a deadline for achieving agreement on Darfur with the
rebels, but at this rate I don’t think that is going to happen. What is
important is all those with pressure should maintain that pressure, both on the
Government and on the rebels, to come to an agreement. The situation is very
difficult, and I think the United Nations will have to take much more active
action. And I have raised this with the Council. And as we move into the next
year I think that is going to be necessary, and the Council will have to act.

Q: 
Mr. Secretary-General, you appointed a new Special Envoy to the
Western Sahara
this year, and he’s scheduled to deliver his report next month. Are you
confident that 2006 will be the year to resolve the
Western Sahara question? 

SG:  I think
that that issue is too complex for 2006. But we will persevere.

Q:  Mr.
Secretary-General, this is a question that’s sort of evolved as this conference
has gone along. At the beginning, you talked about having a thick skin, thick
skin being important. We have seen a side of you, though, that we don’t often
see. I have two questions. One, how do you feel when you receive this sometimes
well-intentioned, sometimes fairly well-researched criticisms of you personally,
your family, your policies and the United Nations? And second, given the
criticisms, are you bracing for a difficult year ahead in 2006?

SG:  Let me
say that when you talk of criticism, I am not afraid of criticism. Some
criticisms have been constructive and helpful, and I accept that. Some have been
out of place and have really gone beyond the zone of all reasonableness, and you
wouldn’t expect me or anybody in this house to accept that. But as we move into
next year, as I have indicated, I have given you an idea of the agenda I have
ahead of me. I have lots of work to do, and I’m going to focus on that and get
my work done.

Q: 
(inaudible) in terms of your family and of the United Nations? 

SG:  I think
that I have answered that by saying that some are fair and are unfair, and I
don’t accept it when it’s not fair. 

Q:  Well,
thank you to give me this, because I was the first one to come to the theatre
and the last one to ask.

Secretary-General, first of all, do you think the Iranian nuclear programme will
come soon to the Security Council? Secondly, the election in Iraq finished, but
the violence is still going on. What’s the meaning in the election then, in this
case?

SG:  I think
the nuclear – Iranian nuclear issue is now being dealt with by the Atomic Agency
in Vienna. I don’t think that process has been exhausted yet, and there will
soon be a meeting between the Iranians and the European Ministers. How well that
will go I do not know. Whether it is going to be talks or talks about talks,
only time – we will know fairly shortly. But I think the preference of everyone
will be if they can sit at the table and find a solution. If, of course, they
are not able to find a solution, the process at the atomic agency will have to
be exhausted before the issue comes to the United Nations, if it does come to
the United Nations.

On the
question of Iraq, I mean, let’s be clear here. Elections are an important
signpost, but it is not everything. It’s a beginning, not an end. I think what
is required in Iraq is reconciliation of all groups. And we have been
maintaining this here for a long time: that you need a political process that is
inclusive, that brings all the groups in. Most people have been worried about
the ethnic and sectorial conflict, but the divide now seems to be between
secular and religious, which is emerging in Iraq. And I think it is also
something that Iraq will have to deal with.

Now that the
elections are over, the next important thing is to establish the Government and
to move ahead with the constitutional review process, which is to take four
months. I hope the constitution will be adjusted meaningfully to be able to
bring all parties on board and make it a unifying exercise, which up till now it
has not been. And I think once you have gone through the reconciliation, with
the constitutional process and determination on the part of the Iraqis to work
together, you will see an end to the violence. But elections alone was not
expected to end the violence.

Q:  Mr.
Secretary-General, happy holiday to you too.

SG: 
Thank you very much.

Q:&