Q: Mr. Secretary-General, you said yesterday in Washington you were going to send a team to Iraq –an electoral team –for a short time, but you also wanted to break the impasse. Does that mean you're going to mediate after the team comes back?
Exactly what is this team going to do? Are you going to have two teams?
SG: I think the team is going to do the work we've been asked to do, to determine whether elections are possible between now and the end of May, or if we can refine the caucus system or come up with any other option that will be acceptable to the Iraqis. We will be open and talk to as many Iraqis as possible, to try and get to understand what it is that they are worried about, and perhaps try and work with them to get a consensus amongst themselves as to what mechanism would be best for the establishment of a provisional government. I think that if we can get them to agree on that it will be easier to move to the next phase, because if you don't agree on the process, the divisions and discussions will continue.
Q: What's the next phase –mediation or elections?
SG: I wouldn't say it's the next phase. We're dealing with an issue, which is described as technical, but it's also highly political, and so you cannot separate the two. In the process, you need to talk to some of the leaders to see what it is that can be agreed to, so that we can move forward and establish a provisional government. So I don't want to make a separate distinction between the strictly technical aspects and some of the political contacts that we may have, because it will have an impact on the work that we do.
Q: How firm is the June 30th handover deadline? And I ask this because in Davos the Iraqi Foreign Minister said that if there was a possibility of holding elections and it might take an extra month or two, he didn't think that that would be a problem.
SG: Well, when we met here on the 19th of January with the CPA [Coalition Provisional Authority] and the Governing Council, both parties indicated that the 30 June date was firm, but that beyond that we could really come up with options that they can look at and that can help them establish a provisional government, so we are working on the agreement between them. If they were to change that agreement, of course it would be something that we would have to consider, but as of 19 January both parties said the 30 June agreement is essential.
Q: Regarding the much talked about “vital” role for the UN in Iraq. How vital is going to Iraq in making the UN a vital force in dealing with other problems around the world like HIV and poverty that you advocate? And the second question, on the General Assembly: there is some feeling in the General Assembly that reform, especially in its financial aspect, as driven by some of the big powers in the General Assembly, aims to curtail the powers of the General Assembly and to put some of those powers in your hands, because they feel that it's much easier to work with you than to work with over 180 countries.
SG: On the first question, I think the UN has a role to play in Iraq. We had always assumed that after the provisional government has been established, we will work with that government on the constitution, on the electoral process, and plan for a national election probably late next year, or whenever it seems appropriate. So, we have always intended to play a role –that's why I have an acting SRSG in the region working with us, and of course the team that is going in will do what it is there to do specifically to help break this impasse, but of course it will also keep its eye out to see what the situation is on the ground for eventual return of the UN. So, we are not going to go back permanently now. We're going to do a mission and then come out, but we'll keep an eye out.
On the question of the other issue, this is an issue that we discussed in Washington, and I have always maintained that we have other issues to tackle besides Iraq. Whether it is a question of poverty and the fight against HIV, issues of governance and developmental assistance, and I think in Washington the (US) Administration agreed to cooperate with us on all these fronts. And I think some of you also saw a piece the (US) Secretary of State did earlier this year indicating the areas the government was going to focus on. It was much broader than Iraq, and so we will be working together with them, the European Union, and other governments on the kind of issues the Millennium Development goals talk about.
On your question about General Assembly reform, I'm not sure it is correct to put it that way, in the sense that during the budget year there is always very intense discussions between the various groups. The reform that I put forward regarding the budget process, evaluation and results-based budgeting has been fairly well received by the General Assembly and we're moving on. Obviously, a General Assembly of 191 States is not that easy to get a decision from, and this is why the discussions go on forever, and in my own reform proposals I ask a panel to look at how the General Assembly can become more effective and devise a mechanism for bringing discussions to closure rather than discussing items indefinitely, and most of the member States agree with me, so I don't think that it's a competition between the General Assembly and the Secretary-General –it's the General Assembly getting its act together, and doing its work as effectively as it can and I hope the panel will be able to help.
Q: Mr. Secretary-General: On Liberia, there's a big conference for money in the next few days. Why should a nation contribute to what has been called “a failed state, a mess” –a lot of fears that that money may go nowhere. What's the significance of the meeting?
SG: I think the international community has an obligation to help Liberia pick itself up, and it is one thing to go in and deploy peacekeepers and say we're giving them a hand, and we're going to disarm all these soldiers including child soldiers, but if you do not disarm and re-integrate them into society, if you do not give them prospects for making a decent living, if you do not help recovery and reconstruction, you're not really going to be able to succeed, and I think we must all have learned by now the consequences of failed states, and what could happen when a state can be used as a haven by terrorist elements who organize, train and come to haunt the rest of us, and so I think that from a humanitarian and moral point of view it is right that we help. Even from a self-interested point of view, it is right that we help Liberia, and we are also hoping to establish a peacekeeping force in Cote d'Ivoire because it's become a regional problem -- Cote d'Ivoire, Liberia and Sierra Leone -- and really trying to contain that sub-region and work with them to stabilize it.
Q: Do you have a date for Cyprus talks?
