Professor Dr Küng: Mr Secretary-General, you feel, I believe the deep gratitude of all of us, especially of the younger generation, you met before in the other three halls. I do not know if you ever got, before the beginning, four standing ovations. That was really extraordinary and your lecture confirmed us, and encouraged us, and you shared your vision of a more sustainable future, a more peaceful future, of our planet, based really on common human values. I'm sure that your speech will become an essential document for all those who are committed to a global ethic. It makes a tremendous difference, dear Kofi, if I may say if I, as a humble scholar, speak about common values or if you speak, as the Secretary-General, from the very top.

SG: Together, when we do it together.

Professor Dr Küng: ….. and so I am very, very thankful and I think we have now a perfect basis to have a dialogue, and permit me to start with a rather personal question. In April 2003, when we had foreseen your first visit, that was just the beginning of the Iraq war, that was a dramatic period for the United Nations and I can imagine it was a very bitter time for you personally. I think precisely for our younger generation it would be important to know, how do you survive, what is the source from where you take your personal resilience and your strength?

SG: You are right, Hans, that this has been a particularly difficult year. The lead up to the war, the debates in the Security Council, the divisions that emerged amongst member states, was very difficult for an organisation that is built on concensus, an organisation that was established to save future generations from this scourge of war. In the halls of the General Assembly discussions about war and peace is something that takes on a particular meaning because of the basis of our own organisation, our charter, and the universal boundaries. It was a difficult period for the organisation. It was a difficult period for me. I got very tired trying to work between two groups, physically, and it was a depressing place. The world was a depressing place, and I felt depressed about the status of the world. But one had to continue. We couldn't give up. We had to keep hope alive. And luckily, my family, my wife, who is also here, who is also my partner and I talk a lot, and she has been a great asset, the family, the children, whom we talk to, and a group of friends. And my colleagues in the office. We often talk about the need to strike a balance between the bigger world, the outer world, and the small world which is family. To maintain that equilibrium often helps. I also have good colleagues in the office who work with me and over the period, over the years, I think I have also developed a good inner compass, which helps steer me determine what is right and what is wrong. In times of crisis you need to reach deep inside yourself to find the answers, and the courage and the strength to move on. The external factors have an impact, but if you let them take you over, you'll be buffeted left and right and you'll not be able to carry on. As someone who is leading a team, and who is almost a captain of the ship, you cannot lose control. You have to keep hope alive. You have to be able to provide a sense of direction to get the others to work with you. So I am grateful to my wife and partner, and my very good staff, and family and friends who have also helped me. And of course my faith also helps me.

Professor Dr Küng: Now contrary to certain predictions, the Iraq war was not over in May but continues in other (inaudible) forms today. Contrary to other predictions, the United Nations is not dead at all, but well alive. How do you consider the situation of the United Nations today in comparison with the time just in April when you wanted to come here. Has it again more influence, and authority? Is the current crisis perhaps a great opportunity?

SG: Yes, I think there is quite a difference between April and now. There is quite a different mood in the UN building today than there was in April. I think in April some people were saying the UN is irrelevant. I personally did not believe that. I knew we were in a difficult situation, we were going through a crisis, and we have gone through crises before, and that we will overcome this situation. Today, after the war, member states realise more than ever how important this organisation is. It is the only one we have. It is the only global forum that can bring all nations together to discuss issues of common interest. It is the only organisation that can confer legitimacy on certain crisis situations just as in Iraq. The United States itself, who went to war, without approval of the Council, has come back to the UN to try and work with the United Nations. It had approached many countries for assistance. It is looking for allies and friends, and quite a lot of those countries said, we will co-operate provided it goes through the UN. Again putting the UN at the centre. At the last General Assembly, many heads of states came to reaffirm their belief and trust in the organisation, and I think that was also very important. So from my point of view the UN is today back at the centre but we cannot rest there. We cannot rest on our laurels. And that is why I have set up a panel of eminent persons to look at what the new threats and challenges are, and to suggest collective response to these challenges so that we can strengthen and improve the organistion and also develop international law, as well as look at the Security Council's composition and the General Assembly and how these organs can work effectively. So, in a way, we are taking advantage of this crisis situation to strengthen and make the UN better, and I hope that they will give me solid recommendations that will be a basis for action by the member states later this year or sometime next year.

