Secretary-General's press conference
Rencontres avec la presse | Kofi Annan, Ancien Secrétaire général
As you can imagine, the situation in Iraq was of course the main topic of conversations. The main question now for Iraq is how we assist the Iraqis to come up with the mechanism for installing a transitional or an interim caretaker government. I think this is an important exercise having come to the conclusion that elections before June 30th is not possible, nor is the caucus system as proposed by the CPA viable. And if we are going to meet the deadline of transfer of power on the 30th of June, then we need to have a body to whom that power could be transferred to -- And therefore the need for the urgent transitional mechanism for the transfer of political power.
I have just forwarded us, you know, my report, the report of the fact-finding mission to the CPA, to the Iraqi Governing Council, and to the Security Council. And I have been able to assure all my interlocutors here in Tokyo that the United Nations is willing to help the Iraqis at this stage and wants to help them to establish their provisional government. And once that government is established, we are ready to place our long experience at the disposal of that government in helping them in electoral assistance, the constitutional issues, with reconstruction, humanitarian activities and human rights. But of course, the Iraqis have the major responsibility, but they cannot do it alone. The international community should provide all the possible assistance.
In the meantime, the efforts to secure the environment to improve security, to create a secure environment must go on because security is essential for me to be able to retain the U.N. staff and it's not just essential for the U.N. staff, it is essential for the average Iraqi to be able to go about their business and participate in their nation building. It is essential for reconstruction, it is essential for elections, so I cannot underscore much stronger the importance of the need to improve security.
Iraq, of course, is far from the only issue on the U.N. agenda. We have many, many issues to deal with and Japan is deeply engaged in most of them. Over the past year, the attention of the world and global leaders were distracted by the question of Iraq and issues of war and peace. And we did not focus on other urgent issues of reduction of poverty, health, environmental degradation and other issues. But as we enter 2004, I think attempts should be made to rebalance the international agenda so that these equally important issues are not overlooked. And I daresay for millions of people around the world, these issues are perhaps the most immediate and most urgent -- the issues of poverty, hunger, disease and environmental degradation as I have indicated. Japan understands these issues, too. And they have taken a lead role in human security, which in a way subsumes some of the issues I have raised here. And I have discussed this with the leaders and encouraged Japanese leadership in this area as well.
The U.N. itself was another major topic in our discussions. As most of you know, I have set up a panel of eminent persons, wise men and women, to advise us on the threats, the challenges and the change we need to be able to confront the 21st century. I would expect them to give me some bold recommendations and solid proposals, which I will put before the General Assembly either later this year or early next year.
I believe the war in Iraq and all the recent events have made clear that some of the existing rules and institutions need to be adopted. I am really looking forward to their recommendations from the eminent panel and as you know, one of your own compatriots, Sadako Ogata, is playing an active role on the panel.
You heard my statement in the Diet today and I did not repeat some of the things that I said there. But I think this is a moment when the United Nations is being defined for the future. There is also a moment when Japan is taking significant steps to support the organization and multilateralism in general. And I believe the confluence of events have had made my visit here very timely and I would like to thank the Prime Minister, the Japanese Government, and the people of Japan for their unwavering support. As I said, I'm leaving here confident that we can count on each other. Thank you very much and I'll be prepared to take your questions.
Q: Good afternoon Mr. Secretary and welcome back to Japan. I have a question on Iraq and in your report you described several options for Iraq to establish an interim or provisional government to which the sovereignty will be transferred. But some experts say that given the difficulty of the situation in Iraq and the time frame, the enlarging the current Iraqi Governing Council is the best way. Would you share your view on this point, please? Thank you.
SG: That is definitely one of the proposals which were raised with my team, led by Mr. Brahimi when they were in Iraq. We have been hesitant, not to single out any one idea or try to tell the Iraqis 'this is the way to go' and impose something on them. I think they have a set of ideas. They have several options to look at and I think as we speak, I expect the Governing Council and CPA to begin their discussions on this. As I have indicated, the U.N. is prepared to assist them in finding a consensus and a formula for establishing an interim or a caretaker government. But what is important is that Iraqis take the lead and see this as something of their own and take ownership of the process. And so I think once it may take a bit longer to have discussions, I think once we are able to get a consensus on the way forward, it is going to be a much more solid basis to proceed and the results are also much more likely to be accepted and not contested the way it would, if it is something that is imposed. And so I will not want to go into details as to my preferred option in order we will assist the Iraqis to define the road ahead.
