The United Nations’ upcoming multi-year renovation of this headquarters building
requires the UN press corps to understandably adjust to a more cramped temporary
location.

However, the Correspondents Association expresses its deep concern about current
plans by UN management to not provide proper office enclosure and security. Our
association rejects any attempt by your management team to impose, even
indirectly, thousands of dollars in fees, in order to get a roof over our office
or to earn the right to move back into a completed UN building.

The question is this. I’m sorry if this sounds too long. Mr. Secretary-General,
do you agree with your adviser that is time to break with more than half a
century of tradition at the United Nations and start charging journalists for
working space? And do you think it is more important that journalists’ working
space conforms with a new UN Green policy regarding open space and non-private
offices, even if it makes impossible for many of them to do their job? Will you
help us in this matter? Thank you and I’m sorry.

SG: I am aware of your interest and concern. I think it is necessary for us, for
me, for the Secretariat, to provide a good working atmosphere for you. I
understand that there had been consultations during the last couple of months
between the UNCA Presidency and my Assistant Secretary-General for CMP [the
Capital Master Plan], and also my Secretariat senior advisors. I was told that a
solution is close, I hope. I would suggest that you continue consultations with
concerned senior advisors. Thank you very much.

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, we need also your position in terms of direction. It
is you who will give the general strategy and direction. Just in support of our
President, we really need you to be giving that order at the top and then the
negotiations will be easier. If you don’t mind taking a look at our concerns in
order to cover you better. We can’t be cramped in the way it’s been suggested
and we can’t be losing the very essence of a journalist’s work, which is privacy
of doing our jobs and hopefully scooping one another. We need you on that,
please.

SG: Let me think about that. If you really need direction for all the matters
happening in the world and inside this house, you may have several more
Secretaries-General. I am aware of your concern, and my suggestion is that you
please continue to have a dialogue. I’ll try to look at this issue.

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, you commended the Government of Sri Lanka for
promising to return 80 per cent of the internally displaced people [IDPs] by the
end of the year. But there are reports around today that these people are going
to be in those camps for at least another year. And many of them have been there
for a year already. Also again, human rights organizations are criticizing the
Government of Sri Lanka for failing to organize what you touched on: this
transparent, open inquiry into what really happened, particularly in the last
two weeks of the war against the Tamil Tigers. Can you comment on that, please?
What pressure can you put on the Sri Lankan Government to make sure that they do
return people in those IDP camps, 80 per cent of them anyway by the end of the
year?

SG: First of all, it is critically important that the Sri Lankan Government
follow up what they have agreed to with me during my visit, including this 80
per cent of displaced persons to be returned to their homes by the end of this
year. I welcomed and encouraged this commitment. And I also stressed strongly
the full and transparent process of accountability. This is exactly what is
promised and written in the joint statement at the conclusion of my visit. I
have again reiterated the importance of following up these promises in my
letter, which I sent yesterday. And I’m closely following up this issue. Thank
you.

Q: My question continues the idea of war crimes investigation in Sri Lanka. The
Sri Lankan Government has said quite clearly that they’re not going to
investigate allegations of war crimes. The Human Rights Council has ruled
against a probe. The Security Council looks like it’s not going to take action.
Under these circumstances, Human Rights Watch would say that it’s your
responsibility and your mandate as Secretary-General to launch your own
investigation. My question is under what conditions would you launch your own
probe?

SG: What I can tell you is, as I have repeatedly stated publicly, that whenever
there are serious and credible allegations on the violation of international
humanitarian laws or international laws, there should be a proper investigation.
Any international inquiry, to be meaningful and to be credible, it should be
first of all very fair, impartial and transparent, and should get the full
support from the Member States of the United Nations. That is what I can
emphasize. And I would continue to stress the importance of taking necessary
measures by the Sri Lankan Government, to take effective procedures to address
these accountability issues.

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, are you still planning to travel to Myanmar? And, if
so, when and what do you hope to achieve there?

SG: As you know, promoting democratization, including the release of Daw Aung
San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, has been one of my top priorities and
it will continue to be my top priority. And I have been constantly engaging in
dialogue with Myanmar authorities, and through my Special Advisor, Mr. [Ibrahim]
Gambari. When the time is appropriate and conditions are ripe, as I said many
times, I’m ready to visit Myanmar. I’m working on that now. When the time comes,
I will let you know.

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, touching upon the situation in Pakistan where two UN
employees were killed yesterday and several Pakistanis also, under the present
circumstances, and you are saying that you also appealed to the international
community to speed up aid for Pakistan otherwise secondly, the situation would
reoccur. In that situation, as it develops, do you see the international
community coming forward, and will you be able to persuade them to bring up that
money? And in those circumstances, the inquiry of Benazir Bhutto, which you had
ordered, will that actually be able to take place? Will you be able to send
people over there, to that Commission -- that Commission that is apparently
complete?

