TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE BY SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN AT UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS ON 11 SEPTEMBER

Press Release
SG/SM/6321

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE BY SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN AT UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS ON 11 SEPTEMBER

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Excuse me -— I swallowed the wrong way just as I was introduced, and I can assure you it was not nervousness.

Let me say that I am very happy to be back and to see all of you. I hope you have also had the chance to have some vacation, because I think we all need it periodically.

A lot has happened in the summer. My own annual report is out, and there are lots of developments in the Great Lakes region in central Africa. We have all monitored what is going on in Bosnia and other parts of the world. Since we don't have too much time, I don't want to take any more time on preliminary remarks. So we can go straight to questions. But I am happy to see you all again.

QUESTION: Welcome back, Mr. Secretary-General. We hope that this will become a monthly meeting with you.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: It will.

QUESTION: We are still looking forward to that. My question is about the controversy that you had recently with Algeria, due to the statement you made. After that, you spoke to President Zeroual, and a couple of days ago you spoke to the Ambassador. Do you stick to your position? Were you apologetic to President Liamine Zeroual? Where do you stand now on the original statement about Algeria?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Let me say that, right from the beginning, I did say that as Secretary-General I would offer my mediation or intervene wherever I thought that would be helpful. I think I indicated in the press statement that was issued that President Zeroual and I met at the Organization of African Unity (OAU) summit meeting, and we did discuss developments in Algeria. He was quite hopeful that, after the elections, things would calm down. I think you all know what I said, and you also know the reaction of the Algerian Government. Not too long ago -— I think, a few days ago -— I was asked whether the United Nations was going to get involved. I indicated that, given the statement by the Government, there was not much -— it takes two to tango. The President hopes that, now that second set of municipal elections are coming up in October, all parties and all democratic forces will take part in them, and that after the elections hopefully things will begin to calm down.

QUESTION: Did the Algerian President reject your offer of mediation outright? And, precisely, do you back off on your original call that there is a need for a dialogue?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: The President did indicate that Algeria has the means, has the strong institutions and capabilities to resolve the issue

- 2 - Press Release SG/SM/6321 11 September 1997

itself, which means that no external intervention is acceptable to the Government. He believes that his approach will work, and that what is important is for all parties to join in the democratic efforts he is making to resolve the conflict in Algeria. I think that, as a human being, even though one condemns terrorism, no one can fight with me for defending the sanctity of life and the fundamental rights of individuals.

QUESTION: Welcome back. My question is on Cyprus. The Troutbeck and Glion high-level meetings have not produced the expectations of some parties. How realistically do you think that (inaudible) change this deadlock that has been going on for a very long time?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: It is unfortunate what happened in Switzerland. The meeting we had in Troutbeck went reasonably well. After that, when the two leaders got to Cyprus, they met several times, and that was the first time they had met in three years, even though they live 30 minutes apart. So, it was a positive development. They discussed some of the humanitarian issues, particularly the missing persons, so we were encouraged. But, of course, in Switzerland the question of the European Union's discussion of Cyprus' membership was used to complicate the discussions. I would hope that this will not persist forever. I noticed yesterday in the media that Mr. Clerides has indicated that he is prepared to come to the table at any time, and I would hope that the Turkish side would also be prepared to do that. Realistically, with the elections planned in Cyprus, I don't think we can anticipate any more talks this year. I think it would be more realistic and rational to have them after the elections, because I think the elections are already beginning to cast a long shadow over the talks.

QUESTION: As we now head into the General Assembly campaign here, regarding the relationship between the United States and the United Nations, are you satisfied with the proposed payments by the United States? I know some months have gone by. Where do we stand on that? How do you think, after several months of being in office, the United Nations image in the United States has moved? Has it gone up? Has it gone down? What is your sense?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think that we have made some progress in our discussions with Washington regarding the amounts due to the United Nations. The bill before Congress is for the United States to release $819 million to the United Nations. There is expectation in some quarters that even that sum can be increased slightly. But, as you know, it comes with conditions that we know most Member States do not welcome. I hope that in the final discussions in Congress some of these things can be dropped. And if they are not, the United States Administration will have to find a way of managing it in a manner that does not disrupt the work in this house or increase tensions among Member States.