Professor Dr Küng: The UN experienced a horrible moment in Iraq when its headquarters in Baghdad was attacked in August and your personal representative and friend, Sergio de Mello, was killed and more than 20 others of your UN people there. How do you see now the role of the UN in facilitating the transition to a democratic system here in Iraq, we all know that the situation is extremely difficult. A lot of people see no solution. Can the role of the UN go beyond humanitarian activity?

SG: No, the 19th of August was a very tragic day for all of us who work at the United Nations. Not only did we lose good friends and colleagues, it was also the first time that the blue flag had been attacked in such a vicious manner, and of course the neutral Red Cross was also attacked some time later. We had to cut back our presence drastically, but we did not leave Iraq. We have several hundred Iraqi personnel working for us and we have some presence in the north of Iraq. Now we are looking to the future. We would want to help the Iraqi people as much as we can, but at the same time try to minimise the risk to my own staff. On Wednesday I released a report to the Security Council explaining how we intend to proceed. We will set up an office inside Cyprus with another smaller office in Amman, and we would operate from there. We will try and do as much as we can from outside in Iraq and do cross-border operations, with some of my people going in for a couple of days or a week as and when required. We hope we can also encourage some of the Iraqi officials to come out and talk to us, and we will monitor the situation on the ground to see when a secure environment will be created and we will be able to return in larger numbers to Iraq.

We see our role in Iraq not limited to humanitarian activities, even though we have done quite a lot of that, but we will be engaged in reconstruction, in strengthening institutions and human rights, and above all in the constitutional and the political process, leading to the general elections and the establishment of the fully fledged Iraqi government. So all these UN capabilities are at the disposal of the Iraqis and we are prepared to play a role. But the coalition, or the occupying power, which has responsibility for law and order, and for effective administration of Iraq will need to create the environment for us to be able to go in and operate in a normal manner. Sometimes we are asked: but you can go in, and you can be protected, and my answer is yes, we can go in, and we can be protected, but our work is with people. We need to be able to get to the Iraqis and they need to be able to come to us. The moment we do not have that mobility and that flexibility and we are protected behind barriers, we cannot be effective, so we are monitoring the situation and we will hopefully be able to go back to offer maximum support in all the areas that I have indicated.

Professor Dr Küng: You know the discussion we have between the so-called old Europe and the United States of America, (inaudible) we have had in our transatlantic friendship and I think there is nobody here, also in Germany, who would not like to preserve the friendship with the United States. Nevertheless, in the view of our manifesto, we, our group, presented to you, it is quite clear that this is of course more than just the old dispute, the controversy about the new paradigm of international relations, and the Europeans certainly have enough of the old paradigm of European modernity. We have all these wars, we had two world wars, and I think the great achievement of 1945, with the essential help of the United States, was precisely to initiate a new paradigm not of military confrontation, aggression, revenge, but of co-operation, understanding, of reconciliation, even integration: and now a lot of people are afraid that the present development, especially of American foreign policy of the present administration could be a lapse into the old paradigm. My question is what can be done by the United Nations so that we do not go backwards, relapse into the old paradigm, but that we go forward. I think the European Union, who is today in Brussels in a very important meeting as you know, is a great success story and I think it is not just the European Union, it is the whole OECD world from Europe to North America, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, we had now 50 years of peace, and I think we would like to preserve that and extend this to other parts of the world. What could be done by the United Nations to help the world really to integrate everybody in this new paradigm of co-operation?