SG: Cyprus talks? As you know I had a series of consultations when I was in Europe with the Prime Minister of Turkey, with the [Greek Cypriot leader]. I also spoke to the Greek Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister and they've all indicated their willingness to resume talks and maintain the effort until we come to conclusion. We don't have much time. If we are going to meet the 1st of May deadline, we should move fairly quickly. I intend to invite the parties fairly shortly and I think in the next day or so a date will be set.
Q: Slightly more than a few days ago, you said the Iraq team would go in a few days. I wonder what's holding off the Iraq team going to Iraq. Have you made a decision who's going to lead that team?
SG: Well, the team will go to Iraq and I also indicated that the team will go to Iraq as soon as practical arrangements and security arrangements are assured, and they will be going shortly. I can't say more than that nor can I tell you who's on the team and who's going to lead the team. What I can tell you is that we're going to send a team that is experienced, that is solid and that will be able to carry out the tasks I've assigned it.
Q: Just to follow up, Demetrius Perricos was in Russia the last couple of days. The Russians are talking about the return of UNMOVIC. Given the revelations of the ISG, the Kay report, do you think it's time for UNMOVIC to go back into Iraq?
SG: I think this is an issue that is still on the [Security] Council's agenda. Of course we also have to be conscious of the security situation on the ground. But there's lots of debate on this whole question of mass destruction, which will have to be clarified somehow or the other. If the Council were to decide that UNMOVIC should go back in and play a role, I know that Perricos and his team are ready. We have lots of trained inspectors around the world that we could call upon, but that is a call for the Council.
Q: The current debate in London and Washington about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: Does that debate make you trust Downing Street and Washington more or less?
SG: I think it's not a question of trust in Washington or Downing Street. To be quite honest I've always been a bit suspicious of intelligence. I've always tried to, when we get intelligence, check with other several sources, and it's really an estimate, an assessment of what is likely to happen. It's not a concrete science, so the differences in the debate that is going on is not surprising to me, but since both capitals are setting up committees to investigate, I think I will leave the issue to them to submit their report.
Q: Mr. Secretary-General, what is the status of your contacts, communications, with Mr. Denktash, the Turkish Cypriot [leader]?
SG: I have not heard directly from him yet. I have heard from the Turkish Prime Minister. I haven't heard directly from Mr. Denktash but I intend to get in touch with him.
Q: Mr. Secretary-General, on a very important issue: why did you decide to reverse policy and allow a movie –a major motion picture –to be filmed here? Did the director offer you a scene with Nicole Kidman?
SG: We looked at the script and decided that it would be in the interest of the UN to cooperate. The script and the film will tell a story about peace. A story about peace throught the work of an interpreter, and we think it supports the work that we are trying to do, and also get our message out to the wider public in a manner that we couldn't do ourselves. I know Shashi [Tharoor] is here, DPI [the Department of Public Information] is doing a great job, but I don't think they can compete in that sort of way.
Q: With the threat of terror in the world, the script does call for scenes of violence in the General Assembly Chamber…
SG: We have indicated that we would want to look at the script and see that it doesn't embarrass us or create any awkward moments for us. You seem to know more about how they are going to film it than I do.
Q: You decided to send an electoral team to Iraq. When will you make a proposal about electoral procedure? Are you sure that the CPA and the Iraqi Governing Council will accept the proposal of the United Nations?
SG: First of all, I cannot make any decisions or draw any conclusions until I get their report. As to whether they would accept my conclusions or not, when we met in this building, both parties, the CPA and the Governing Council, indicated they will. Of course that was before they see the report. I hope once the report is on the table the attitude will be the same.
Q: Mr. Secretary-General, how close are you to naming the new High Commissioner for Human Rights, and will that person come from this building?
SG: You will get a very good High Commissioner. I'm not too far off and I think you'll be pleased.
Q: Mr. Secretary-General, two quick questions following up on your talks in Washington. I know one of the thing that you were interested in discussing was the possibility of UN peacekeeping missions in both Ivory Coast and Burundi. Did you get any positive feedback from the Bush administration? And secondly, while you were away, the Israeli Ambassador attacked you personally and I wondered whether you had any comment on that and on the Middle East, where we're going.
SG: I think that on your first question, I did discuss the peacekeeping operations with the (US) Administration and also on the (Capitol) Hill, and I think they were forthcoming. I sense that we will get support. There are some problems, technical issues that may have to be worked out, but they are supportive.
On the comments of the Israeli Ambassador, I really don't want to draw in, I think the whole thing is about the case of The Wall, which is before the ICJ. The defense should be made in The Hague, in the Court, not here in this building.
On the Middle East, I think we've been stuck for a while. We discussed it also in Washington. We would want as the Quartet to be able to do something to move the process forward. I was quite intrigued by Prime Minister [Ariel] Sharon's decision to pull out of Gaza. I think it's a positive development, and I hope the Quartet can work with him in implementing that decision. I see it as a first essential step. Withdrawal from Gaza that has been announced by the Prime Minister, if it does take place, can really give us a very important moment –a new dynamic that can propel the process forward. But of course that should be seen as a first step because there's also the West Bank, which one will have to deal with. Withdrawal from the West Bank would also be required if you're going to establish two states, Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and really fulfill the spirit of “land for peace”. Thank you very much.