TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE BY ASSEMBLY PRESIDENT DIDIER OPERTTI (URUGUAY) AT HEADQUARTERS, 10 SEPTEMBER

Press Release
GA/SM/59

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE BY ASSEMBLY PRESIDENT DIDIER OPERTTI (URUGUAY) AT HEADQUARTERS, 10 SEPTEMBER

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): Good morning, everyone. This is my first opportunity to have formal contact with the press. Naturally, I am at your disposal. We will have a rather long period of time ahead when we will meet as often as necessary. We will try to establish a dialogue in all cases where your concerns for information will be met and where we will be able to convey to you as clearly as possible the items which will be dealt with on a daily basis by the General Assembly, particularly on the most serious of issues. In that way, I would leave it up to you to ask questions, if that is what you prefer.

Our basic road map was stated in the introductory statement yesterday. Of course, we did not attempt to exhaust all items; we merely mentioned those which we felt were most sensitive from an international standpoint. I, therefore, think it would now be best for you to feel free to ask any questions you may find relevant, unless someone has a better idea.

QUESTION: Congratulations on your accession to the presidency on behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association, who expect to have harmonious and most productive relations with you during the next three-month period of this year and the rest of the year after that.

My first question would be: do you intend to take any particular initiative on any particular issue as President of this session?

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): In accordance with the rules of the General Assembly, the principal function of the President is to guide and orient the Assembly's work. I would say that his initiatives, if he has any, are related to the course of the discussion and that, in any event, they can respond to the need to build bridges and to conciliate positions that are frequently confrontational. The President's capacity to propose initiatives in no way differs from that of the other 184 Members of the Organization. What he does have is the duty to forge links, areas of common ground, reasonable bridges between the various proposals under consideration. I believe that to be a function which the President of the Assembly cannot and should not give up: working to ensure that the Organization can continue to progress.

This is, of course, a process that is not exhausted in the course of any single session. But if, upon concluding a session, as Mr. Udovenko has said, we were able to present a report indicating that progress has been made in any given area -- by way of illustration, let me mention the progress that has been made on the demining Convention, to cite just one case -- and that the pursuit of the work under way has not been hampered, in that case I believe that we would at least have satisfied the first major demand that can be placed upon the President of the Assembly: to help breathe life into this Organization, not in any secondary or marginal way, but actively, so that it may continue to serve as a reference point to the international community.

- 2 - Press Release GA/SM/59 10 September 1998

It is important that the United Nations continue to act as a landmark for the world. That, I think, is our major concern.

QUESTION: The question of the financial embargo against Cuba is once again before the Assembly. I wonder, as the President of the General Assembly now, and also as a Latin American, are you going to have some personal involvement? And I would like to know your view about the financial embargo against Cuba, since there was a big movement a month ago in Santo Domingo to put Cuba back into the family of nations. I wonder what is your position and what are you going to do more than the other Presidents, as a Latin American, to end this situation about Cuba.

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): I think that is a very good question. The matter, we might say, is rather complex, not so much because of its content, but because of the framework in which it has evolved. This is what we were saying about the role of the President.

My country, Uruguay -- of which I am the Foreign Minister -- has established its position on unilateral measures, and that position is well known. We are not going to enter into its details at this time. What is also known is our national position in assessing the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of such measures and how they have affected the situation in Cuba.

In the General Assembly, however, the President cannot act in his capacity as representative of the foreign policy of his own country. The presidency adds nothing to the foreign policy of the President's country. On the contrary, the President must act with the utmost objectivity and sense of balance and equity.

Let me move on to the next concept. On various occasions, the region has taken regional positions with regard to the question of Cuba. The presidency cannot ignore that fact. The President of the General Assembly cannot ignore any of the facts or factors surrounding the treatment of the question. At this very moment, for instance, Cuba is offering its candidacy as a member of the Latin American Integration Association, an economic organization of the region headquartered in Montevideo, the capital of my country. There will be a meeting of ministers at the end of the year to address this issue, with regard to which Uruguay also has a national position.