SG: I think, let me start by saying that the UN itself is part of the post-war paradigm. We will also set up to get governments to co-operate to ensure that we do not repeat the wars or the mistakes of the first half of the last century. And after 1945 when the UN was formed and everybody was looking for a peaceful world, and you refer to Europe, I think Europe has made remarkable achievements in the creation of the Common Market, the European Union and its expansion. Not only has it done that: Europe and the Europeans have accepted the fact that you need to co-operate across borders, you need to give up a bit of your sovereignty to be able to live in peace with your neighbours and accept certain common norms, to be able to live harmoniously, so you have moved ahead in terms of interpretation and application of sovereignty. The US hasn't done that yet in terms of national sovereignty and assertion of national sovereignty and embracing international norms and treaties. The US has quite a different attitude from Europe. You see it from the attitude to the Kyoto protocol, to the International Criminal Court, and a series of others. Despite that, Europe and the other side of the Atlantic has managed to work quite well. I think in the past it was easier because it was during the Cold War and one saw a common thread that also held the two sides of the Atlantic much more closely together. With that gone, and operating in a new world, it has been a bit more difficult, but I do believe that the divisions which exist today can be overcome if governments approach it with an open mind and the right political will.

Since the creation of the UN, the UN charter had made it very clear that when it comes to war, governments have the right of self defence when they are attacked. And where there is a broader threat to international peace and security, we take collective action under the charter. The Iraq war introduced a new approach, or new phenomena of preventive war, in a situation where most people did not think that the threat was that imminent, present and immediate that one had to act, and this is where the divisions came in. And one of the challenges I hope that the panel of eminent persons I've set up will look at is what are these new threats and challenges that we face. The usual example one gives is that you can have a terrorist organisation that get holds of a weapon of mass destruction and may use it against a nation or the world. And that one has to act and pre-empt them before they use this weapon. Let us deem this hypothesis is correct and it may happen, or we may confront that situation, how do we deal with it, under what rules, who acts and how. I would hope that the panel will look at the issue of, if indeed you were to allow pre-emptive war, what would be the norms, who would authorise it, in other words when is intervention legitimate. If you are going beyond the current charter, I hope we can find a new kind of consensus that was possible at the end of World War II in 1945 when the UN was created to deal with these new stresses and tensions. And I think again dialogue and tolerance are going to be absolutely essential and in my comments on Iraq for example, I have indicated there were divisions, there were differences but the time has come for all of us to rebuild international consensus and pool our efforts to stabilise Iraq because it is in all our interests. We should really take unified and co-operative steps to work together.

Professor Dr Küng: You spoke also about the ambivalent phenomenon of globalisation. I think a lot of people all over the world have been scandalised by these financial scandals in Wall Street, and elsewhere, also in Europe of course. The parliament of the (inaudible) religions in 1993 had a whole paragraph on truthfulness. I thought if something would have to be added to the UN Global Compact it should probably be the importance of truthfulness. If you do not have more truthfulness, transparency, then I think it's also very difficult for the business world. The Stock Exchange showed that this is not irrelevant to the economy. If we do not have balance sheets which are true and if you even see big companies are producing lies, I think it is really difficult for the economic world. Would you not think it would be important to assess a little more this often-forgotten value of truthfulness?

SG: I agree with you. In fact on the 9th of December a new UN convention against corruption was opened in Merida, Mexico for signature and will assist in governments fighting corruption, co-operating together, returning funds, for example stolen by leaders, sometimes from poor countries, and put away elsewhere, should be returned to them and the fight against corruption is one of the major challenges we have today, and it really undermines development. It undermines attempts to help the poor. And as you have said, we see it in Wall Street, where in the roaring 90s there was a saying that greed was good. I mean it was greed, determination to get more and more money, that has led to all these abuses which the governments are now trying to deal with. But you are right that we need new standards, new ethics, and one should really work very hard to eliminate corruption because it really does have corrosive effects, not just on Wall Street and the stock market, but in the whole development effort. And in fact you have talked about the Global Compact, there is a discussion going on now –we haven't settled it yet –it should not become the tenth principle. This question of corruption and truthfulness should not become the tenth principle of the Global Compact.