SG: I am trying to mobilize the necessary humanitarian assistance. This is
exactly what I did today. I’m appealing to major donors to generously and
quickly provide the necessary funding so that we can provide humanitarian
assistance to almost three million displaced persons. And for that Bhutto
Commission, we are almost close to formally announcing the start of this Bhutto
Commission. I have recently identified the third Commission member; therefore
I’m now in the final stage of consulting with the Pakistani Government on this
matter.

Q: Before my departure, which is still in two weeks’ time, if I may ask, may I
touch on North Korea, please? We understand that the Council is debating on a
new resolution with new sanctions ideas. I am not asking directly for a comment
on something that is under discussion in the Security Council. But generally
speaking, when the Council does decide for sanctions, we know the experience of
Iraq or the conflict diamonds in Africa which was not really implemented;
generally speaking, how important is it for countries to implement sanctions as
required by the Security Council. And North Korea is alleged to be planning a
new launch of missiles; what pressure will you give to them?

SG: As everybody knows, the Security Council now seems to be ready to take
action on the DPRK’s nuclear test. It has been my consistent position that the
Security Council should take a unified position on this issue. Now, once a
Security Council resolution is adopted, it is again very important for all the
members of the United Nations, including the DPRK, to fully comply and cooperate
with this resolution. We have seen such cases where some of the Security Council
resolutions which are binding have not been implemented. As Secretary-General, I
have been doing my best to help implement these Security Council resolutions by
the parties directly concerned and also other members of the United Nations.
This is very important. But as I expect the Security Council will soon take
action on this, I will [wait] until the Security Council takes formal action on
this matter and state my positions.

Q: As an expert on the Korean Peninsula, how dangerous do you think the
situation is now?

SG: Peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula has very important implications,
not only on the Korean Peninsula but to overall peace and security in the
region. And this particular case of DPRK’s nuclear programme it has global
implications. The whole world is now very seriously engaged in preventing
proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials. And this is a very
important objective of the international community at this time. This hampers
the ongoing efforts of the international community. And the United States and
the Russian Federation have started their nuclear disarmament to find a
successor treaty to the START treaty. Therefore all these actions taken by DPRK
run counter not only to the Security Council resolutions, but also the ongoing
international community’s efforts.

Q: Mr. Secretary, you spoke a little earlier about encouraging momentum produced
by the elections in Lebanon and also by President Obama’s speech and on the
peace process momentum. How exactly do you see your role as Secretary-General in
supporting and enhancing this momentum? Have you been contacted, for example, by
George Mitchell to see how the UN can play a role, and what did Dennis Ross
carry to you as a message from the President or the Secretary of State? Was it
on Iran exclusively? What did you discuss?

SG: You know my consistent policy and position on the situation in Lebanon:
democratization, peace and stability in Lebanon. I have been very closely
engaged with the parties; important key players, including the United States,
and of course the leaders of the Lebanese Government, and the leaders of the
neighbouring countries in the Middle East. I am very much encouraged by the
election results, which have been largely free from violence. It means that the
Lebanese Government and people have [taken] a step forward towards mature
democracy and better security and stability there. A more important task at this
time would be the formation of a government. When I have spoken with the
President and Prime Minister of Lebanon, and Mr. Saad Hariri, I have strongly
encouraged that they should form this government as soon as possible, so that
they can address other issues. I am going to closely monitor and discuss this
matter and coordinate not only with the Lebanese political leaders, but also
other key leaders.

Q: What are you willing to do to help Mr. Obama with the momentum on the peace
process? What exactly have you been asked to do? What are you willing to come up
with? And the Dennis Ross part, also?

SG: As a member of the Quartet – a principal - I am going to participate in the
Quartet meeting later this month in Italy. I have been discussing this matter
all the time with the key principals of the Quartet, as well as other world
leaders, including President Obama. I said that President Obama’s speech was
historic. It has a far-reaching impact, not only [in] the region, but beyond the
region. It was a very encouraging and fantastic statement, which has been widely
accepted and appreciated by the whole world, including Middle East leaders. That
is what I am going to contribute myself, as Secretary-General.

Q: On the Middle East, George Mitchell has been in the area, he has been
speaking about reconstruction of Gaza, for example. He called for the United
Nations to take the lead part in this reconstruction, for example. Are you able,
are you willing, to take the lead in the reconstruction of Gaza, providing of
course the Israelis lift the ban on reconstruction material and else. Would you
be able to do that, are you able to take the lead on reconstruction of the
destruction in Gaza?

