TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE BY SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN AT UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT GENEVA ON 30 JANUARY

Press Release
SG/SM/6152

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE BY SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN AT UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT GENEVA ON 30 JANUARY

THERESE GASTAUT, Director, United Nations Information Service at Geneva: I have pleasure in opening this press conference of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. We have interpretation in English and French. Mr. Secretary-General, I should like to thank you for having consented so willingly, on the occasion of your very first visit to Geneva, to give this press conference. May I also add that we were very happy to learn of the appointment of Fred Eckhard as your Spokesman, since we know Fred very well here in Geneva. Fred, you have the floor.

FRED ECKHARD, Spokesman for the Secretary-General: Thanks very much. I think the President of the Correspondents' Association should have a word, if you please.

SAMAR SHAMOUN, President, Correspondents' Association, United Nations Office at Geneva: In the good tradition of the United Nations in Geneva, allow me to welcome you in French, but again in the good spirit of bilingualism I reserve my right to switch languages. We are grateful to you for having taken the time to meet us on the occasion of your first visit to Geneva as Secretary-General of the United Nations. We hope that you are thereby laying the foundations for a tradition which will be repeated whenever you visit Geneva. In the meantime, we intend to continue our smooth cooperation with Thérèse Gastaut's office. We look forward to getting to know you better. In the meantime we are very glad that you have brought back to Geneva our good friend, Fred Eckhard.

Mr.ECKHARD: Thank you so much.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I am very happy to be here among friends. Geneva is a city which I know well, having worked and lived here for eight or nine years. I am happy to be back. To live is to choose and you have indicated that in the name of bilingualism we go back and forth, so you can ask your questions in either French or English and I will answer in either one, depending on how I feel. On that basis let us begin.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, concerning the East Timor question, you stated on 18 December that you did not know how to get out of a 20-year impasse and you said that you would be studying the problem. After conversations with the ambassadors of Portugal and Indonesia in New York, I understand that tomorrow you will be meeting Mr. Ali Alatas in Davos. How do you think you can help to move this process forward?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: You are right, I will see Foreign Minister Ali Alatas in Davos. I have already had the chance of speaking to both sides, the Indonesian side and the Portuguese side, and they are both prepared to move the process forward and continue the talks. As you may recall the talks

- 2 - Press Release SG/SM/6152 31 January 1997

which were scheduled for December last year had to be postponed, and since both sides are ready and prepared to move forward, I intend after appropriate consultations to set in motion the mechanism for the talks. We will try and keep it on a sustained basis and try and bring the parties to some conclusion as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: The day before yesterday President Bill Clinton said he was in favour of a special international police force with a mandate to trace and arrest war criminals from the war in former Yugoslavia. How do you see the chances for the creation of such a force and are you in favour of it?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: First of all let me say that on the question of war criminals and the question of justice in Bosnia, I firmly believe that without justice the healing cannot begin. Justice and peace are indivisible in this situation. Obviously, it is a delicate balance. We need to move the peace process forward, we need to try and rebuild Bosnia into a strong, unified State. At the same time we need to deal with the criminals. So there has been a tendency in some circles not to take any initiative that would derail or slow the peace process. But the need for justice is still there. On the question of special police units in Bosnia to deal with the war criminals, I really cannot say much about it because I have not been consulted on this and I do not know the details. We have our own police monitors in Bosnia who are doing a very credible job in helping train and prepare the national police. I will perhaps hear more about this new proposal when I go back to New York, so I cannot say much about it.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, I would like to ask you a sort of general question on democracy. Your predecessor had set up an agenda for democratization, are you going to maintain it? What is your vision about the Secretariat doing a better job for achieving democracy at the international and national level?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Yes, I will continue the efforts of my predecessor in that area and I think the United Nations has now become firmly engaged in the democratic processes around the world. In 1994 we received seven requests to monitor elections and to help Governments with electoral processes. Last year we received 120 and the numbers are increasing. I think on the developmental side our agencies, like the United Nations Development Programme and others, have been quite active with the Governments' programme, with institution-building, and we will continue these efforts. On the economic side, we have been helping Governments to make the transition from controlled economies to private sector development, both in developing countries and in countries in transition. And in fact my trip to Davos is in connection with that effort. We recognize that, given the influence of the private sector and corporations; and given their impact on investments, we need to get to work with them in partnership to help developing countries and countries in

- 3 - Press Release SG/SM/6152 31 January 1997

transition. We cannot keep chasing donor dollars, which are diminishing, when the bulk of the resources are controlled elsewhere. And of course privatization, democratization and the freeing up of the political process work hand in hand.