Professor Dr Küng: About the war on terrorism, it is obvious that there are some terrorists who are just criminals, certainly. But not all terrorists are criminals, and I think it would be important on one side of course to fight terrorism by all means, no doubt about that, but on the other hand, what would you think are the real root causes of terrorism today?

SG: You are right that we need to fight and resist terrorism. There can be no justification for the killing of innocent civilians regardless of the cause, and we need to be very clear on it. At the same time we need to deal with those situations that drive people to despair and such desperation that they take certain actions or create groups of people who are easily recruited to the cause of the terrorists. Because if you do not deal with the basic causes of desperation and the conditions in which people feel humiliated, deprived, and their own lives are not worth living, you are not going to be able to contain some of the excessive violence that we are seeing around us. Sometimes people tend to make a mistake of equating the poor with terrorism, but as you said not all terrorists are poor. It is people who are angry, sometimes a certain political situation or condition, who become so passionate or desperate about it that they take certain actions, and we need to deal with those basic and root causes. But I do have a warning though, that I have noticed recently in our attempts to ensure effective action against terrorism, we have tended to erode civil rights, human liberties, and there are some who believe there can be a trade off between the fight against terrorism and human rights. I do not think so. I think we need to be careful, and I often pose the question, if one is asked to give up one's freedom, one's human rights, and one's civil liberties for security, and you agree to do that, do you in the end have security?

Professor Dr Küng: In this context I think a lot of people will be interested to know what you think about ……. of course, the main political cause of terrorism the unresolved problem of the Middle East and if you speak about these bad people, I think we cannot just forget the Palestinians. We have now more research done by the European Commission and there is no doubt of an increase of anti-Semitism, in all countries of Europe, today the Bundestag is talking about it. It's all fine, and we have of course to fight anti-Semisitism by all means. But on the other hand would you not think that besides we have to hear also these Jewish voices, who tell us in America and in Israel, who tell us that the best fight against terrorism in the world would really be to have the policy of the state of Israel changed with regard to the Palestinians, and to find a solution for the problem of the two states, safe (inaudible) and safe borders, but also really a state of Palestine which can survive?

SG: No, the Palestinian crisis has been a source of contention and has been exploited by quite a lot of groups, and lots of organisations claim to act on behalf of the Palestinians and in fact it is a desperate situation. We operate in the region. We have an organisation called UNRWA, we are perhaps the largest employer in the region with about 12,000 staff. We run hospitals, schools, deliver humanitarian assistance and food so we see the daily humiliation of the Palestinians. We see the impact of the blockage, blocked from their land, blocked from their work, and sometimes it is even difficult for us to get through essential services and food. We need to find a way of resolving this conflict, and I think when we came up with the road map, and as you know I am a member of the Quartet, we thought we could get the Palestinian and the Israeli leaders to work with us as quickly as possible to move the process forward, because for the first time you had on the table a proposal worked out and supported by the United States, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the UN. So, as it were, it was a global proposal which we thought they could embrace and work with us on. It did not turn out to be that way. The road map is in a bit of a distress but we hope that we will be able to implement it. But the hopeful signs are coming from civil society: the Geneva Initiative was extremely important. It started a debate. Newspapers in the region are talking about peace. Suddenly the public are being reminded that there is an alternative, that you can resolve this issue peacefully, that the killing need not continue. Now that there is a new Palestinian Prime Minister, I really hope that he will be able to take control of the security apparatus. He has committed to the road map, and that he can work with other Palestinians and the Israelis to push ahead with the road map. On the Israeli side, the Prime Minister apparently says that there is now an indication that he may have his own proposals for peace, and it is an indication of how powerful civil society pressure can be because you have the Geneva Initiative, you have another initiative by Ayalon, the former chief of security, and Nusseibeh, a Palestinian who has circulated one page asking ordinary citizens to sign, supporting peace. When they had the memorial for Rabin, the peace-making Prime Minister, the late Rabin, 100,000 people showed up. So there is a new movement, and I hope there is a window that we might be able to exploit, but it would mean a sustained effort by the international community, but it would help if Israel, the stronger party, would also make some gestures, like withdrawing from Gaza, removing some of the settlements or the road blocks. It would provide hope and expectation because as we see it, in the quartet, the road map and the search for the peace has to be performance based but there also has to be hope, without hope people are not going to really commit and really begin to take the process seriously and so as difficult as it is, I have not lost hope but I do agree that if the Palestinian problem were to be resolved, it will remove not only the occupation in Palestine, but it will deprive many groups of the justification for the use of violence.

