Secretary-General's responses to questions from students at Macalester College

SG: Let me start by saying that the US as a major power in the world, the only super-power in the world, does have special responsibilities and a special leadership role. The US as a member of the Security Council, one of five members, has a historic and special responsibility for the Organization and to ensure that the ideals enshrined in the Charter are respected and lived up to. The US has a leadership role in working with other Member States and other governments, to transform the Organization and make it what it ought to be. They have worked with us in many areas - there are other areas where they have stood back. They have been cooperative in our peacekeeping operations, generous in our humanitarian work, and they've worked with us in the fight against HIV/AIDS and on development issues. We've had some differences on issues like the International Criminal Court where the United States has not acceded and has in fact tried to fight against the creation of the court. But I was relieved recently that the U.S. joined other members of the Security Council to refer the case in Darfur to the International Criminal Court. The U.S. does have a leadership role and I would urge it to work with other like-minded countries to make the world what it ought to be and make multilateralism a real force in our world today.

Q: Eve since its birth, the United Nations has been very dependent on the annual financial contributions and, when necessary, the military force of the Member States. Do you foresee a future in which this dependency either will be or should be reduced?

SG: It's going to take along time. There have been suggestions. Let me start with a financial issue first. Obviously as an organization we have no independent source of funding except contributions from our Member States. There have been attempts in the past where suggestions have been made that we should look for innovative and other sources of funding for UN activities for development and for humanitarian action. Some have suggested that we should tax carbon emissions and use that to fund UN activities. We held a meeting in Monterrey a couple of years ago where the question of new sources of funding was very much on the table and the idea of encouraging citizens to help in funding a solidarity fund was broached. And I'm happy to say that some governments have taken that forward. The French have started. They are asking citizens to pay a certain amount on international air tickets which will go into a fund to be used to assist humanitarian activities. The United Kingdom has also agreed to join that effort –I was with the Chancellor Gordon Brown two days ago in New York who confirmed that the U.K. will be joining the effort - and several other governments have agreed to do that. But of course this is not going to be enough to settle our bills so we will have to continue to rely on contributions from the governments until such time that we are creative enough to develop other sources of funding. But of course there has always been the question whether our Member States and our bosses would want us to be that independent. And if it's in their interests. On the question of troops, obviously the UN has no army and we have to rely on troop given to us by Member States. And of course it's not the most efficient way to run a peacekeeping operation. Can you imagine the city of St. Paul, if the city of St. Paul had to run its fire department the way we run our peacekeeping operations? I think most of your citizens would be extremely upset because in a way what we do is when a crisis hits and we get a mandate from the Security Council, then I approach the governments to ask each one of them, “I know you have capacity. Would you give me x number of troops for an operation in Darfur?” They are free to say yes or no, and in fact often even the successful operations take us 4 to 5 months to get the troops on the ground because they are coming from often 10-20 different countries and we have to make sure they have the equipment, they have the training and they can work together [and] come up with a concept of operations. When I made the link to the fire department –it's like telling the head of your fire department that “I know you will have emergencies, I know you will have fires in the city, but we will give you the resources and build you the fire house when the fire strikes.” But somehow or other we do make it work and the idea of having a UN stand-by army, obviously if we did , would make it much easier but it would also entail legal questions –where do you place it, under what legal regime, how do you pay for it, will the Member States pay for it, and what size army? Today we have 85,000 peacekeepers deployed around the world, most of them borrowed from governments. I do not see the UN ever having that size of an army. And if you do have that kind of an army, you have to make sure that if you get in to an operation you resolve it quickly and pull the men and women back, to hold them in the barracks to be able to use them elsewhere. Otherwise you can get stick in one operation and not have the resources for the next one. Thank you.

Q: Mr. Secretary-General, you mentioned in your remarks human rights. The General Assembly Resolution that established the new Human Rights Council states that Member States on the Council “shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and the protection of human rights” and that the election of these Member States shall take into account “their voluntary pledges and commitment mad thereto.” What assurances are there that members of the General Assembly will take these criteria to heart when voting for States who have declared their candidacy?

SG: First of all, they have been encouraged to put forward to pledges that they will uphold the highest human rights standards. Unlike previous years, each candidate must obtain an absolute majority of Member States, that is 96 votes. So we will vote on candidates individually rather than approving a slate. So let's say “Region A” comes up with 10 candidates, each of them must be voted on individually and if they fail to receive the 96 votes they must withdraw and allow others to come forward. We have also indicated that with the new Council, the first to have their records reviewed will be members of the Council. They will review their human rights records because, let's be frank, no government has a 100% clean human rights record. You can find something to criticize about any government when it comes to human rights. Some are much, much better than others, and others can learn from them. So the Council will have the right to review the record of any government and that peer review I think would also put pressure on these members to maintain a good record, not to come back to the Council to be embarrassed year after year, and I think that pressure from the members and civil society is going to play a role. The first election of the new Council will be the 9th of May, and I think that should be able to give an indication how different this new Council is going to be to the Human Rights Commission. My own sense is that you're going to have much better qualified members on this new council, and some of the countries that had bad human rights records and managed to get on to the old Commission will not make it to the Council.