QUESTION: Mr. Annan, is it normal, in your opinion, that the Secretary- General of the United Nations should be obliged to pay a special visit to Mr. Jesse Helms to get the United States to consider paying its contribution? And while we are on the subject, what is the latest news about the repayment of the American debt to the Organization? That's the first point. The second point is the reform of the United Nations currently under way. You have been elected, inter alia, to continue the reform which was initiated by your predecessor. What are the priorities of this reform and what are, in your view, the consequences of this reform for the status of the United Nations Office at Geneva and the specialized agencies in Geneva?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Very impressive. You asked four questions in one. Let me first say that I had to go to Washington for several reasons. First I was invited by the President, and second Senator Helms invited me to come for coffee. I had very useful and constructive discussions in Washington. The Administration is committed to paying its dues to the United Nations, and by the Administration I mean the President, the Vice-President, the new Secretary of State, and the whole team. But I had to also go to Capitol Hill to explain what the United Nations is about, to explain that the United Nations is essential for the United States and that United States leadership is essential for the United Nations. I had to go to the Hill because they hold the power of the purse and I had to clear up certain misunderstandings. The question has been asked: Would you visit all the 185 Member States? They all have Parliaments. I know that, but my answer to that is I will devote as much attention to any Member State that pays 25 per cent of the budget and owes $1.3 billion. To the next question -- Would they pay? I am hopeful that the payment will be made. I think the intention now is to ensure that the amounts due to the United Nations are included in the President's budget and that the sum will be appropriated and be paid over a period of two years or so, as we move forward with the reform, and with the commitment to remain current on future assessments. In other words, I would expect that in time they will clear the arrears but undertake to pay future assessments in full and on time. I think the American people do not like to owe. They see themselves as very democratic, law-abiding people, and most Americans I speak to are embarrassed that their country has found itself in this situation. I am also encouraged by the discussions I had on the Hill. I believe that most of the Senators found the discussions and the explanations useful. And they are honourable gentlemen, and I am sure at the end of the day they will do the right thing and pay.

Let me now turn to the question of reform. Reform will not be restricted to New York -- it will affect all our duty stations. I think the main objective of the reform is to create a United Nations that is leaner, efficient, effective in terms of aiming for the right results and right objectives and relevant and adapted to the challenges of the future and of today. The emphasis is not going to be just to cut and not settle the issue of the role of the Organization. What we should be doing is taking a holistic approach. It may be necessary to make cuts. It may be necessary to eliminate some units and we are going to seek to eliminate duplication and make sure

- 4 - Press Release SG/SM/6152 31 January 1997

that our activities are better coordinated and harmonized and pool our efforts with all the various agencies to be able to get better value for the dollar. And I think with that sort of objective we have the support of all the Member States to go for reform. I can say this because I have consulted all of them since my election. I have spoken to all the five regional groups and almost all the Members were there. So the Member States want reform. The staff want reform. We would all want to see an effective Organization. So what the United Nations wants is also what the United States wants. There is some agreement on this and I think we should be able to move forward. I look forward to the United States also paying its arrears to us. On the question of consequences for Geneva, I cannot say at this stage. I think there has been some modest downsizing in Geneva, some units have moved out but other units have moved in, and I don't think the impact on Geneva will be any more or any less than on other duty stations.

