Thank you, Mr. Sorabjee, [President of the IIC and Former Attorney-General of India] for those very warm and kind remarks and introduction. I wish I could take you with me to New York to explain the importance of the report, and the reform we are trying to push, to some of my friends there.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:

It is indeed a great pleasure for me to be back in India. I've had very useful discussions and very friendly discussions with the President, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and I saw the party leaders, Mr. [L.K.] Advani, Mrs. [Sonia] Gandhi. And I've also had a chance to see and meet some of your vibrant civil society members. I think this is one of the remarkable developments in India –the vibrancy of your society and of the civil society.

Over the decades, India has made an enormous contribution to the United Nations, through the efforts of its Government, and the work of Indian scholars, soldiers and international civil servants, several of them are in this room –Virendra Dayal and Chinmaya Gharekhan. India's has been one of the most eloquent voices helping the United Nations to shape its agenda on behalf of the developing world. And the experience and professionalism of your armed forces has proved invaluable, time and again, in UN peacekeeping operations –in which over a hundred Indian soldiers have given their lives.

So it was natural, when eighteen months ago I asked a group of international experts to make recommendations for strengthening our system of collective security and adapting it to the threats and challenges of the 21st century, that I asked one of your citizens, the former commander of one of those peacekeeping operations, to play a part in the panel -- your very distinguished general, Satish Nambiar, whom I turned to to assist us. And I see he is in the room here with us this morning.

The panel reported to me last December, and some of its recommendations did concern the reform of the Security Council. The panel members wanted the countries that contribute most to the United Nations –financially, militarily and diplomatically –to be more involved in decision-making. They also wanted the Council to be more representative of the broader UN membership, especially the developing world, without becoming less effective.

The issue has been discussed for many years, and every member state has had ample time to make up its mind. And almost every Member State agrees that the Security Council is in need of reform. Where they disagree is on the minor issue of details. But on the objective, everybody agrees. I suggested therefore that Member States should agree to take a decision one way or the other before the summit meeting in New York this September, on the proposals before them, including making the Security Council more broadly representative of the international community as a whole and of the geopolitical realities of today. It would be far preferable for Member States to take this vital decision by consensus. But if they are unable to reach consensus this should not become an excuse for postponing action.

The composition of the Security Council is –obviously –a very important issue. But it is by no means the only thing that needs changing if we are to rise to the challenges of today and make this world freer, fairer and safer for all its inhabitants.

Our agenda of change is much broader. A strengthened Security Council should be one element in a major adjustment of all our policies and institutions, aimed at ensuring that people everywhere are protected against the gravest threats to their well-being, their security, and their fundamental rights.

That's why I called my report “In Larger Freedom” –a phrase taken from the preamble to the United Nations Charter. Our founders, speaking in the name of “the peoples of the United Nations”, expressed their determination “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom”. That makes it clear that they not only included development among the objectives of the Organization, but also considered development to be closely related to freedom.

You might almost say they anticipated the thought of the great Indian economist and my good friend, Amartya Sen. He has taught us that freedom is only meaningful when people's economic circumstances allow them to make real choices in life, but also that development is only meaningful when it actually enables people to make choices. It cannot be captured by purely quantitative measures such as gross domestic product per capita. It has to be experienced by individual human beings, as an increase in their autonomy and dignity, and a stronger assurance of respect for their fundamental rights.

Thus both development and human rights are components, or aspects, of freedom. But so is security. You are not meaningfully free if you are exposed to arbitrary violence, whether inflicted by the security forces of other states, or of your own state, or by what we euphemistically call “non-state actors”, meaning terrorists, criminals or armed factions.

Security is essential for development, and for the enjoyment of individual rights. But we have also seen that widespread human rights violations often lead to conflict, and that conflicts are often harder to resolve peacefully in poor or underdeveloped countries.

That is why I see “larger freedom” as an overarching concept, which includes all three of these goals: development, security and human rights. You cannot really enjoy any one of the three without the other two; and all three need to be underpinned by the rule of law.

Indians, I believe, have understood, better and sooner than many other peoples, that these three goals are not alternatives. On the contrary, they reinforce each other.

Of course progress has been uneven. Of course there is still a long way to go before all Indians can confidently say that they enjoy all three. But there has been progress on all three fronts, and Indians have, on the whole, resisted the temptation to believe that progress on any one of them can be secured or accelerated by sacrificing either of the others. They have been single-minded in pursuing larger freedom through pluralistic democracy –always returning to that path even when they seemed to be veering away from it.