Q: I'd like to ask one or two more general questions. You've been Secretary-General for nearly ten years. Can you identify your greatest challenge during that time as Secretary-General?

SG: I think the greatest challenge was the destructive debate and the division amongst the membership in the lead-up to the Iraq war. That issue really tore apart the membership and it was a very painful experience for me personally because I thought we should have been able to avoid the war. I worked hard with Member States, on the phone and in person, trying to keep the Council together. We failed. Not only did we fail, at the end of the war, I thought we should do whatever we can to get Iraq right because we couldn't afford a de-stabilized Iraq in the centre of the Middle East –a very crucial and sensitive part of the world. So when the [Security] Council asked us to go in and help, I sent in some of our best people –including some of my very close friends –and I think we all know what happened on the 19th of August, 2003, when they were brutally murdered in Iraq. And that was a very painful period for me, for our staff and for everybody. These divisions are healing but they have not healed. They are not completely healed but we need to work harder. We are still trying to get Iraq right. It's going to take time. That period was a very, very painful one and a very disappointing one.

Q: Given disappointments of that kind, and given the fact during your time as Secretary-General you have undoubtedly seen much that could lead to a pessimistic view of the world, what is it that sustains your hope in a better furor for the international community?

SG: There have been lots of difficult situations and painful experiences. But there have also been some positive and exciting developments, and when I travel around the world I come across incredible individuals –ordinary men and women fighting hard for their community, for their children –to make sure they go to school, they are fed –fighting to help a family member dying of HIV/AIDS, knowing that there is medication somewhere around the world that could save their husband or child but because of their situation, their poverty, a disease that need not be a death sentence was going to kill them –and yet when you see their dedication, their struggle, their hope and their attitude of these people you walk away admiring these heroes and heroines. When you get the Member States to accept the responsibility protect –after Rwanda, after Srebenica –that we all have an individual and collective responsibility to step in when we see ethnic cleansing and genocide, it gives you hope. When you get the Member States to accept that Millennium Development Goals –that poverty is our concern, infectious diseases is our concern, environmental degradation is ours and as an international community and as a community of nations, we must all work together to do something about this, that we must fulfill the Millennium Development Goals, it gives you hope and you keep going. So after all these difficult years –and I must admit the ten years have been a perpetual challenge –I never lost my sense of optimism and hope, and you should never lose yours if I can't lose mine, particularly my young friends. So, as I said, keep hope alive and move forward with your journey. Thank you.

Q: I can't resist concluding with one or two Macalester questions. What Macalester experience or courses or activities set you on the path to becoming Secretary-General of the United Nations?

SG: The ping-pong tournaments! In all honesty, a combination of factors –both from the professors, from my debating experience, from Roger Mosvick and others, my experience with my fellow students on the athletic field –it was a complete learning experience. I think you learn from books, from the professors, you learn on the athletic field, you learn to accept discipline, you learn the rules, you learn to play by rules, so there is a learning opportunity in every situation –and I keep learning. I recall it wasn't long ago, my wife and I were in Germany. We were in Berlin. They had just moved the capital from Bonn to Berlin and we had a habit of going for early morning walks. So at about seven o'clock, quarter to seven, we decided to go for a walk and we had a group of German security with us, who took us around. After an hour of walk I told the team leader we wanted to go back to the hotel. He said “javohl.” So we turned around and after ten minutes I realized we were circling. So I looked at him and said “we are lost, aren't we?” He said “yes.” And he said “I come from Bonn, I am new in Berlin, I don't know very well.” So I told my wife another lesson we've learnt today: “Don't ever assume the guide knows where he or she is going.” You have to keep your eyes open. So I must say the whole culture, the whole atmosphere, the family atmosphere here at Macalester really did help me a lot. And I think the international outlook was extremely important and I'm really happy to see that tradition has been maintained throughout the decades.

Q: Final question. I know you have many plans for your future after you step down as Secretary-Genera/, including as you told me work in Africa. Might those plans include coming back and teaching at our Institute for Global Citizenship?

SG: I think that will depend very much on Dean Samatar –if he will have me.