As to the United Nations image in the United States and around the world, I think it has improved somewhat. I think there is serious discussion

- 3 - Press Release SG/SM/6321 11 September 1997

and debate in this country about the role of the United Nations and the United States' place in it. We have seen that the newspapers and editorial writers are becoming engaged. And in the Senate itself, for the first time in about 12 years, there was a very serious discussion on what the United Nations does or does not do. So, I think we are moving in the right direction, not just in the United States, but around the world. And I believe that once we have put through the reform proposals and continue to work on our priorities, the Member States will begin to realize that this is an important institution. They do realize it. And we are moving in the right direction, we are strengthening the Organization and positioning it for the next century.

QUESTION: What are your views on this proposal for demilitarization of the island?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think that demilitarization and removal of arms in any region of the world is something that the United Nations cannot but applaud. Obviously it is a complex situation, and it will also require others to do the same thing. And any attempt to demilitarize, if others join in, we will support it. But it is not going to be easy.

QUESTION: In one of your reform proposals -— one of the major ones, on the administration of the United Nations -— you have asked for results-based budgeting. In other words, once the General Assembly approves an overall budget, you would be left alone to implement it. Yet, at the same time, there is continuing friction and quite a bit of bad blood between Mr. Connor's office [Under-Secretary-General for Administration and Management, Joseph E. Connor] and the General Assembly's Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary). The latest development is a letter from the United Republic of Tanzania saying that the administration of the United Nations has done things which specifically the Fifth Committee had said should not be done. How do you propose to deal with the situation?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think we need to increase the dialogue between the administration, the Secretariat and the Member States, particularly in the Fifth Committee and the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). What we are proposing is a major shift, which requires discussion and dialogue. And I also believe that if we were able to get the reform that is proposed, it would be easier for us to manage this place.

I think over time the line between the role of the legislative bodies and the Secretariat and the Secretary-General has been blurred. I think there has been too much micro-management. I believe that the Member States should focus on legislation and not get too involved in the administration and management of the Secretariat. Nor should we get too involved in the legislative process, interfering, lobbying and doing things. We can present substantive papers. We can explain positions, but not do ... I am aware of the tensions that you referred to. But they are not insurmountable. I think,

- 4 - Press Release SG/SM/6321 11 September 1997

with straightforward and honest dialogue and exchange of views, we can improve the situation.

QUESTION: Regarding the so-called democratic Congo, why have you been so soft with [President Laurent] Kabila, giving in to all his demands? What is the rationale behind this policy? And also, what do you realistically expect from the mission?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: First of all, I think it is wrong to say that one has been soft with Kabila. To come up with an approach and a persistent effort to put a team down and to ensure that we get to the truth and find out what happened, and take whatever steps are necessary, and by doing that also send out a message that impunity cannot be allowed to go unpunished, and that we cannot accept a world in which men can be so inhuman to each other and not be sanctioned. If we had accepted the original rejection -— that [Roberto] Garretón could not go in -— we would not have a team in today.

We have a team in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is not smooth sailing. President Kabila indicated he was prepared to accept them. The team is there. We are going to test the seriousness of the Government, and we are determined to get to the facts. If it gets to a situation where it is impossible for us to do our work, then, of course, we have to draw the right conclusions.

Yes, we have had very mixed signals from different ministers in the Republic. Each one says something different. But in the end President Kabila himself finally wrote to me, cutting through the confusion, and said "We will let you go ahead with your work." The team is there and will be starting its work soon. If the difficulties persist, and they are not allowed to do their work, then the facts will be there for the whole world to judge.

QUESTION: How long are you willing to wait?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think this idea of time -— it's not just a question of time, you have to link this to progress, to achievement, to facts and actions on the ground. I'm one of those who has always been uncomfortable with the tendency to set arbitrary deadlines. I did, in fact, in my correspondence indicate a deadline, and, of course, you noticed that in his response to me he was upset that I had given him an ultimatum. On the other hand, I could not let the team sit in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for a long time without being able to get their work done.