Professor Dr Küng: Finally, what could the leaders of the religions do for peace?

SG: I think I recall the meeting of religious leaders in 2000 in New York where they joined others to talk about peace and the way they see the 21st century. I think religious leaders have a lot to offer. If you look at all the major religions, even for those who claim they are not religious and are agnostic, it is education and social morality: it is wrong to kill, be fair to your neighbour and so, even getting their own message out, and ensuring that the congregation and the public live by these values would be extremely important. But I think it would help if the religious leaders and the church would continue to preach compassion, solidarity and understanding for ones neighbour because we live in a very, very difficult world, in a world where many go to bed hungry, over 130 million children, mainly girls, are out of school, eight thousand people are dying every day from AIDS. And this disease is not contained, it is spreading very fast in Asia, in Russia and the former Soviet Republics, in Caribbean and of course Africa is the hardest hit, so we need to really have compassion and be able to work with each other. I know that some in today's world have been turned off religion because they think religious extremists are doing certain things in the name of the religion, my advice always to them is that the problem is not the faith, it is not the Bible, it is not the Koran, or the Torah, it is not the faith, but be faithful and the way they behave and live their lives and apply their religion.

Professor Dr Küng: If you permit, we have time for two or three very short questions?

Q: Mr Secretary-General, I think first of all we wish to congratulate you on your brilliant address, your thoughts that you have shared with us and, if you permit me, I would like to raise two questions,

Professor Dr Küng: No, one! (Applause)

Q: How do you conceive your role as a guardian of a charter given the fact that some other organs, in particular the Security Council, seems to have taken a very expansive vision/interpretation of its role. Could you see a way of expanding your privileges/prerogatives under Article 99 of the Charter to write some sort of cheques and balances in this context, and secondly since the German Ambassador to the UN is here, with the Security Council reform you have an open ended working group which some conceive of as a dead end working group, and could you see a way of closing down this operation with a final effort, getting at least the German aspirations some hope of a success that perhaps a modest change could be achieved, as eliminating the last sentence of para. 2 of article 22 meaning that the non-permanent member could not be immediately re-elected, would it not be a way of satisfying aspirations of Japan and Germany to at least provide them with an opportunity of becoming a quasi permanent/non-permanent member. Thank you

SG: Let me first start by saying that you ignored Hans' ruling to ask one question and reserved the right to ask two questions. (Applause) I reserve my right to answer one question. (Laughter. Applause.) Let me say that on your first question, the prerogative of the Security Council and the expansive role of the council, as Secretary-General, I work very effectively with the Council, there are issues as you indicated: Article 99 allows the Secretary-General the privilege of bringing to the attention of the Council any issues that he believes might have impact on international peace and security, and get the council to discuss it. And I have brought quite a lot of issues to the council without necessarily quoting Article 99, but it was understood that I was acting in that spirit. Secondly, over the years ever since I have became Secretary General, and I think the German Ambassador here, Günther Pleuger, can confirm this, I have worked very effectively with the Council sometimes offering advice, sometimes helping build consensus, putting proposals on the table that will facilitate a transaction, and if there is complaints about the expansive role of the Council, it does not really impinge on my freedom of action and ability to act. I think the quarrels or disagreements are between the council and the General Assembly and the ECOSOC. Those two other bodies feel that the Council is getting into areas that should be reserved for them. But I as Secretary General have been able to operate freely, in fact some think that I am too active and now I am an activist Secretary-General, I am trying to be more of a General than a Secretary. (Applause)

But the job requires both, there are times when you have to be a General and there are times when you have to be a Secretary, but you need to do both.