Q: About UN role of in Iraq, I have some questions. Last August, Mr. de Mello, the special envoy and other members lost their precious lives and it was deplorable event. Regarding the news report submitted, and some options and directions have been delineated. Regarding the United Nations itself, you withdrew from Iraq some time has passed since then. When are you planning to have your representation there in Iraq or when do you think the conditions will be good enough to establish this. Before the provisional government is established, is there possibility that your office would be re-opened?
SG: We should not forget that I just sent a team in, which went in and did a good job and reported back. I have indicated that we are going to assist the Iraqis in defining the way forward and that I am prepared to send the team back in. But let's be clear, for the U.N. staff to go back in larger numbers and establish themselves, which we are prepared to do, the security condition must improve. Otherwise I risk repeating the experience of 19 August. And so when we talk of improved security, it is a serious matter for us. But we are prepared to go back. We have opened an office in the region, headed by Ross Mountain, and we are doing as much as we can from outside. We do cross border activity and monitor the situation until such time that circumstances permit and allow us to send the staff back for longer term and in larger numbers. So security is a determinant factor for us.
Q: How long must Japan continue paying disproportionately high dues to the United Nations? When will Japan be able to take a permanent seat on the Security Council?
SG: Let me say, to answer those two questions, honestly speaking, I will need a crystal ball. But let me, in all seriousness, say that, on the question of the assessed contribution and the level of Japan's contribution, this is an issue for the member states to resolve. The scale of assessment is going to be reviewed in 2006. I don't know if at that point, when they review the global economic situation and look at progress made by other governments, adjustment will be made in the rate that will impact on the Japanese contribution in the direction that you imply.
As to Security Council reform, yes, you are right. The discussions have gone on for quite a long time with so little to show for. But I am hopeful that this new panel, which has been set up, and given what we all lived through in last year with the Iraq crisis, there is a sense that the reform of the Council and the need to bring the Council and structure into today's realities are urgent. And I hope that we will get some bold proposals from the panel which I would put before the member states as I indicated either later this year or late next year. And I hope that next year, which is the 60th anniversary of the U.N. may also be the year when we resolve this question.
Q: What is you personal prospect for Japan's prospects on these questions?
SG: These are issues for the member states. I have made quite clear that I believe the Security Council should be reformed. I have made it clear that the structures and the composition of the Council as it exists today reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945. And that for the Council to become more representative, democratic, and gain greater legitimacy when it takes decisions, we need to reform it and I hope it will happen.
Q: Mr. Secretary-General, if I could follow up or if I could try to push a little bit further on the interim government issue, given the fact that there seems to be quite a diverse opinion amongst the Iraqis who do not feel that it will be appropriate for the U.N. to in a way give them guidance. How do you plan to try to be involved in this process? For instance, do you plan to send Mr. Brahimi back to the region?
SG: Yes, and we have indicated to the Iraqis and to the Government Council that we are prepared to assist and Mr. Brahimi and the team are ready to go back once at an appropriate time, but they will go back to assist. We are not going to sit and do it from New York or sit on our hands. We would want to help.
Q: From yesterday, in the Hague, the International Criminal Justice about the security barrier there was a discussion. And I would like to have your comment on the security barrier.
SG: You know it was said that the General Assembly that referred the case to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion, and the U.N. was also asked to produce some documents and in fact my report in November and an update was given to the Court as part of their proceedings even though we are not part of the oral hearing. And so we will await for the Council's decision. Since the case is before the Council, I wouldn't, before the Court, I wouldn't want to say too much about it. But I think the advisory opinion of the Court is going to be an important one. Even though the government of Israel has decided not to participate, it has submitted written submission. The Court is going ahead and I look forward to hearing the opinion.
Q: I'd like to ask you about the relation between Japan and the United Nations. You just mentioned about this issue although Prime Minister Koizumi says that he will take a balance between international cooperation and the United States and Japan alliance and he told in January in Diet that he was wondering the United Nations would protect Japan in case of invasion by other country. So he emphasized the importance of the United States and Japan alliance and so Japan has maintained the policy centering on the United Nations. Do you see any change of attitude in Japanese administration?