QUESTION: To continue a bit on reform I will try to give you just one question. I believe that it will be exceedingly difficult for you to undertake the kinds of reforms you want until the United States in fact does pay up, at least a good percentage of what it owes. At the same time, Mr. Helms says that the reforms must be there and must be visible before he will sanction the money to come in. Do you feel that you are in a Catch 21 situation? Or is it Catch 22? I am not so good on my literary references.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: No, I thought you used 21 advisedly in that you felt we were making progress. Let me say that I am on record as saying that we cannot undertake reform on a shoe-string budget. I think that the money will come, and I also think that we can demonstrate that we are serious about reform and we will put in place a reform that is visible, and quantifiable. Once our plan is made public, with a timetable, if Senator Helms and the Senate want to monitor that and see that we meet the benchmarks we set, I do not think that will be too problematic for us. What I did tell the Senate would be difficult to do if some arbitrary targets were set, without any relation to what our plans are and what we are going to do. And so, if they keep current on future assessment and come up with plans to pay their arrears, and we keep up with the reform, I think we will all be all right.

QUESTION: Secretary-General, this question refers to your former responsibility as Under-Secretary-General for Peace-keeping. The United Nations is being widely blamed for the fall of the United Nations protection zone in Srebrenica in July and the following massacre of up to 8,000 civilians. I think this event has very severely undermined the credibility of the United Nations and the confidence in its future ability, both for peace-keeping and for peace enforcement. But the internal documents of the United Nations and of governments that emerged last week clearly show that it was President Jacques Chirac and the French Government who ordered the United Nations Commander at this time not to defend the enclave and not to call in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). These documents also show that he gave assurances to President Slobodan Milosevic that the enclave would not be defended. Finally, the documents show that you were very well informed about all that. I refer, for instance, to a cable sent to you by Mr. Yasushi Akashi on 19 June 1995. So my question to you would be, why have you been silent on all that for the last 18 months, thus allowing the United Nations being blamed over and over again for this disaster in Srebrenica? And will you, now that you have been elected Secretary-General, help to set the

- 5 - Press Release SG/SM/6152 31 January 1997

historical record straight about what really happened in Srebrenica?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: That is a long question with references to documents and statements that I have not seen. Let me first say that if there was a failure in Srebrenica -- which I agree with, Srebrenica was a failure -- it was our collective failure. By our collective failure, I mean failure of the international community. If the international community had made the resources available and set up the safe havens with effective defence mechanisms, maybe what happened would not have happened. You do not set up a safe haven with 350 lightly armed officers, with 4,000 troops on either side, and expect them to defend it. The mandate also said use your presence to deter aggression, not to defend, and that perhaps explains why the resources did not come and the original request from the Peace-keeping Department, following our planning and analysis was for a much higher figure. And so it was our collective failure and I regret that the courageous Dutch soldiers who did what they could, setting up roadblocks, and others who were overrun are sometimes blamed for what happened in Srebrenica. We all failed in Srebrenica. We all failed the Bosnian State. I have no information on the allegations that you make. I have heard the allegations but I have no confirmation that a deal was made between the French President and Mr. Milosevic and so I cannot really answer your question. These are serious allegations, but I have no proof and I cannot go further on that.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, the image of the United Nations in the Arab world has deteriorated since the Persian Gulf war. The prevailing opinion in the region is that this Organization is very effective when it comes to imposing sanctions, whether it be on Iraq or on Libya or soon on the Sudan, but it is absent when it comes to peace processes such as that between Palestinians and Israelis, and ineffective in the case of Western Sahara. Is improving the image of the United Nations in that region of the world among your priorities? If so, how are you going to set about it?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: The United Nations has taken the crisis in the Middle East very seriously. There are many resolutions to attest to that and quite a lot of the discussions going on today are based on previous United Nations resolutions. You may not always be able to solve the crisis as quickly as you would want, but I think one thing we all have to understand is that peace cannot be imposed and that, at the end of the day, the inspiration for acceptable and viable peace has to spring from the leaders and the people on the ground. The United Nations can help and we have been doing quite a lot to help. If the will to settle is not there, and if the parties use negotiations as a tactical move to further their selfish objectives, there is very little the international community can do. But having said that, I think we have done a lot in the Middle East. We continue to take interest in developments, we are deployed in several locations in the Middle East. On the sanctions issue, let me say that I agree with you, sanctions is a blunt instrument and it often affects the weak as well as the strong, and in some cases perhaps strengthens the leader in office in that he or she is able to look after himself and close associates while the weak suffer. And I think it is with that spirit in mind that the Security Council approved their "oil-for- food" scheme. I myself went to Iraq to convince them to consider that proposal to ensure that the needy do not suffer, and I led the first United Nations negotiations with the Iraqis in Vienna in an attempt to ensure that the scheme went forward and that the needy did get food. And so the

- 6 - Press Release SG/SM/6152 31 January 1997

United Nations did show some sensitivity on this issue.