Q: General-Secretary, you spoke about the role of world religions in the present situation. We are very interested in that developing inter-religious dialogue on the global scale. Could you elaborate a little bit more on that subject, what is the role of an inter-religious dialogue in the present situation, and do you have personal relationships, say to leaders and representatives of the great world religions which could help to promote peace and social stability?

SG: I have contacts with many religious leaders, sometimes they visit me, sometimes I see them when I am in their region and there are exchanges of correspondence and I think that is something that is very healthy, and we encourage. And there are periods where they meet at the UN and discuss issues of the day and adopt resolutions or positions/ declarations which they give to us. And there are specific areas where we see co-operation with them, in trying to help people who are living in dire poverty, in trying to fight the HIV epidemic we reach now to religious groups, and we are working with them in Africa and in Asia. We are not just working with Protestant groups, we are reaching out to the Catholic Groups, so we are doing not just philosophical discussions but practical work, and also encouraging them to encourage their members to join the force, and on issues on ethics and value, which has been a topic of this morning, they do have a lot to offer.

Professor Dr Küng: I am looking for a lady.

SG: He is a fair gentleman I see.

Q: Mr. Secretary-General at the end of the discussion with Professor Dr Küng, you mentioned with just a very short note the African continent, so what I would be interested in, where do you see the position and development of Africa in the globalisation process?

SG: It is one of the continents that has not done too well in this globalized world. There are countries on the continent that are fully engaged, South Africa for example, Botswana and some of the countries with extracted industry, whether it's gold, diamonds or oil. Africa has also suffered from these conflicts but this year we are seeing some very positive developments. We are making good progress in resolving the long-running conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a new transitional Government has been formed and all the parties are participating in the Government, it is possible that even by the end of this year, we might see a peace agreement in Sudan, the longest running war. Angola has been resolved, and we have Burundi to resolve. If we resolve Burundi and Sudan for the first time in decades, that whole region of southern Africa will be conflict free, and with the capacity of South Africa as a regional model, economically they can do a lot. They can really improve their condition, and a lot of their people. They can co-operate on electricity, on tourism and a whole range of economic activities that will give them the opportunities that I think they deserve, and the people are tired of war, they want peace. At the same time the question of HIV AIDS is devastating nations. In some countries the average life span has dropped by twenty years. There are 12 million children orphaned by AIDS, and the disease has taken away some of the people in their most productive years. You have children as young as 10 and 12, much younger than those of you in this room, who are parents already because their mothers and fathers have gone and they are the oldest, and that is also setting the continent back, and this is why I believe it is extremely important that we do whatever we can to help stem the disease. And in fact talking to BBC not long ago, I said we are concerned about weapons of mass destruction, but for those living in those countries, HIV epidemic is the real weapon of mass destruction, and I hope that with a bit of assistance from the international community, African leaders themselves are beginning to take responsibility. They are beginning to think of good governance, they are beginning to think of agriculture, productivity, and the people themselves are waking up to the rise in demand, so it is not hopeless, but they cannot do it alone and they need help and I hope eventually we will be able to get the trade agreement. It failed in Cancun but attempts are being made to resuscitate it. If we do have a free trade agreement, where the subsidies offered in Europe and America to farmers are eliminated, some of these poor countries can compete in the world market. Thank you. (Applause)

(Thanks expressed by Professor Dr. Kühn. Applause and cheering.)