The Secretary-General: Thank you very much Prime Minister.  I want to express my deep gratitude to the Swedish Government for the wonderful hospitality the Security Council enjoyed and for the wonderful hospitality I myself enjoyed in Uppsala and here in Stockholm.  

Sweden has been consistently, in its action in the Security Council, a bridge builder. In a world where we see increased tension - I believe we can even talk of the resumption of the Cold War in many of its aspects - Sweden has consistently, fully abiding by the values of human rights, by the need to make sure that international law is respected, but at the same time, trying to reduce tensions, trying to bring together the different actors of the international scenario.  And I believe this initiative of bringing for the first time out of New York the Security Council for a retreat, is perfectly in line with this bridge-building strategy of the Swedish presence in the Security Council.  

And I am extremely grateful for this initiative, and I believe the initiative was successful, in the sense that we had two days of very constructive discussions, that things have cooled down and that I believe it will be possible now to move forward in relation to key objectives.  And in the case of Syria, to fully support a political solution - there is no military solution, and the political solution needs the success of the Geneva intra-Syrian talks that as you know are facilitated by the United Nations.  We need humanitarian access to the whole of the Syrian territory, to everybody in need, and we also need to find a way to attribute responsibilities for those that are violating international law with chemical weapons attacks that are absolutely unacceptable.  And I think that at least the dialogue, as we started, in order to see if we will be able in the near future to find a way to come out of the impasse that until now has blocked the efforts Sweden has constantly put in place, in order to have a serious mechanism of attribution and accountability.  

On the other hand, I would like to express my deep gratitude for what has been the Swedish role as a pillar of multilateralism in today’s world, as the Prime Minister mentioned, not only in support of the United Nations, but of a world based on the rule of law and with strong multilateral institutions.  The challenges we face, from conflict to climate change, or migration - all those challenges show that there is no way any country can solve the problems we face.  The only way is to strengthen international cooperation and to strengthen multilateral institutions, and Sweden has been a very strong pillar of this perspective and of the organizations like mine, that are trying to respond to those dramatic challenges of today’s world.  

In particular, I would like to express my appreciation for the very strong involvement of Sweden in prevention, conflict resolution, mediation and sustaining peace, not only in supporting the United Nations’ efforts but in your own bilateral activities.  And I would recall how active Sweden has been in relation to North Korea, in relation to Myanmar and other aspects, fully supporting the multilateral initiatives with its own direct diplomacy, which is of course of enormous value to us.  

On the other hand, in a world in which unfortunately humanitarian needs are growing, Sweden has been absolutely exemplary in humanitarian aid.  I was for 10 years High Commissioner for Refugees. Sweden was our best donor, with core contributions, non-earmarked, allowing us to address the needs of the people more in need, and at the same time with a very very strong and solid support. And in development cooperation - namely now that we have the Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals - Sweden is a country that maintains, and I believe is increasing, its development cooperation aid to more than one per cent of its Gross National Income.

And Sweden has been in the forefront of climate action. I believe that unfortunately, climate change is still running faster than us. I believe we need increased ambition - that Paris must be implemented, but Paris is not enough.  Sweden has understood it and Sweden has today probably the best programme in the world in relation to climate action, with very important targets for emissions, for some fuels and other aspects in the near future.  And I hope that this example will be followed, especially by those that have the largest contribution to the emissions of greenhouse gases.  

On the other hand, I want to underline the very important support of Sweden to our own reform process in management aspects, in peace and security aspects, in development, UN development system projects, but especially in some areas in which Sweden has been a very important ally.  As you know, I have a strong commitment for parity. We have today already in our senior management group - the top leadership of the UN - 24 women and 20 men, which is a total reversal in relation to past trends.  And we have a roadmap for gender parity around the whole UN, of which Sweden has been a very strong supporter.  But also in relation to our absolute priorities in fighting sexual harassment, sexual exploitation and abuse, and other aspects related to the need of gender equality and the empowerment of women, Sweden has been in the forefront of these efforts and I would say one of our most solid supports in a battle that is a difficult battle, but a battle that we are determined to win, with Swedish support.  

And I would say in all other aspects of cooperation, we have had a permanent dialogue, permanent mutual support; and I am extremely grateful, for once more, during this visit we had the chance to look seriously into our weekend, developing even further our coordination efforts.  

Once again, Prime Minister, thank you very much.