On the question of Western Sahara: Yes, the political process has not moved very far but I think on the peace-keeping front the United Nations has been successful. Since we deployed our troops, the fighting has stopped and the confrontation between the parties has ceased. There has not been fighting for several years since we deployed. And on the political front, my earlier remarks are relevant.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, do you have the capacity to give more weight to the Centre for Human Rights? And, a second question, do you think it is good that the Department of Humanitarian Affairs should be divided between New York and Geneva?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: The Centre for Human Rights, like all units, can do more and we can all improve and be more effective and I am meeting both with High Commissioner José Ayala-Lasso and Assistant Secretary-General Ibrahima Fall today to discuss what we can do in that field. On the question of giving them more authority and more power, I am not sure they need more than they have. I think it is more a question of working with Governments, with non- governmental organizations and moving on with their work. But as I said, I am going to be talking with both of them today.

On the question of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, the suggestion that the two units -- one in New York and one in Geneva -- should be brought together has been on the table for quite some time and this is one of the issues we will look at as we move forward with our reform programme.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, earlier this morning in your speech to the Conference on Disarmament, you mentioned in passing the problem of conventional weapons. The Conference on Disarmament is not examining conventional weapons in a negotiation phase. I am wondering if, in your mandate, you will support a push for a round of negotiations on conventional weapons and I would like to hear your views on whether there should be a moratorium on production and export subsidies for the sale of conventional weapons used in battle.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think, even though it is not on the agenda of the Conference, it could be used as a good forum and a logical one to look at some of these issues, and I think I did make that reference in my statement today. I think it would be wonderful if Governments were to unilaterally declare a moratorium on the sale of conventional weapons and land-mines. I think we all know the harm these weapons do. We all know the conflicts around the world at the regional and subregional levels, where at the end of the cold war cheap weapons are flooding into these regions, causing incredible conflicts and mainly killing civilians. And I would appeal to Governments to take unilateral decisions and impose an embargo until such time that there is an international agreement. The fact that others do not agree to do that, the fact that others are determined to sell weapons that kill should not be an excuse for humane and sensible Governments not to do it.

QUESTION: Do you support a moratorium on export credits for the sale of

- 7 - Press Release SG/SM/6152 31 January 1997

weapons?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: That I would not want to commit myself on. I would need to look into that a bit more.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General, I am deliberately asking my question in French and I hope that you will reply to me in French. My question is in fact two questions, which concern Africa. It would seem that you are determined to give a new role to the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in the forthcoming reforms so as to make UNIDO an instrument for Africa alone. Is this true and do you have the means to do this? This was reported in the past few days. I believe you were determined to support UNIDO and not to cut back the role of UNIDO around the world. And for my second question I believe that you were to have gone to Angola but were not able to do so since you were with Mr. Clinton. Is it easy to reinforce this peace which was signed only last week?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I did not fully understand your first question because I do not think I have made a statement on that subject. As to my journey to Angola, I was not due to travel to that country. It was clear that I could not be there. I am in the process of planning a trip, possibly around the end of February. There was no question of my being there on 25 January. I knew that there was a meeting on 25 January, but this was not planned. Would you please repeat your first question?

QUESTION: You are aware of the difficulties faced by UNIDO in Vienna today. After the United States, certain countries, for example, I believe, Germany, at a given moment have decided to withdraw, but Germany has perhaps reversed its decision, if I am not mistaken. But the United Kingdom is sticking by its decision not to support UNIDO in the future. Will UNIDO be going through bad times? Will UNIDO be able to work? But I read in a paper which has a lot of coverage of African affairs that you had said that you would like to transform this agency into a tool for the industrial development of Africa.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: That is not correct. I have never said that. Obviously, if the Member States are not prepared to support UNIDO, we will have enormous problems, and I wonder if they will overcome them. But that remains to be seen.