SG: For detailed matters, we will discuss during our forthcoming Quartet
meeting, but as a matter of principle, I am ready, I will always stand ready to
do whatever I can, including leading the reconstruction of Gaza. But this
requires coordination, and also support from all the parties concerned,
including the Quartet principals. This is exactly what I am doing, and I
appreciate the Special Envoy, George Mitchell, who is now in the region
travelling, and also President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – they
have been making strenuous efforts now to revive the Middle East peace process.
I have been discussing again this matter with the new American administration. I
met Vice President Joseph Biden last week in Washington and this has always been
a top agenda priority.

Q: You have the issue of lifting the ban first, to get reconstruction material
into Gaza?

SG: I raised this issue, discussed it so many times with Israeli leaders,
including President Shimon Peres and Defence Minister Ehud Barak and the Vice
Prime Minister [Silvan] Shalom, when they were here, and I will continue to do
this. We have proposed a package of proposals to the Israeli Government. I hope
that they are now considering our proposals to allow these construction goods,
and all other, in addition to humanitarian goods - we need those materials to be
delivered inside Gaza so that we can really start reconstructing this community.

Q: Thank you, Secretary-General. Now that Lebanon conducted a successful
parliamentary election, what signs, models and lessons should the Arab world and
other countries in the region learn from the Lebanese experience, especially
that we are going to see a presidential election tomorrow in Iran?

And I have another follow up on the Israeli official visits to your office, and
next week I think Mr. [Avigdor] Liberman is coming. What are you going to tell
him, exactly? Thank you.

SG: I am looking forward to meeting Foreign Minister Liberman next week. I think
my discussion with him, though it will be the first time meeting him myself, we
have had telephone talks. We will discuss a wide range of issues pertaining to
the Middle East peace process, as well as this very immediate humanitarian
assistance, including the construction materials issue. Except food and water
and medicines, nothing has been allowed to be shipped inside Gaza, so the
situation has reached quite a difficult point. I have been urging this issue to
the Israeli authorities. I am sure this will be one of the key issues.

Now, on Lebanon, we have learned all these models. This is up to the people,
what kind of model they will establish, they will form, that is up to the people
to decide in Lebanon. What we can learn from Lebanon is that when the political
leaders of a country cooperate with a sense of understanding and flexibility –
and this is something which I would like to see the other leaders in the region
follow, then we would be able to reduce the differences of opinions and we will
see peace and stability quicker.

Q: And on the Iran elections?

SG: Let us see what the choice of the Iranian people will be, but I am not in a
position to make any comment at this time.

Q: Secretary-General, you said that you spoke with Israeli leaders - did you ask
them to pay eleven million dollars to the United Nations which is promised to
the members of the UN? And how has he responded to you?

SG: I raised this issue officially, and my Legal Counsel – Ms. Patricia O’Brien
– is now making a detailed evaluation and assessment and proposals. You may know
that for the damage and losses of UN facilities and premises, I have requested
$11.2 million. This will be again assessed by both the United Nations and the
Israeli Government. But there are other issues - loss of lives, and many other
related issues, which will be the subject of continuing consultations and
discussions.

Q: When do you expect to make a decision on the Board of Inquiry, Sir? And why
not expand it to include other damages that were inflicted on the Palestinians,
if you accept the principle that Israel should pay compensation for damages?

SG: I made it quite clear in my summary report to the Security Council that my
summary was focussed on the terms of reference and mandate which was given to
the Board of Inquiry at that time. I am now in the process of taking the
implementation process one by one, gradually. For other matters, broader issues,
which have happened to the general public in Gaza, or some other issues, the
United Nations Human Rights Council has taken a decision and Judge [Richard]
Goldstone has been in Gaza and he is now taking necessary actions. I have
supported his mission. I met him in Geneva last month and I pledged my full
support and I also conveyed my support, and requested the Israeli Government to
provide full support to Goldstone’s mission.

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, do you believe a man such as the Egyptian cultural
minister, who said that books should be burned, should head the UN’s top
cultural organization? And also, do you see yourself as a two-term
Secretary-General?

SG: I am also aware of these remarks made by the Egyptian cultural minister who
is running as a candidate for Director-General of UNESCO [UN Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization]. I am sure that members of UNESCO will
make the necessary decision, and use their judgment on this issue in selecting
the next Director-General. That is not what I am here to comment on.