So, yes, I did indicate that if we did not get a signal from him personally that they could move on with their work, I would have no option but to instruct them to leave and let the Council and the world decide what should be done. And that was when I got his letter indicating we can proceed.

- 5 - Press Release SG/SM/6321 11 September 1997

But I am not prepared to give you a timetable as to when I will withdraw them. It will depend very much on what happens on the ground.

QUESTION: As you are aware, the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan are coming here (inaudible), and you will also be aware that in the last two weeks there has been border fighting between India and Pakistan. Would you take this opportunity to encourage both these leaders to sit down and talk at this point in time, if they have not scheduled any such talks? And what is it that you would tell them? The situation, as it is, is getting grim.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: It is regrettable that these incidents have taken place on the border between India and Pakistan, because I think the leadership shown by the two Prime Ministers in trying to resolve the Kashmir issue and trying to improve relations between the two countries is admirable, and they have shown tremendous courage in moving the process forward. So, I regret the recent incidents. I hope that what has happened is not going to block the discussions, and I would hope to talk to both sides when they come to New York. And I will continue to encourage the discussion, the dialogue, their efforts to solve this problem -— as I have always done.

QUESTION: I want to turn the discussion back to the General Assembly for a minute. It's going to be a very busy session with Security Council reform, your own reform plans, the United States' demands. I'm wondering, first of all, what specifically you would like to see focused on in debate at the beginning. And to fast forward to the end, what exactly do you expect to see accomplished?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Obviously, from where I stand, I would hope that when the General Assembly convenes, the leaders would come to the Assembly convinced that the most important issue before them is reform, and begin to deal with the package of reforms that I have proposed and then take on the other issues. I think it is important that we move ahead with reform, that we demonstrate to ourselves and to the world that the United Nations is not only capable of reform, but also determined to reform and render this Organization the effective organization that it ought to be. Obviously, some of the issues that you have raised are contentious. There are going to be acrimonious discussions around them. But I hope the process will be managed in such a way that these issues do not poison the atmosphere for the deliberations on the reform package.

QUESTION: Do you think the United States will win a concession on the assessments?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think that will depend on the creativity and the persuasive abilities of the United States Government.

- 6 - Press Release SG/SM/6321 11 September 1997

QUESTION: Yes, Mr. Secretary-General, you mentioned Bosnia, and I would like to turn to the International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Recently, in the interview I conducted with Justice Louise Arbour, the Prosecutor, she told me that, before the apprehension in Prijedor, she characterized the Tribunal as almost paralysed. How would you characterize the current level of activities of the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think the judges, obviously, would want to see as many of the indicted criminals arrested and delivered for trial. I have made it clear that, as competent as the judges are and as determined as they are to do their work, they cannot proceed with their work until others do theirs by delivering the prisoners for trial. Yes, there was an arrest in Prijedor. There was also another arrest in Eastern Slavonia. But there are still many more at large.

We have an interesting dichotomy between the two Tribunals in that The Hague Tribunal, which was the first to be established, had gone over all its administrative and managerial difficulties, but it does not have that many people to put on trial yet. But I hope that will change. The Rwanda Tribunal, which has gone through all sorts of administrative and managerial difficulties, now has about 20 people in jail, including some of the big fish, as one would call them. So, in fact, in discussions with Mrs. Arbour, we indicated that the jurisprudence on this type of tribunal is likely to be written in Arusha and not in The Hague because of the delay in delivering the indicted criminals.

But, recently, there seems to be a determined effort on the part of the international community and the Stabilization Force (SFOR) to put pressure on the indicted criminals and on the governments in the region to work with them in delivering them. Somebody asked me, "Would you advise the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to arrest these people?", and I said, of course, I am not running the operations and I know what it is like to be second-guessed when you are on the ground and those who are not there are telling you what you should do or should not do.

But from the discussions I have had and from what we are witnessing, I think there is a heightened effort to do something about the war criminals, and that is essential. As we have seen, their influence on the political situation and the social situation is rather pervasive and not conducive for our attempts to unify Bosnia.