So I should not be keeping faith with you, or with myself, if I singled out any one of the three as deserving higher priority than the others. But I do wish to rebut, very strongly, the suggestion made in some quarters that development, or the concerns of the developing world, have received short shrift in my report.

On the contrary, development is the subject of the first and longest chapter in the report, entitled “Freedom from want”, which maps out a detailed and practical strategy for reaching the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

Disease, poverty, and hunger are the greatest killers of our time. The fight against them must be at the heart of our agenda.

Solemn commitments have already been made –most recently at the Monterrey conference on Financing for Development in 2002. Now it is time to act on those commitments, with concrete, measurable steps, leading to a quantum leap in resources for development. Every developing country should have a comprehensive national strategy for reaching the Goals –including investments in gender equality, better resource management, rural and urban development, essential health services, education, science and technology –and must see its effort supported by developed countries, through increased development assistance, a more development-oriented trade system, and wider and deeper debt relief.

I have made important proposals on trade and debt relief. And I have called on every developed country that has not already done so to commit itself to a timetable for reaching, by 2015, the agreed target for official development aid, namely 70 cents out of every $100 of gross national income.

In particular, I am urging the international community to provide the resources needed for an expanded and comprehensive response to HIV/AIDS. And I am urging all governments to tackle this deadly scourge and its stigma publicly. It is good to see the Indian government is doing this –and good, also, to see India helping other developing countries, notably in Africa, by producing essential medicines. I hope India will continue to assist other countries, particularly in the south, assist them with their development by exporting the knowledge and technology it has acquired through its own success.

But of course it is not only my proposals on development that should be of interest to developing countries.

All states have a vital interest in a functioning collective security system, based on a consensus about what constitutes a threat to international peace and security, when force should be used, and who should decide. I believe the Security Council should adopt a resolution setting out the principles to be applied when the use of force is, for any reason, on the table. And we have provided guidelines for the use of force, which is not acceptable to every state, but I think it should be considered. And I stress that this approach should guide decisions across the array of threats - including the threat of genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The responsibility to protect citizens falls, first and foremost, on sovereign governments. But, as we learned in Rwanda over a decade ago, it cannot be right for the Security Council to stand idle if governments are not willing or able to protect their citizens from appalling crimes.

We need more than a new consensus. We also need more effective instruments to strengthen our security and protect basic human rights. No part of humanity feels this need more acutely than the citizens of the developing world.

After all, it is they who pay the highest price when the UN's peacekeeping, peacebuilding and human rights machinery is overstretched.

It is they who will benefit most from the new United Nations Democracy Fund, which I am delighted to say that India is supporting.

It is people in poor countries who, more than any others, suffer from the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, and the scourge of land mines.

People in developing countries are all too often the victims of terrorism –as Indians know better than most. So it is very much in their interest that the world should adopt the comprehensive strategy against terrorism that I have proposed, starting with a clear definition of terrorism that covers all deliberate attacks on civilians for political ends.

And finally, people in developing countries are all too likely to be the first victims of nuclear weapons, if we do not soon make progress both in disarmament and in halting proliferation.

I am sure you all share my delight that one proposal in my report –the convention on nuclear terrorism –has already been adopted by the General Assembly. I hope India will set an example by rapidly adhering to that convention, and will also soon sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, as well as giving active support to the negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty.

My proposals are designed to strengthen multilateral action in all these areas, as well as bringing the institutions of the United Nations into line with the realities of the 21st century. I suggest that this should be done not only by enlarging the Security Council but also by creating two new inter-governmental bodies –a Peacebuilding Commission, which would bring together the various actors involved in helping countries move from war to lasting peace, and a Human Rights Council, in which States from all regions would participate.

Of course, it is not only the people of developing countries who face dangers to their safety and well-being today. In recent years the peoples of the industrialised world, too, have realised more and more that their security is only relative, and their good fortune highly precarious.

It is precisely this sense of a shared predicament, and a shared destiny, that gives us the opportunity to strike a global deal –a deal in which all peoples must see their concerns addressed, and for the sake of which everyone must be prepared to make compromises.

In short, this is a time for all peoples, and especially their leaders, to be creative and bold. I know I can rely on India's leaders, urged on and encouraged by the Indian people, to help summon both the vision and the pragmatism to bring about far-reaching change. This is the nation whose first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, pledged all Indians, on the historic occasion of India's freedom at midnight on August 15, 1947, to the service not just of India, but of “the still larger cause of humanity”. In that spirit, let us work together to make 2005 a true turning point in world history.

Thank you very much.

Q: If some of these countries don't observe these obligations, if they intervene without violating the guidelines or if they don't give the kind of assistance which is required, what is the mechanism to take care of that, and how to put such aberrations in order?