However, Uruguay's position will in no way influence our handling of this question. If an issue is to be addressed realistically, a significant effort must be made to explore and discover common ground, not divergent views. As we know, there are differences and disagreements on this matter; we, therefore, prefer first to hear and to absorb these positions in order to understand possible approaches to the situation.

- 3 - Press Release GA/SM/59 10 September 1998

I imagine that my answer may not satisfy you fully, but I think, as we lawyers are prone to say, that this is the answer we must give when we cannot give any other.

QUESTION (interpretation from Spanish): Your predecessor noted a failure to pursue reforms that the Secretary-General envisaged for the survival of the United Nations. How do you plan to unblock that process in order to adopt reforms? Secondly, as a Latin American, while maintaining objectivity and a certain sensitivity to events, how would you approach the General Assembly?

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): Your question has two parts. First, how to unblock a reform process that seems to have bogged down. The reform process itself has different aspects, some pertaining to the functions of the Organization, others to its political framework.

First, as to the former aspect, as included in the Secretary-General's plan, we are prepared to assist the Secretary-General in carrying forward the plan for saving the United Nations. My region is committed to the United Nations. For us, the Organization is a source of reassurance, security, peace, development, cooperation and the protection of human rights. We want to continue to protect those rights and benefits. To that end, the Organization must be able to draw on reliable resources and the reasonable sense of responsibility of States towards fulfilling their duties to the Organization.

We will work to that end whenever we are requested to do so by the Secretary-General, to assist him in his task, which we believe is the responsibility not just of the Secretary-General, but of all Member States, which are the source of life of the Organization. There is a strong obligation not to break the principle of balance of the presidency, because the principle of balance is broken when the President takes sides on behalf of one State or one position taken by States. But this principle is not broken when the President takes the side of the Organization and supports those things that foster the development of the Organization.

The other aspect -- that of the reform itself -- is an issue on which Mr. Udovenko has left us a sort of legacy, an important heritage. I said as much yesterday in my initial statement. He did so with great deliberation, in some cases even saying, "This is where we will need to continue working in the fifty-third session." He was quite explicit.

What is our idea? It seems clear that the winds of reform are blowing. No one could state today, in a roundabout or categorical way, that the United Nations does not want reform; quite the contrary. I believe that it could be better said that the wind of reform is blowing through the United Nations. How can that reform be carried out? How can we be helpful in that reform

- 4 - Press Release GA/SM/59 10 September 1998

effort? I imagine that it will be a difficult task, and speaking about it on the first day may seem somewhat presumptuous. I do not wish to do that. But rationally speaking, when there is a problem the first step is to identify it, learn what the problem consists of, where differences lie and where we can find common ground. If a significant and substantial group of countries -- a majority -- were to say, "We want the United Nations to change, to be like this or like that", we would see to what extent there is agreement about such change and where the differences began. Once we have clarified that framework, which we have basically done, although we always hope to influence that picture, the first thing to do in approaching anything in life is to have a sense of hope, of desire. If you have no desires, you have no hopes or expectations. You become a kind of robot — an impersonal, anonymous robot operated by outside forces.

We do not want to put the Organization on our own shoulder, as we say in my country. But to do what we believe we must do to unblock the process, we need to do what you have rightly suggested: give it new breath, a new impetus, new energy. Such energy would not come merely from itself; it would be the outcome of appreciating the spirit shown by others and of fostering it. I believe that encouragement is no bad thing. Discouragement can be a bad thing, but encouraging the search for solutions ... To discourage is to take a position, because it means standing against initiatives. Encouraging the pursuit of the work is, I believe, an approach that opens up space for everyone. And I believe that that task ... to answer your question more briefly, we will be working along those lines.

QUESTION (interpretation from French): Could you tell us something about the plans that the Assembly has to fight terrorism, and give us your views?

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): As you know, with regard to terrorism, the United Nations has already, if I am not mistaken, adopted 11 conventions, some of them ratified by a large number of countries, which relate to particular forms of terrorism. In all likelihood, there is not just one general picture of terrorism, as there is, for example, with drug trafficking or with the protection of the child or with other such conventions. But there are specific conventions dealing with specific aspects of terrorism. This is the task of codification. It is a normative task. But side by side with that task is a growing concern about acts of terrorism, about repeated acts of terrorism.