QUESTION: What would be the United Nations involvement in those arrests, if they are going to come as a development on the ground?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I do not think that the mandate is clear. The mandate is that the governments concerned in the region should arrest and hand over the war criminals and that the SFOR troops, if they come across these war

- 7 - Press Release SG/SM/6321 11 September 1997

criminals, should arrest them. The United Nations (inaudible) by police. We only have unarmed police on the ground whose role is to train and to monitor the work of the local police to help transform them from an instrument of State control to democratic policing, where they protect the individuals and their property. But we have no executive powers to go and arrest war criminals. So, the United Nations police should not be expected to go around arresting these war criminals. The mandate makes it clear where the responsibility lies.

QUESTION: The situation in the Middle East had been deteriorating very fast during the last few months and it seems that the ongoing efforts to revive the peace process are not going to have any results. In view of the comprehensive report that you presented to the General Assembly and the Security Council on the situation there, do you envisage any new initiative or any new role for the United Nations to push that effort?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think, as far as the United Nations role in the Middle East is concerned, we have certain basic resolutions which I would hope, in time, will be implemented. But it can only be done with the support and the cooperation of the parties concerned. We have troops on the ground who are going to continue to do their work. When it comes to the peace process and the negotiations, there is a negotiator. Both parties are looking to the United States to play a lead role in the negotiations, to lead the negotiations and to mediate. And I think it would be awkward for the United Nations to inject itself into the process. But we will continue to support a settlement. We will continue to support peaceful settlement of the crisis in the region, and we will continue with our work and the mandate given to us by the Security Council.

QUESTION: I take it that there is a lot of wishful thinking after Kabila's military victory that a sort of friendly government in the region would help to bring stability to all of its neighbours. It has been a couple of months now. The Angola peace process is in trouble. Congo-Brazzaville is at war. Rwanda is increasingly destabilizing Burundi and the Congo. Could you give us your assessment of what you think the prospects for stability in that region are and then, more specifically, if you can give me an assessment of your view of the human rights record of the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA), both in eastern Congo and at home?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Let me first say that we are dealing with new regimes which, to some extent, are fragile and not very well established. We must also remember, psychologically, that President Kabila himself and some of the people who are with him were involved in Congolese politics in the early 1960s. Some were with [Patrice] Lumumba when he was killed. For some of them, they believe that the international community deprived them of a chance to rule Congo and they are very mistrustful that if they are not careful it can be done a second time.

- 8 - Press Release SG/SM/6321 11 September 1997

And so we need to understand this mistrust and have a certain patience with a regime that is trying to take over in a country that has more or less collapsed, with no infrastructure and very serious and difficult problems. I also hope, in time, they will come to understand that the international community understands their needs and the problem and would want to help the Congolese people, who have real needs, and work with us in a spirit of trust and understanding that the international community can help and would want to help. That is by way of background.

And I think that, in my own discussions with them, they do realize that they need the international community, and that, for them to get the cooperation of the international community, certain things have to happen. But I cannot help but agree with you that the record and the pattern in the region is disturbing. And, in fact, if the international community is going to make a difference, we need to come up with a strategy that will lead to regional stability. We cannot approach it on a country-by-country basis. And it was for that reason that there has been talk for a considerable period about organizing an international conference on the Great Lakes region. We need to work on the regional basis and also help the individual countries with their reconstruction, political reconciliation and, hopefully, set them on the road to democracy and prosperity, because there are resources and the region is quite rich.

My concern is, if we do not manage to bring that large region under control, many other countries in the region will be unsettled. And today, when we talk of the Great Lakes region -— originally we were talking of Rwanda, Burundi, to some extent eastern Congo -— we are looking at Rwanda, Burundi, problems in Congo-Brazzaville and tensions in the Central African Republic. And, of course, you did touch on Angola, which also shares a common border with the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And this is why we need to take a broader view of what the international community needs to do. But, for us to be able to assist the people, we need to convince the governments to put aside this mistrust for the international community and really work with us, because they cannot do it alone. They need help and they need help badly.

QUESTION: On the RPA, your concerns, your assessment of your human rights role both in eastern Congo and ...

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think the reports from the human rights monitors and the human rights groups indicate that there have been major abuses on both sides, yes.