Question: Mr. Guterres, a few hours before your meeting on Saturday, North Korea announced that it would be suspending nuclear testing and the launch of missiles.  Now the Security Council was quick to, members of the Security Council were quick to say that this was because of the unity of the Council.  But to what extent is this actually down to Mr. Donald Trump and the very heavy rhetoric that he has been using since he came into office regarding the Kim Jong regime?  And in a second part, regarding the talks on Syria that took place yesterday morning, can you tell us a little bit more about what avenues are being looked at to release the deadlock that we are facing today?

The Secretary-General: Well first of all, I have no doubt that if we are today on track, I hope, for a peaceful denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, that is due to a number of reasons.  I would say the most important of those reasons is the unity of the Security Council that was able to come together and to have a very strong and meaningful set of sanctions that I believe had a very important impact, and to a certain extent made North Korea realize that it was necessary to come forward, to enter into dialogue with the international community, and especially with both the Republic of Korea and the United States of America. So I think that this unity of the Security Council and the determination of countries in promoting the peaceful denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula have been essential.  I think the US played an important role.  I think China played an important role.  Other countries have done so.  And I hope that things will be on track and that this objective will be reached.  

Now unfortunately, related to Syria, the unity of the Security Council has not existed.  I believe that there are three very important aspects that were discussed during this meeting, and in which I hope there will be progress.  First, there was a unanimous recognition that we need a political solution and that that political solution is to be achieved through intra-Syrian dialogue with UN facilitation, in line with the resolution of the Security Council - resolution 2254, the so-called Geneva Communique - and in the Geneva dialogue that must be reactivated. There was a clear understanding of all parties of this need.  

Second, I think there was also a strong commitment in relation to humanitarian access, in relation to the capacity of the international community to fully support the Syrian people in these tragic circumstances, and to overcome the obstacles that still exist to the full access of all Syrians to effective humanitarian aid.  

The most difficult thing has been the question, as you know, of accountability in relation to chemical weapons attacks.  There has been until now no possibility to come to an agreement in relation to a mechanism of attribution of these responsibilities, for accountability to be possible.  We had a very frank discussion and there was an agreement that we should pursue consultations in order to see if the divide that is still meaningful, that exists, can be bridged.  And again, Sweden has been playing a very important role in trying to bridge this divide, and I am sure that that important role will be maintained in the next few days and weeks. And I hope that something that is absolutely unacceptable in today’s world, the use of chemical weapons, will find a mechanism to attribute responsibilities and to allow for effective accountability.

Question: I have a question to Mr. Guterres.  You say there was constructive discussions, but in regard to Russia, what has changed in their stance towards the Syria solution?  [A question to the Swedish Prime Minister follows]

The Secretary-General: There was not, in the retreat, any progress in the specific discussion of how to create this mechanism of attribution, no.  But there was the recognition that there are many aspects in which countries are in agreement, namely that that mechanism is necessary - and this was underlined by all, including by Russia.  And second, I believe that even if there are many aspects on which countries have different views, there are also many aspects that allow to think, looking at past experiences and how things have been solved in other circumstances, that there might be a way to come to a solution.  I sincerely hope that that will be the case and I sincerely hope that all countries will make a serious effort in that direction.

[Answer by the Prime Minister of Sweden]

Question: Mr. Secretary-General, you mentioned accountability for alleged chemical weapons as the most difficult, sticking point.  Now I assume you have a vision for this.  You talked about consultations.  Can you elaborate a bit on how you see the future? And in future attacks, how do you want to deal with accountability, if this happens again in the future?  And also, as a follow-up, we all know that Syria has been a large source of refugees, and I know that you have been talking about refugees. How do you view the fact that some countries in Europe don’t want to take in refugees nowadays?  That question is for both you and the Prime Minister. [Another question to the Swedish Prime Minister follows].

The Secretary-General: First of all, as you know, we have today the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that is in Duma doing their research, but they have not the possibility to determine who is responsible for an attack.  They can detect whether or not there was an attack, but not who is responsible.  There was a mechanism called the Joint Investigation Mechanism that existed, and that produced its report.  The report was contested by some countries, namely by Russia, and there was no chance to renew the mandate of that mechanism.  And after that, there were different proposals of new mechanisms to replace it that were not accepted.  And this is the impasse in which we are, and this impasse is extremely negative and dangerous.  And that was the effort in this retreat: not to discuss what the solution is, but to try and really create an environment in which countries would understand that we need to overcome this impasse. And we need to find a way with an independent mechanism, an impartial mechanism, but a mechanism that is able not only to investigate what has happened, but to attribute responsibilities, allowing them, the Security Council [members], to use the instruments of the Charter that are relevant in this case.  Whether we will be able to get there or not, it is the challenge that we are facing at the present moment.  