Where does the bulk of the responsibility lie and where can we find the possibility of effective control, in the Organization or in States? This is a dilemma that we will have to resolve and an issue that we will have to consider. It is difficult to imagine an international mechanism that would be so effective as to prevent terrorist acts in every part of the world. However, it is more likely that we can imagine that every State, within its own

- 5 - Press Release GA/SM/59 10 September 1998

territory, in the exercise of its own duties imposed upon it by public action, can prevent, forestall and, if necessary, punish terrorism. I was Minister of the Interior of my country -- a job that entailed public security -- for several years before becoming Foreign Minister, and we always said that with regard to the safety of citizens, there were three stages: prevention, deterrence and punishment. There is no reason to believe that such a diagnosis does not apply to terrorism -- no reason. These are organizations and individuals. They have their procedures and means of communicating with one another, and of being in touch. They have support and, in many cases, very sophisticated material means. It is certainly not through the isolated efforts of one, two or several States that the phenomenon can be truly fought.

To sum up, I see two levels. The first is the internal level whereby each country does what it has to do in order to preserve the legal order against attacks by those whose goal is to do away with that order. And the international level: cooperation, coordination, exchange of information, reciprocal assistance. This is beginning to bear fruit, for instance, in the struggle against drug trafficking at its various stages from production to consumption, supply and money laundering. The Vienna Convention is beginning to show results, and a large number of regional and bilateral agreements are also beginning to bear fruit. Today, it is harder to engage in money laundering and to use certain routes for drugs. Those routes are known. There is greater efficiency. Of course, one has to work on peoples' minds so as to do away with the drug philosophy, because drugs lodge themselves not only in trade, but in the minds of people. The task is not simply for States, but also for the family, the educational system and society.

We cannot ask States, the United Nations or any other organization to bear the responsibility for the many things that happen to us. There are many things that happen to us for individual reasons. Not all issues involve or can be regulated by institutions; others are more closely related to basic human nature.

To sum up, terrorism must be combated both at the national level and through international coordination -- without working at both these levels, we will not be effective. And here is a warning: do not confuse terrorism with political crime. Terrorism is terrorism. These are faceless acts of violence directed in an impersonal fashion against individuals or groups without a concrete purpose or motivation. There is something blind and impersonal in terrorism. That is terrorism. Political crime is something entirely different.

In any event, what I am saying is that, by simultaneously seeking remedies at these two levels, we may increase our effectiveness.

- 6 - Press Release GA/SM/59 10 September 1998

QUESTION: You mentioned the responsibilities of Member States. What is your perspective on the United States' debt and the possibility, the prospect, that you as President may be presiding over a General Assembly in which that Member State, the United States, will fall under Article 19?

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): I prefer to be optimistic, although this answer may not satisfy you completely. I believe that this international organization rests on certain foundations. It is not a good idea to alter those foundations. I hope that we can work as an international community to avoid any kind of fragmentation or isolationism. I'm not speaking about confrontation here; I'm speaking simply about differences that arise. I repeat, I prefer to be optimistic.

QUESTION (interpretation from Spanish): What would you say to the United States Congress to avoid the occurrence of what you have just mentioned?

The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): What would I say as President of the Assembly? In this particular case, I would still have to bear in mind that I represent one of the 185 Member States of the Organization -- in other words, assuming both my roles. I would tell Congress that it is difficult to imagine the world without the United Nations. I would tell it that the United Nations is an asset for our civilization, that we do not have the right to jeopardize it, none of us has that right. It was very hard to create an international organization, and all of us must take care of it -- each of us to the extent of our resources and capacities. And I would say something that I said yesterday. The United Nations is one of the most glorious political creations of the twentieth century. To take care of that creation is very important.

I would tell Congress that it is part of a democratic State -- a country of public opinion -- but that the United Nations also represents international public opinion. I would tell Congress that differences cannot be so substantial as to lead to operational estrangement, since the two organizations share the same principles, the same key ideas.

We are actually talking about one of the founding States. We are not talking about a situation that happened later. There is a historical asset, and this country, like all the other countries, must respect it.

* *** *