QUESTION: I was wondering whether the United Nations was encouraged by President Nelson Mandela's recent diplomatic initiatives in East Timor, and whether the United Nations and Ambassador Jamsheed Marker were coordinating any of their work with that of President Mandela.

- 9 - Press Release SG/SM/6321 11 September 1997

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Yes, we are in touch with President Mandela, and I have been on the phone with him several times. The first time we spoke about this was after his trip to Indonesia, where he saw President Soeharto, and also saw Shanana Gusmão during his trip. We then spoke after he had seen Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo and Jose Ramos-Horta, and also after he had seen the Portuguese President. Some of you may also recall that I instructed Ambassador Marker to go to South Africa and brief President Mandela on the United Nations efforts and our approach, and to thank him for his support. He has made it clear that what he is doing is in support of the United Nations efforts, and the parties have also made it clear that they are happy with the United Nations mediation efforts, and that that it is the route they would prefer. I am grateful for President Mandela's support, and we are coordinated and in touch.

QUESTION: This weekend the talks on Western Sahara are going to resume in Houston, Texas. Are you optimistic that, this time, they will be able to reach a final agreement, and is the United Nations preparing for whatever will be done in terms of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO)?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think that former Secretary of State Jim Baker has made quite a lot of progress in the talks, and it is quite possible that we will have a major breakthrough in Houston. But I would wait for the results. I would prefer not to predict what would happen in these talks. You never know. But I am grateful to Mr. Baker, who has moved the process forward in a considerable manner, and who has still managed to retain the trust and confidence of all the parties, including the neighbouring countries of Algeria and Mauritania.

QUESTION: I want to ask you about peacekeeping, since you have a bit of a background in it. It seems that no peacekeeping mission, since the ill- fated one in Rwanda, ever gets on its feet. Do you see this as a trend this year, or next year?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: You say that, ever since the Rwanda situation, no peacekeeping mission ever gets on its feet. I think that has happened because of the nature of developments on the ground. Here, I believe, you are talking about Sierra Leone, where we had troops ready to go in, and then, of course, we know what happened: we did not get the agreement from both parties, and then there was a coup d'état. There was also an aborted attempt to put a multinational force in eastern Congo, and there are, of course, our ongoing discussions about Congo-Brazzaville. There, I think, the whole thing will hinge on the parties coming to an agreement. If there were to be a full- fledged agreement that holds, it is quite possible the Council would ask us to go in. I think what you have witnessed is not that peacekeeping operations don't take off -— or, to use your words, do not get on their feet. What it means is that both the Council and the Secretariat are much more cautious as

- 10 - Press Release SG/SM/6321 11 September 1997

to the conditions under which peacekeepers are deployed. I think we have learned lessons from the past five years, and we are applying them. The peacekeepers should be put in in situations where they can make a difference, where they can make a contribution, and in some of the situations we have described I don't think they could have really helped as much as we would have liked to see. We all know what is going on in Sierra Leone, we know what happened in eastern Congo and we also know about the fighting going on in Congo-Brazzaville -— although, at one point, we thought we saw a ray of hope in Congo-Brazzaville, when the fighters and the militias started fraternizing with each other, and almost refusing to kill each other. I said to myself, "Maybe this gives us a chance", and that, in some cases, we should appeal to the people themselves directly, and realize that it is they and their families who are being killed, not necessarily the leaders.

QUESTION: I am going to use the other language, if you don't mind.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: That is Spanish.

QUESTION (interpretation from French): How do you personally feel about Security Council reform? What is the ideal scenario as you see it?

SECRETARY-GENERAL (interpretation from French): Obviously, it is difficult for me, as Secretary-General, to give my personal view on the question of Security Council reform, because this is an issue that is in the hands of the Member States.

I consider that, at the end of the day, we must have Security Council reform that makes the Council more effective and efficient and more democratic, thereby giving it greater legitimacy. The Member States must, therefore, come up with an approach that will make the Security Council more effective and efficient and more democratic. For my part, I believe that sooner or later the Council can be changed and reformed, perhaps increasing to 20, to 24 members. But we would then have enormous problems deciding which States should occupy the permanent seats created. For some regions, that will be very difficult.

Thank you very much.

* *** *