Q: I just want to ask one question which concerns reform. We understand that the Security Council is already enlarged when you consider the non-member states. Now, you just [want] to make it larger, but larger like this one without a veto. What would be the sense of that? Secondly, the General Assembly, these are the only two organs we have, the General Assembly, whenever they pass resolutions they always say they are not binding. But then again, you yourself now just mentioned that, such and such thing has been adopted by the General Assembly. Why don't we give? This is the biggest organ that has all the countries, have the right to dictate the policies instead of being rejected by the Security Council with only five members? Thank you.

Q: Your Excellency, you have rightly said that now there is a need to reform the Security Council. We would like to know that, in the expanded Security Council, what would be the criteria for the induction of the new members? Thank you.

Q: Sir, how constrained do you feel, in view of the controversies on the oil-for-food programme, and the alleged involvement of your son in it?

SG: Thank you very much for those comments and questions. Let me answer these four questions and then we will go another round.

On the first question, increase in ODA and the use of force, let me say that we are seeing very keen activity on the development front. As of today, five European countries have already met the target of 0.7 per cent of GDP. Seven or eight others have come up with a timetable for meeting the target by 2015. And I believe by the time the Summit is convened in New York in September, the vast majority of the European Union will have come up with a timetable for meeting the target. In addition to that, there are serious discussions about looking for innovative sources of financing. One of them is an international finance facility, which has been proposed by Chancellor Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom. There is a broad consensus around this and that will allow the donor community to front load development assistance to make it possible that we meet the goals by 2015. We do not only need increased assistance, but we need them as quickly as possible. And everybody has agreed that we need to double development assistance from 50 billion+ to 100 billion. In fact, recently both the World Bank and the IMF have indicated that every effort should be made to double development assistance in the next five years.

And so we are seeing quite a bit of action and progress on that front, and I am quite hopeful that we will be able to get additional resources for development. In addition to that, a group of countries have come together to explore very energetically other innovative ideas of financing for development and even the old idea of adding a dollar or two to each international air ticket is back on the table.

The divisions are beginning to heal and I would hope in the future we would work collectively and ensure that we do have Council support for this action. Yes, a country may decide to use force outside the Security Council, or without the approval of the Security Council, but there is also a price to pay when you do that, because we have noticed that in those situations where the international community acts together with the full consent and support of the Security Council, not only does it have greater impact, but the world stays together during the crisis and works together to deal with the aftermath, and I think that is always preferable.

The question of enlargement without a veto and also there was a question about criteria for inducting new members, I think in my remarks I indicated that the focus and the emphasis will be on countries that make major contribution to the work of the Organization, either financially, militarily, or diplomatically. And so that is sort of the rough guidelines being used to review the new membership. I believe enlargement without a veto is in itself a major step forward. If our concern is that the developing world and large sections of the world community are not effectively represented on the Council, getting that representation with or without a veto to ensure that the views of all regions are factored in before the Council takes a decision, I think is a major step forward. I recall, during the discussions on the Gulf War, there were major countries who were outside the Council who wanted to make these contributions but had no means of doing it. I was on the line with these leaders. In fact, one of them even suggested, 'Mr. Secretary-General, can you bring some of us together to discuss the war and see if we can make a contribution?' At that point, the Organization was already divided –those who were for the war, and those who were against it, and if I had brought together a group of powerful heads of states, regional countries, to discuss Iraq, I would have been accused of establishing a second Security Council. But the fact that these governments who wanted to make contributions, and that these are also the governments we turned to when we have problems in the regions, but at the international level, under the current system, most of them do not have a way of making an input into the Council except if they happen to be on the Council. And so I think the expansion would be helpful. Let's not get so focused on veto. I think most people would much rather take away the five existing vetoes rather than create additional vetoes, but I don't think that's going to happen. It would be utopian to attempt to remove them, because those with those privileges will not give them up.

Am I constrained by the oil for food scandal? Obviously it has cast a shadow over the United Nations, and I am determined to get to the bottom of it, and to get to the truth. That is why I set up the panel headed by Mr. [Paul] Volcker, with the other two members [Richard] Goldstone and [Mark] Pieth, and I have asked all the United Nations staff to cooperate, including myself. I have cooperated fully. Mr. Volcker has come up with two reports, and we expect the final report in June, which would also deal with the broader issue of the role of the Security Council, the smuggling of oil by Iraq outside the programme, the role of companies and others, and so I hope the final report will put things in context. We are taking concrete and urgent steps to correct the managerial lapses which have been identified by the Volcker [Committee]. I must say that when we discuss this issue we tend to forget the reasons why the programme was set up. The programme was set up to assist the Iraqi population, because it was felt that as long as sanctions were there and they were not able to sell oil, they were going to suffer. And we were getting reports, from our own UNICEF, of malnutrition, death of children, so it was an urgent programme to assist the Iraqis, and I think it achieved its objective. Not only did it achieve its objective, we managed to reach almost the entire Iraqi population, and the fact that we used their distribution cards as the basis for the electoral rolls, indicates how extensive this thing was.