[Journalist’s follow up - inaudible]

I believe this mechanism needs to be independent, but there are experiences in the past that show that there are ways also to take into account concerns, that some Member States might have, about the impartiality of the mechanism. So let us have an open mind and let us look into the future without immediately trying to configure a solution before the necessary consultations are made.  

In relation to Europe and migration and asylum, I was High Commissioner for Refugees when we had – after, if you remember, the difficulties in the volume of humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees when, for lack of funds, the World Food Programme had to announce a reduction in the support, and there was this idea that refugees felt abandoned by the international community - we have seen this huge movement into Europe.  And it was clear to me at that time that - independently of the needs to prevent, to gather support of the countries of first origin and to solve the Syrian problem in itself, independently of that - Europe, the European Union had the capacity to respond to that inflow through a coordinated action in solidarity, having adequate reception facilities, adequate screening and security screening, and an equitable distribution of those coming into all European Union countries.  And this would mean that a country like mine, Portugal, would have received probably 20 or 30,000 refugees that would be easily integrated in the Portuguese society.  Instead, Europe was totally unable to find solidarity for this kind of integrated European solution.  

There was no European solution; and what we have witnessed was a massive flow of people, in all the tragic circumstances that we know, moving up the Balkans and giving to everybody the idea that things were out of control, that there was an invasion, that Europe all of a sudden would be invaded, even if the number of people that was coming represented about 0.2 per cent of the European population.  And as there was no solidarity at all, two countries, Sweden and Germany, have essentially been the ones receiving the overwhelming majority of the refugees, which is absolutely unfair, which does not make any sense.  

So I think that if we want to have migration and asylum properly working in our world, we need to have international cooperation, we need to have international solidarity, and all countries need to assume their responsibilities. And I hope that discussions that are taking place in the General Assembly of the United Nations for the two Compacts, migration and asylum, will allow for things to move in that direction, and for a comprehensive approach coming from all development cooperation policies that can help people have a future in their own areas of origin: how we can crack down better on smugglers and traffickers and protect the victims of smuggling and trafficking, how we can open new avenues for legal migration, equitably distributed around the world, to avoid these huge flows of illegal migration or irregular migration where people suffer so much in the hands of smugglers and traffickers.  I mean if we can come together and put together a package of measures in a framework of international solidarity, in which all countries need to cooperate, I think the problem is manageable, and I appeal to all European countries to follow the example of Sweden.  That would also facilitate the work of Sweden because if all assumed their responsibilities, Sweden will not be under the kind of pressure that Sweden has endured in the recent past.

[Answer by the Prime Minister of Sweden]

Question: Mr. Secretary-General, the Backåkra meeting might have eased the tension, but as you said yourself, a very long way away from actual decision for Syria.  What’s at stake here? If a deadlock is not broken, does the Security Council have any relevance, any influence at all in the modern world?

The Secretary-General: The Security Council has taken very important decisions recently.  Look at North Korea.  In several other aspects, the Security Council was able to come together and to have, to play a positive role.  Several African crises have had the unity of the Security Council.  Unfortunately, in other aspects, that unity does not exist, and that is where of course the Security Council loses the relevance for those situations. But I would not say that the relevance has been lost for what needs to be pursued as a constant effort to guarantee peace and security around the world.  

And this is particularly important in a moment in which tensions are increasing, in a moment in which, as I said, we are witnessing a resumption of what was in the past a Cold War, but with two fundamental differences.  During the Cold War, you had two super powers that more or less controlled their allies or their satellites in a way that things would not get out of control.  Today, we have many other countries that act independently and can be, in some situations, spoilers in relation to the need to keep things on track.  And during the Cold War, there were mechanisms of dialogue, of coordination, of guarantees for incidents not to generate in escalations, for things to be always kept under control, to avoid spiralling out of control; and those mechanisms do not exist today.  

So I think there must be a serious effort to relieve the tension, a serious effort to find consensus, a serious effort to bring countries again together. But at the same time I think it is important to create the mechanisms or to strengthen the mechanisms that avoid, when tension increases, things to get out of control in a dangerous way.