SG: Let me say that when it comes to the defence of nations and protection of national interest, governments usually do not stick to one issue or one approach as the only means to protect themselves. Governments often need armies for protection and they join alliances for protection. They work across borders with allies, they join international conventions, they accept the role of the United Nations as providing the basis for international cooperation and peace and security. They accept the Charter and the universal declaration of human rights as providing the basis and common values for international action and the way we relate to each other. And so it's not an either/or situation. Governments may have their own national army and yet they enter into alliance with others like NATO in order to defend themselves. They cannot say we have an army and we are not going to talk to anybody. We have an army and we are not going to agree to sign international agreements. So I don't see any contradiction with what the Prime Minister said and I suspect he was trying to convey the same message I'm conveying.
Q: The Secretary-General made a proposal about the Global Compact. Would you explain about it?
SG: I launched the Global Compact at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 1999. At that time I was concerned about globalisation and the direction it was going even though at 1999 it was doing so well everybody took it for granted that it was going to continue prospering. Obviously we cannot reverse it. Globalisation is here to stay with us. But can we make it work for everybody, can we give human a globalisation a human face. The basic principle of the Compact is that there are certain basic principles agreed to by all governments in areas of core labour standards, human rights and the environment. And I wanted the multinational corporations to embrace these values and make it part of their daily operations to be able to assist in the area of economic and social development. I wanted the multinational corporations to become part of the solution and ensure that the benefits reach as many people, as others. Today we have 1,200 companies in 70 countries participating in the Compact, and this includes Japan, of course. And what they do is they also not only apply the principles but they report what they do and share best practices with other companies and in some situations they have also even intend partnerships with countries and companies of the developing countries to try and assist in promotion of economic and social development. And yesterday I had the chance to talk to prominent Japanese businessmen about Japan doing more and more Japanese companies joining in the Compact, and I hope that will happen. Thank you.
Q: You've mentioned before that in order to have a formal engagement by U.N. in Iraq security should be improved. Many several European governments and most of the European public opinion think that security could be improved exactly by sending the United Nations troops and maybe pulling out some American troops. Don't you think that the U.N. should work a little bit more on this issue in having the United Nations troops sooner there than giving up as you say until next year.
SG: First of all, I didn't say we are giving up until next year. I indicated that we've gone in and we are prepared to go in again to assist and we're going in even greater numbers when the security situation improves. And in our discussions with the CPA or the Coalition, we have stressed the need to try and improve the security environment and they are very conscious of this. And we are going to continue our own preparations to be able to go back in as soon as we determine that the situation will allow us to return. By talking of security environment for us to be able to return, I am not insisting on Iraq becoming as peaceful as Tokyo or Geneva but there is a minimum that we would require for our staff to go back. You made a reference to UN troops. I don't know if by UN troops you mean UN blue helmets. I do not foresee UN blue helmets being deployed to Iraq. However, I do foresee the Security Council deciding to maintain an international multinational force in Iraq even after the hand over to be able to assist with the security and create an environment that will be conducive to reconstruction.
Q: Mr. Secretary General, you mentioned the issue of contribution. My colleague mentioned the Japan contribution I recall that a few weeks ago, Japan stated that it would reduce its contribution eventually. Now you are here in front of us, could you describe us the situation nowadays of your treasury and financial situation in the UN, and what do you expect more?
SG: It's not too bad, but we are not rich. It is better in the sense that governments are paying their contributions on time, and we are able to function. No government has taken a conscious decision not to pay, which had been the case in the past with the U.S. government. So countries are paying, there are some delays in payment, so let me say that for the moment, we are not too bad, and I am grateful to the member states for honouring their commitments because it is essential if we are going to be able to carry on the tasks they have assigned us. In some of the other areas on where it is voluntary contributions, we wish we can get more money for economic development, more money to fight poverty, more money for some of the painful humanitarian situations. It is tragic, but some situations when you make an appeal, you get very little response. You may get 13 percent. Other situations may be oversubscribed. But the ones that doesn't get responses are sometimes even worse than the ones that you get very positive responses to, and so these are some of the imbalances that worry us. And we are going to do as much as we can to focus the world's attention on the forgotten emergencies and to get assistance to them. If I have asked more of Japan, I did indicate that I would be grateful if they sustained an increased voluntary contribution and contribution for development and I am saying this to all of the countries with capacity.
Q: About the Iraqi issue, I have a question. Secretary General, you met the Prime Minister and our Foreign Minister about the reconstruction of Iraq, responsibility of Japan and the role that the Japanese government should play. Did you make any specific request? If you don't, as far as remember, what do you think is the responsibility of the role the Japanese government should play.