For your second question, for my second term, it is a bit early for me to
answer. First of all, as a matter of principle, it is not for me to decide and
judge. As I mentioned earlier, I believe in results, not rhetoric. If I am to be
remembered as Secretary-General, I want to be judged and want to be remembered
for what I have achieved, not for what I have said. I have again never put my
personal considerations ahead of public service, public commitment. I have been,
always, during my 36 years as a public servant in the Republic of Korea, on the
job I was given. I have been faithfully implementing, executing, the mandate I
was given at the time. By doing that, I have been given higher and more
important positions, and that is why I am now working as a Secretary-General of
the United Nations. This is what I can tell you at this time. When the time
comes, I hope the Member States will judge what I will have achieved by that
time. I am just now approaching the mid-point of my tenure, but I can understand
this might be a natural question or curiosity, but I am sure that I will have
another opportunity to answer that question.

Q: Thank you, Mr. Secretary-General, for this press conference. About two and a
half years ago, upon assuming your responsibilities as Secretary-General of the
United Nations, you pledged to have an administration that is open and
transparent. And yet when the investigative team in Gaza submitted its report,
you decided to publish only the summary. How do you conciliate between this
decision and your declared intention of being transparent and open? And how
difficult, lonely and agonizing was that decision for you?

SG: When it comes to transparency, accountability, that has been my top priority
and virtue. I am going to continue to do that, to make this organization, and
the work of the organization, transparent and accountable and efficient. On
specific questions about the transparency of my BoI report, I think I made it
quite transparent. The reason why I summarized it was because of some very
specific confidentiality which needs to be protected, which was provided by the
Israeli military authorities. I think I thought it was fair to protect those
particular, specific confidential matters, that were not much related to the
overall conduct of this report. That is why I wanted to summarize this report,
rather than to submit it in its entirety. I think I have kept my commitment and
my virtue to make everything transparent and in an accountable way.

I have time for only one last question.

Q: There is an article in today’s Economist, called “Ban Ki-moon - the score at
half time”. It reviews half of your first term. I want to ask you to respond to
it. Under the rubric “truth to power” they give you a three out of ten, and they
use the example of Sri Lanka - they say that Mr. Ban denied that the UN had
leaked grim civilian casualty figures. On management they give two out of ten.
There are some better grades, I acknowledge. On management, they say there is a
problem with communicating with senior staff, that you have to show more
leadership in drumming up peacekeepers. I might add to that, protection of
whistle-blowers and free press. I just wanted to know, do you agree with any of
this critique, are there things you intend to do better in a second term? What
do you make of this piece in the Economist assigning those two grades?

SG: I would regard it as the judgment of the Economist. There may be a different
judgment on my performance. First of all, during the last two and a half years,
I had three priorities. First of all, to catalyze a global response to critical
global issues – like climate change, managing the consequences of the
international economic crisis, global health and global terrorism.

On climate change, you may agree with me that from almost dead - if not dead, a
dormant status - this issue has risen to the level of leaders of the world. It
has become a top priority issue of this world. I am going to really work hard to
seal the deal in Copenhagen in December. I am working for all humanity, for the
future of Planet Earth.

To deliver results to those most in need, you should know that I have been
working very hard to represent the well-being of the most vulnerable people. I
have been working as the voice of the voiceless people, and defend those people
who are defenceless. You see my performance on the record.

On reform, you should understand that this has been accumulating over the last
sixty years. During the last two and a half years, I can proudly say that I have
made significant changes in the working culture of the United Nations, to make
this most transparent, accountable, efficient and mobile and effective. I don’t
claim that I have finished the job. There are much more things to be done in the
reform process of the United Nations. Look at these accumulated, very
cumbersome, bureaucratic systems of the United Nations. I am also in a very
difficult position to move these reform processes ahead. Have you ever seen
somebody who has been, as passionately as I have been doing, to change this
working culture of the United Nations? There will be some complaints. People
just love business as usual. They simply don’t want to change. This is what I
really wanted to change.

You should look very closely and follow me, what I have been doing, what I have
in my mind. I have never left climate change [or] reform of the United Nations.
I will continue to do that, whatever somebody may say. But be sympathetic, and
just try to closely follow what I have been doing, not just based on
conventional wisdom. Fix your eyesight and vision on the 21st [century]. Don’t
look at the 1950s, 1960s., where the United Nations was the only universal body.
Now you have so many international actors – the European Union, the African
Union, the OAS, ASEAN – the United Nations must work together in close
coordination with all these organizations. And we need the full support of the
Member States. Without the political support, without resources provided by the
Member States, it is difficult, however capable a person may be the
Secretary-General. It is just impossible. I need more political support. I need
more resources by the Member States. Then judge my support on the basis of that.
The mandate should be supported and accompanied by the resources and political
support. Don’t just look at my performance on the basis of just vague or
conventional perceptions of the United Nations. The world has changed.