This does not, of course, excuse errors of fraud, or mistakes that have been made, but I think we need to put things into perspective. Quite frankly, some of the criticisms and the remarks, have gone beyond all zone of reasonableness. But I think when the full report comes out, I hope we will all understand.

I have a heavy agenda for the next eighteen months, working with the Member States to reform this organization; working with them to ensure that we put the fight against poverty at the centre of the Organization; working with them to ensure that we get effective and additional resources to fight HIV/AIDS, and also to strengthen the administration and managerial requirements of the Organization, and so I will be working full steam with the Member States. As you know, the French have a saying, “Les chiens aboient mais la caravane passe,” that is, “the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.” [laughter]

Q: In the year 2000 there was a Millennium meeting of global religious and spiritual leaders. Religious fundamentalism and fanaticism still involves the main causes of conflict and hatred and bitterness in the world. How do you intend to address that? Because if that area is neglected, then it will constantly fester. How are we going to bring about a harmony, at least a basic understanding between the great religions of the world, and will the United Nations, or UNESCO, or one of its agencies, continue to play a leadership role in this area?

Q: Your Excellency, while assessing the progress made on the Asian platform for action, during a March meeting in New York, we have all realized that member nations have not moved much, and I do not see much in the plan proposed in your Report which you just explained, and in your lecture. What is the UN going to do about 50:50 gender balance within the institution and member nations? Thank you.

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, my question relates to goal number one in your programme relating to poverty, hunger and these issues. India, a number of times, through the ILO, had proposed the establishment of an international skills development fund, with a view to emphasize the removal of poverty, because without skills development, the one dollar question cannot adequately be tackled; it is a link with primary education. A number of things happened under the international level –IPEC, HIV/AIDS, they are all successful programmes, but India, you took initiative through Paul Martin's report and it was very well received in this part of the world in the developing countries, but without skills development nothing really can go. And could I draw your personal attention that this issue is sponsored by the ILO's governing body? Could you react to it? What place does it have in your agenda?

Q: I just wanted to ask the Secretary-General how far it is progressive to introduce the caste system in the United Nations? Permanent members, with veto powers, without veto powers, we have been trying laboriously, and for a long time nobody is caste in India.

Q: Excellency, in your lecture you mentioned about the CTBT. I think you are in love with the CTBT, and India hates the CTBT. How to reconcile your love and our hate for CTBT?

Q: I am delighted to get an impression from your reform agenda that your main objective for the running team is to strengthen the rule of law, and larger freedom, everything else is based on that component –the strengthening of the rule of law. But when it comes to precise proposals, how come you have not paid attention to the reforms of two leading law institutions at the international level –one, the International Law Commission, and second, the International Court of Justice? And supplement to this question is, you cannot have rule of law at the international level unless you bring non-state actors into compliance with the rule of law. Have you, or your think tank, paid attention about the strategies to bring non-state entities into compliance with the rule of law?

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, “In Larger Freedom: the Changing Role of the United Nations”, this is a very engaging title for a manifesto on reform of the United Nations. I would like to know how could you reconcile this message that is based on the rule of law, on the elimination of the caste system of the United Nations, on the elimination of privileges of the United Nations, how can all this be reconciled with the proposal, one of the two proposals for reform of the Security Council, simply prorogating by just enlarging privileges to other countries, in eternity, permanently. How can this be reconciled with the criterion of accountability of the rule of law?

And the second question is, you enumerated very clearly the criteria for which countries could be part of the Security Council, and I appreciate very much the distance that you showed and the equilibrium in saying being a member of the Security Council without specifying permanent or non-permanent, in rotation, following regional criteria and whatever. But if these are the criteria that should drive the [General] Assembly to elect the permanent members of the Security Council, we could enumerate more than 25 countries that could respond to these criteria –countries that are very strong contributors in terms of peacekeeping operations and financial…

SG: I think I get your drift.

Q: So how can we tackle that?