SG: I think the Japanese government and all of the governments should be keenly interested in stability of Iraq, because of the potential for disorder in the region, if we do not help pacify Iraq and things were to get out of hand, it's not just Iraq, but the whole region will pay a price and it's an important region not just from the point of view of oil production, but from political, religious, and other points of view, it is in our interest to work with the Iraqis and the countries in the region to pacify it. So the question of reconstruction, the question of providing assistance for them to pick up the pieces and rebuild their lives is something that should concern all of us and I think on those points the Japanese government has already shown its leadership by making major contributions. In my discussions also they indicated that they want to cooperate with the UN and the UN development agencies and in fact would be making 450 million dollars available to the UN development program in Iraq for them to work together. And if my memory serves me about 150 to 200 million dollars is also for the World Bank and IFC to support these efforts and I think it is the kind of contribution we need to be successful, not just political support, we need resources, we need human resources as far as financial.
Q: It seems if you read the Arabic press that the United Nations credibility is facing a serious crisis especially after what happened in Iraq. Do you feel the same crisis? Do you feel that all of the United Nations is waning and do you feel that you are surviving to achieve your role, or it's just one like problem happened and you will be back on your situation as usual? Thank you.
SG: Not only will we be back, I think we are in our way back and things are improving. I have to admit, we did take a rather hard knock last year, we took a hard knock because of the war. Those who were for the war were terribly upset with the UN and the Security Council that it did not support the war. Those who were against the war, including millions of people around the world, were also disappointed and upset with the UN that we could not stop the war and we couldn't stop the United States from going to war. And so we're blamed by both sides and of course now that the war is over and we all see the aftermath and people are beginning to come together and of course today the UN is in Iraq trying to work with the Coalition and Iraqis to establish an interim government and they all know we have a role to play, I think people are beginning to understand a bit more the role of the UN its limitations what it can do and cannot do. And I think as the people have reported and the journalists have written, they have come to realize that there was no way the UN could have stopped the United States from going to war, the moment it decided to go ahead. How do you do it with resolutions when you have no armies? And I think people are beginning to understand these issues more. The UN does have a unique role. It has a unique role in the sense that it has a convenient power, can bring the whole world together that no one else can. It has the role in developing international law, a role in ensuring that there's a certain basic understanding for international cooperation, and I think the kind of consensus or compact that was agreed to at the end of World War II in 1945 has served us well. The Charter, for example, defined the circumstances under which force can be used. And I think by and large, governments have stuck to that and respected that. And it is those kinds of contributions which are important. It should not overlook the role of the UN in other areas. When it comes to health, there is the United Nations health organizations that ensures that diseases are not carried across border whether its SARS or the Avian flu, they are there. When it comes to intellectual property, there's the UN WIPO that ensures that there's protection. When it comes to telecommunication, there is the UN ITU that ensures that frequencies are coordinated. Air travel is ICAO and so forth and so forth so the UN and its family of agencies have an impact in your daily lives that most people do not realize. The UN, I'm afraid is much much more than one peace-keeping operation. Thank you very much.
Q: Lastly, I may sound rude. The Iraqis, the people in Iraq, the United Nations gave sanction to Iraq when Hussein was there. So some of the Iraqis are not favourable to the United Nations. What do you think about that and how do you think you can correct the situation?
SG: It's a historic fact. I cannot correct it. It is true the Security Council imposed sanctions on Iraq that had to be implemented by all member states. It is also correct that the UN Secretariat was authorised to implement the oil for food scheme so that the ordinary Iraqis do not suffer. And the oil revenues went into an escrow account which was used to buy food, medication, and other essential services for the Iraqis. And I'm under no illusion that for some Iraqis the UN has also been the source of their problems. At the same time, most of them recognize the two UNs. You have two UNs -- the UN of member states that impose the sanctions and took the decisions which had to be implemented and the UN of the Secretariat that had to enforce those decisions secessions and at the same time, help organize the oil for food that provided assistance. Of course for the Iraqis it wasn't so much seen as assistance because after all we were using their own money to bring in supplies. So I'll be naïve to think that all Iraqis see the UN -- whether the member states or the Secretariat -- as heros, but from the report that the team brought back, their source of essence that the UN can help, and that they would welcome that help. Thank you very much.