Mr. ECKHARD: We have more than a dozen people still waiting for questions. With the Secretary-General's indulgence we will go a little beyond 1 p.m.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I do not come to Geneva very often so let us do it.

QUESTION: Sir, I would like to ask you about Iraq. Security Council resolution 986 (1995) goes through June. Do you anticipate difficult negotiations once again with the Iraqi Government to get it renewed for six months, or is it automatic? I would like to know your interpretation of resolution 687 (1991): What do the Iraqis still have to do?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: My expectation is that, now that we have begun the scheme if all goes well it will continue, it will be extended for another six

- 8 - Press Release SG/SM/6152 31 January 1997

months. The need that necessitated the passage of the resolution will still be there, and the assistance that we are trying to give to the people of Iraq will still be necessary. And so my sense is that it will be extended for another six months, barring unforeseen developments. On resolution 687, I think it is clear what is expected of Iraq, and Rolf Ekeus has made that clear to the authorities. The expectation is that they will cooperate fully with the inspectors and work with them in destroying the weapons which are still in the country. And if they cooperate, provide all the evidence and allow the inspectors to destroy the weapons, or take the necessary material out for analysis, I think the Council will react appropriately.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General my question is: Do you think Switzerland's perceived neutrality has been compromised and its position as host to the United Nations, and other agencies has been compromised by the deceit over Jewish funds and Holocaust?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think that the whole issue in a way has been a difficult one for Switzerland and a public relations disaster, but as far as the United Nations is concerned I think agencies will continue to do their work and we have no intention of moving elsewhere. Besides we really do not have that much flexibility. I hope the issue will be resolved quickly, appropriately and equitably and to the satisfaction of all concerned. It is unfortunate that it has dragged on so long.

QUESTION: At the time you were responsible for peace-keeping operations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali announced an investigation in order to clarify the claims made by Graça Machel in her report, blue helmets and sexual exploitation of children. I wonder if this investigation has started, and if so, what are its findings? Secondly, I would like to know what steps you are planning to take in order to reactivate the political dialogue in Western Sahara and in this case whether you will endorse the plans prepared by your predecessors or whether you are planning to come out with a new initiative?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: For those of you who do not know the Graça Machel report, it dealt with prostitution involving United Nations peace-keepers in Mozambique, and prostitutes who were minors. At the time of the incident, we investigated it and punished the troops involved. In fact we sent them back home, and requested the Governments concerned to punish them because, as you know, we had borrowed these troops and had no jurisdiction over them. We had a similar situation in Bosnia where, after the investigation, the troops were sent home on the understanding that their Governments would punish them. We did set up a unit, a group to investigate, and in fact it was my Department that set up that group. The group came up with several recommendations including enhancing our training efforts. This has to begin at home. When I mean begin at home, it has to begin with their Governments, in the training of their own troops before they become peace-keepers. A good peace-keeper is a good soldier, a disciplined and conscientious soldier. Often it is said peace-keeping is not a soldier's job, but only a soldier can do it. We are also coming up with guidelines which the troops will carry with them, a sort of a code of conduct, which they can put in their pockets. But I think what is more important is to work with the Governments to give them proper training, sensitize them before they leave home. It is not an easy subject, and it is a rather complex problem in that the age of maturity differs from society to society, but we would hope that they would accept the age of 18 for the age of maturity and that all Governments would endorse it. Part of

- 9 - Press Release SG/SM/6152 31 January 1997

military training would be to sensitize the troops to this kind of problem and make them aware and be gender sensitive.