SG: Let me start with the question on interfaith dialogue and what the UN is doing to ensure that we counter fundamentalism and some of the tension between civilizations and groups. You may recall that a couple of years ago the UN did organize a major General Assembly session on Dialogue among Civilizations. In fact the idea came from the Iranian President [Mohammed] Khatami, and he played a very active role with us, where we brought a group of people together to discuss this issue and UNESCO is permanently engaged in this and does have a programme on it. I agree with you that we need to keep the dialogue going. In fact, recently, the new Prime Minister of Spain, Mr. [Jose Luis Rodriguez] Zapatero, approached me to discuss this issue. He had an interesting take on this. He said 'we often talk about dialogue among civilizations, clash among civilizations, which always implies a sort of confrontation' and he suggested we bring nations together to discuss an alliance of civilization and how they can share experiences and learn from each other as they do, but sometimes it is not recognized. In fact, there is a serious discussion going on as to how we approach this suggestion. It is quite likely that in the not-too-distant future a group of eminent people will be put together to plan ahead, to think through, and for us to bring a large group of people together to discuss this, and so this is something that is very much on our agenda.

On the Beijing platform and gender balance, and 50:50, I think that is an area where we all have work to do. In the UN we do have that target, particularly among the professional levels and the senior levels. We haven't been able to achieve it. We have made gradual progress. Some departments and some offices do better than others. I myself have tried very hard to bring in senior women. Quite a few of them who were excellent and did extremely well have resigned and gone. And of course the men don't leave as often as the women do. They stick around. So the imbalance continues. We are still determined to do the best we can. But the governments at the national level also have a responsibility. I think the UN is a good measure; of the 191 ambassadors appointed by governments, not by me or the UN, only about ten are women. And this is also a commentary on the way governments behave. I think, on the gender issue, we all have serious work to do. I would also suggest that gender balance is everyone's concern and everyone's responsibility. It's not an issue for women alone. Men in leadership position, whether in politics, business or an academic area, should take it seriously, to achieve that balance. And besides, I really believe that any society that refuses to use fifty percent of its talent is, in the long run, going to lose out. I have seen, personally, in my own work, that when I have a meeting and you have senior women around the table, the dynamics of the discussion change, often for the better. When they are not there, there is a dimension which is missing. So it is in everyone's interest that we try to improve gender balance.

On the question of skills funding - I think we do need skills, we do need to create jobs, we have that youth bulge coming in. I know that is also one of the agendas of ILO, that governments should really come up with programmes for creating jobs for the young people coming onto the market, and that if we are not able to do that we are sitting on a time bomb. So in our discussions with governments we encourage the creation of jobs. Whether we need to set up a central or global fund to develop skills, I am not sure about that, but I will look at the recommendation. I wasn't aware of it until you raised it. What is important is that we really need to have jobs for all these people coming onto the market. I think ILO suggested we need to create a billion jobs globally to be able to take care of that crowd, and I support that idea, and we are working on it with Juan Somavia and our discussions with governments.

I don't know if it is right to refer to a caste system in the Security Council. We have historical reasons for the structure that we have. And this is why we are making attempts to broaden the Council to make sure that it is representative and democratic. I made it clear that we cannot remove the vetoes that exist today, and in fact the preference of quite a few member states would be to get rid of the veto, but that is not realistic. And so, if we are able to expand the membership to ensure that there is more effective representation from the developing world and other regions, I think we would have really moved forward. After all, when the Council was created, most of the countries in the UN today were colonies. They were not even around to speak for themselves or to be considered, so hopefully this adjustment would help.

CTBT, love and hate of the CTBT, you referred to my love for it and India's hate for it. I think this is a situation where I believe that it will help with our programme of non-proliferation and disarmament. Many countries have signed it. We are waiting for others to sign. It is a national decision. It is for the Indian government and Indian Parliament to decide. Times changes. I hope over time they will come to agree that it will be in our collective interest if everybody signed the CTBT.

You indicate that in my report I talk about the rule of law but we don't indicate how non-state actors could be dealt with. I think non-state actors were considered. We had them very much in mind, and I think General [Satish] Nambiar could tell you, the Panel spent quite a bit of time on how you deal with non-state actors with organized crime, international crime, and how one should be careful to ensure that they don't ever get their hands on nuclear capabilities and explode a dirty bomb. In fact, the convention that I said, that the General Assembly approved on nuclear terrorism, had that group very much in mind. The question of definition of terrorism, which makes it clear, that regardless of your cause, killing of civilians and non-combatants is terrorism and is a crime, pure and simple. It is also a definition that the Panel and I have put forward. Of course, the question that is raised is, what about situations where a government uses undue force against civilians? That is a crime under international law, so that is taken care of. But we need to ensure that the other side who may claim to be fighting occupation or resistance do not attack civilians and unarmed combatants.

I think I have dealt with all the questions. Thank you very much.