Press encounter following commencement address [on climate change] at Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University

Q: In light of the points that you made today about the reasons for acting on global climate change, what's your analysis of why the Bush administration has taken the position that it has to counter those points?

SG: It's difficult for me to speak for the Bush administration, but let me say that I've noted that since the initial statement, there has been quite a lot of discussion and reaction from around the world and within the nation. And I have a sense that the administration itself is rethinking its environmental policy, or there has been a slight shift in some of the latest moves since the Kyoto decision. So I hope the decision on Kyoto is not immutable, because we do need the United States to become engaged, to work with other Member States and other leaders around the world to contain the climate change problem.

Q: I wonder whether you thought it was a good decision by Arab States to cut off contacts with Israel after the F-16 threat?

SG: I felt it was going to make it much more difficult for us to find a solution, but I was encouraged this morning when I heard on the BBC that [Egyptian] President [Hosni] Mubarak had indicated that he will continue his efforts for peace. As you know, President Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan have put forward a proposal, a peace process, which I believe, taken together with the Mitchell report, offers us a basiq for bringing the parties together and moving forward. And the role of President Mubarak and King Abdullah, the two countries in the region that have made peace with Israel, is very important and I hope they stay engaged. And I will continue to work with them.

Q: Do you believe that the Bush administration is engaged enough in the facilitating process?

SG: I think they are becoming more and more engaged, and they are much more engaged now than they were at the beginning.

Q: What are the things that you see that contribute to the perception that there is a shift and a reconsideration of the environmental policy of the administration?

SG: I think, on some of the other environmental statements that have been made, I seem to sense that the door is being left slightly open, not completely shut, and that they are willing to talk to others. And I think the test will come in July, when the countries of the world come together to discuss the environment [in Bonn]. And I would hope the administration would go in there, ready to engage, ready to give and take and ready to explore with others what we can do to protect our environment. And I would urge them to do that.

Q: Could you cite any specific things that have given you this idea that the door is open?

SG: I know that there has been quite a lot of consultation with leaders, particularly the European leaders and others, and, of course, here in the country we have also seen the reaction of environmental activists. So there is a series of things. I don't want to cite any specific things. But I think the important thing is that dialogue is going on, it's not that "this is our position, and the door is shut." That's important.

Q: I'm actually asking this question for a fellow reporter who was in Sudan just about a month ago.

SG: I wish him well in Sudan; it's a tough place to be.

Q: Are there any plans on the UN side to respond to the slave trade in Sudan?

SG: I think that UNICEF and the UN agencies have been very actively engaged in protecting children, not only in crisis situations -- whether in refugee camps or others where children are placed at a grave disadvantage -- but we are also determined to ensure that children do not become soldiers. We have a special representative now who is traveling the world, going to trouble spots, dealing with the question of children in armed conflict. And we have today 300,000 children who are armed, who are soldiers, who are also caught in this situation. So we deal with a whole range of issues affecting children, and we are determined to make a difference.

Q: I know we've been talking a lot about the slave trade, about global warming today. What is it you can tell us that is positive this morning?

SG: In the world? I think the one positive thing you noticed this morning at the commencement, there was quite a lot of energy and quite a lot of hope. And I think once you have hope, and people believe you can do something about that, you can do something. On the environmental issue, there are lots of developments, technological breakthroughs. People are looking for renewable sources of energy. Corporations are beginning to understand that even though they make lots of money polluting the world, they probably can make much more money cleaning it up and coming up with a "green" environment. And visionary businessmen are looking in that direction. And what is also encouraging is that civil society groups are engaged. They are pressing companies and Governments to make the right policies, to move in the right direction. And I think this is very encouraging. Ten to fifteen years ago, that was not the case. When I hear -- of course he is one of the best business leaders -- when you hear John Brown of British Petroleum, talk of clean energy, "We're going into electric energy, we are looking for other sources," seeing the energy business, people are going to be looking for clean energy, and that's the direction I should push my company to, I think that is progress. And there are others who are following in the same path.

Q: What's your level of confidence that the United States will return to the Kyoto talks in July? Have you had any direct discussions with the President on that very question?

SG: They have not given me any specific proposals as to what they will do. But the fact that they are engaged, the fact that they are talking to their partners, I expect them to be in the July meeting and to participate. And as I indicated, that would be the real test of the direction they are going to go in. But I would hope, and somehow I feel, that their situation is not immutable when they sit with the others and begin to discuss or what is really the important thing.

Q: When you spoke to the students this morning, were you calling on Americans to make concrete changes in their lifestyles? And if so, what changes?

SG: In a way you can say that whenever I speak to these student groups, you are implying that I spoke to the students, and through them, to the larger world. And the message I had for the students today was not only for them-- you're right. It's a message for all of us. When we decide to buy a new car, why wouldn't we buy a car that is energy efficient? If we all did that, I think you will see a difference in the corporate manufacturing practices. If we decided to buy a house and insisted on an environment that is healthy, that is protected, that is "green", the developers will understand that very quickly. There are all sorts of things that we can do. And not only through making choices through our purchases and all that, but we should also speak up. We should be active, we should be advocates.

And this is one of the reasons why I came up with this Global Compact idea, encouraging corporations to work with us. And the Global Compact basically demands that companies sign up to nine values in the areas of human rights, environment and core labor standards. And this is a very simple, straight work in trying to make corporations socially responsible, and for them to play a role. We tend to think Governments can do a lot, but in today's world, Governments cannot do it alone. They need to work in partnerships with the private sector, with civil society, to do it. The Global Compact simply commits companies into saying, "I will make sure that my production or my facilities do not pollute, for example, the water that produces the fish. I will not wait for the government in Country X to pass a law, before I refuse to employ a child, before I pay decent wages, and so forth." And the response has been quite remarkable, particularly from European nations' corporations, and the American companies are signing up, too.

Q: You mentioned the role of civil society in affecting change. How constructive do you think are the protests, many of which students are involved in, at the free trade discussions of the FTA, and things of that nature. What do you think is the voice that they bring to change the way things are?

SG: Let me first of all say that civil society does not always take that route. And there are lots of well-structured and well-organized NGOs and civil society groups, which have learned the art of politics, the art of lobbying, the art of pressuring, the art of getting Governments to come up with the right policy, and are very active at the international level in the UN and elsewhere. But let me turn you your specific question and say that I know that the violence and noise and shouting, in some cases, have crowded what these people are trying to say.

I think that globalization has made people uneasy. They feel that it is affecting their lives, it may affect their jobs, and that no one is in charge -- and sometimes, no one is in charge. And this is really uneasy and frightening for the people and I think we need to take time to react and to respond to the genuine anxiety that people feel in this country and elsewhere. We saw it with the Asian crisis, with the financial crisis, people who thought they had come out of poverty and were doing very well, who were beggared overnight. How do you go and tell them, "Yes, the factory was operating yesterday, but you lost your job because somebody in New York pressed a button and took the money away." This is very unsettling and very frightening for people. And we need to really explain it to them, and of course the benefits of globalization are not being shared evenly. And indeed the gap between the rich and the poor, between countries and within countries, is expanding. And people are seeking answers and asking questions. The leaders are not always able to explain it to them. And we have to find a way of not only explaining it to them, but also ensuring that whole groups of countries and regions are not marginalized, and that globalization benefits as many people as possible, if not all. *****