To go back to the question on Western Sahara, we are reviewing our whole approach, particularly on the political front. For example, what sort of initiative we can take to move the process forward. We have not been able to move ahead with the identification process because we have not got the cooperation that we need but we are reviewing our presence on the ground and trying to see globally what initiatives we can take. Also whether we need to bring in other countries to work with us in breaking the impasse.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary-General. I would like to go back to the subject of the Centre for Human Rights. The Centre has about 1 per cent of the total United Nations budget, more or less, which seems to bear no relation to the political, and moral importance of the Centre, so I have two questions. Are you planning to try to augment the budget at the Centre in order to make it more effective, and are you planning to restructure it?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: We are in the process of preparing our budget for 1998-1999 and this will be one of the issues we will be considering. I would also want to say here that quite a lot of the human rights work is also done through voluntary contributions. The monitors who are deployed in Burundi and Rwanda were sent thanks to voluntary contributions. So in your reports and in your articles also encourage Governments to be generous, to give and give freely, willingly and generously for this important aim. On restructuring, it is going on and it will be pushed further.

Mr.ECKHARD: I am afraid this will have to be the last question.

Question: Mr. Secretary-General, I have one and a half questions. In view of the fact that the United States will leave Bosnia in 18 months and that NATO may or may not follow, do you envisage the possibility of the creation of a new United Nations Protection Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNPROFOR II) which will have instructions similar to those of the present NATO force? The feeling is that when foreign troops leave -- if it is in 18 months, I dare not say 18 years -- the parties may start fighting again. As for the half question, you have mentioned the presence of United Nations police in Bosnia. It is there to train local police, but do you envisage the possibility of giving them instructions to be really a police force?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: What happens if the Stabilization Force (SFOR) were to withdraw? Would there be an UNPROFOR II? I would hope not. I think the United Nations did quite a difficult job in Bosnia, and there are some of you in this room who saw the United Nations activities on the ground and also saw how difficult it was for the men and women who were there. They did make a major contribution by feeding the needy, taking great risks, and I think perhaps one of the most important achievements of the United Nations which is often ignored by the media and policy-makers is that because the United Nations went in early and obliged all the big Powers to work together under the United Nations umbrella, it prevented them from getting involved individually and competitively with disastrous results. I think we have a job

- 10 - Press Release SG/SM/6152 31 January 1997

to do, the international community that is, and I would hope we would have the patience and the determination to sustain the effort. What we are there to do in Bosnia needs time and will take time. Those on the ground who are doing it now, I think, should stay and do it and get it to a logical point. To entertain the proposition you have put forward that those who are there now will withdraw and we will reintroduce UNPROFOR II, I think would be an unfortunate development. I also think that really our world should try and take a longer-term view of things. The leaders who set up the United Nations in 1945 knew they were building something for the longer term. They always took the longer-term view of what they were doing. They built the United Nations after the Second World War to make sure we do not repeat what we went through in that conflict. They came up with a Marshall Plan and they knew it was a long haul; it was three or four years before they saw results. We came up with a Universal Declaration of Human Rights which we did not have at the time of the Second World War. Of course we all belong to a society that now looks for instant gratification, and we tend to lose patience very quickly when things do not happen. I hope this will not happen in Bosnia. I think it is essential that we help Bosnia to stay together, to repair its infrastructure and really manage the implementation and the reconstruction in such a manner that it will be bonding and that the people will see their future in Bosnia as a common home. Because if we become impatient and leave, and, let us assume Bosnia falls apart, you may have a greater Croatia and a greater Serbia. What happens to that little strip of land in the middle? Would it be a Gaza? Or would it be an Israel with all the means to defend itself? Can we afford another Gaza or another Israel? I think when we consider the alternatives I hope it will focus our minds and make us put in all the effort necessary to do it.

Now on the United Nations police: I do not think that the Member States who loaned us the police would want to give the police force executive authority in the sense of going out arresting people and enforcing the law. We did get them to monitor, to train, to prepare the local police as they reconstitute themselves. As you know, the members of the International Police Task Force (IPTF) are not even armed, and they have done quite a good job. Policing is very much a national and local activity, for which you have to apply local laws; you have to understand the local psychology and local culture to be able to do it effectively. You could imagine if we were to import Ghanaian policemen or policemen from New York to do police work in Geneva, the confusion you could get. So I think the United Nations police will continue to train and work with the local police and strengthen it. I do not think we would want to take on the functions of the local police, nor would the Governments allow it. Thank you.

* *** *