HEADQUARTERS PRESS CONFERENCE BY UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION

HEADQUARTERS PRESS CONFERENCE BY UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION

Ted Turner told correspondents at a Headquarter press conference today that the Better World Fund was “trying its dead level best to get as much of its money as possible into the parts of the world where the needs are the greatest”.  Timothy Wirth, President of the United Nations Foundation, was also there to brief correspondents on the money -- some $35 million -- allocated by the Foundation’s Better World Fund to United Nations projects around the world today.  Also speaking at the briefing was Andrew Young, the former United States Ambassador to the United Nations and a member of the Better World Fund’s Board of Directors.

Mr. Wirth explained that the Board met two or three times each year to decide on a series of grants for use within the United Nations system.  The Better World Fund, he said, was well ahead of its schedule to give

$100 million to the United Nations each year for grant-making purposes.  The Fund also sought to leverage the money Mr. Turner had donated by persuading other donors to contribute through it to the United Nations.

Mr. Turner said that he and the Board had spent a “very stimulating” three days in New York, having just concluded the grant-making process. Thirty-five million dollars had been allocated to various projects.  As it approached its fourth birthday, the Foundation had made tremendous progress. The Better World Foundation worked very closely with the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships, which provided advice and suggestions for projects.  

Mr. Young said that he was proud to be associated with the Better World Fund, which was one of the first private-sector interactions with the United Nations.  The initiative had started when CNN tried to use its influence to convince the United States Government to pay its United Nations dues.  Ted Turner’s donation had helped to get it started.  The Foundation’s Board was very diverse, with members from Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America.  Its atmosphere was such that it felt like a meeting of friends who liked to get together.  On all the issues, views were given that were not the views of governments, but new perspectives around the world.

A correspondent asked Mr. Turner to name some of the other donors he had referred to earlier.  Mr. Turner replied that there were numerous other donors -- at least 15 or 20 -- among whom were the Gates Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Ford Foundation, Conservation International and Rotary International. 

Another correspondent wanted to know if Mr. Turner was satisfied that the money he donated was going beyond studies and proposals to actually help people and countries.  Ted Turner said that, for example, 40 per cent of the $100 million given out last year had gone to efforts in sub-Saharan Africa, the part of the world where need was greatest.  The Fund was making a conscious effort to get as much of its money as possible to the developing world, and was trying to make a more equitable world.  He was very concerned with the growing gap between the world’s rich and poor, which had a destabilizing effect.  He was “pretty certain” that this contributed to the lack of hope that spurred terrorists.  There was so much despair that terrorists were willing to commit suicide just to hurt the wealthy countries.

Mr. Turner was asked about the money he gave to nuclear disarmament efforts.  He said he had started the Nuclear Threat Initiative about a year ago, before the events of 11 September had made the need to reduce nuclear dangers so apparent.  The Initiative was working with the United Nations and governmental organizations.  It had two Republican Senators, Richard Lugar and Pete Domenici working for it now.

A correspondent asked Mr. Turner why he had chosen to give his money to the United Nations and not to other organizations.  He explained that, aside from the $100 million he gave to the United Nations annually, he had also been giving about $50 million to environmental, family planning, and peace and security issues.  He gave another $50 million annually to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, so only half of the money he gave away went to the United Nations.  He had become wealthy about 10 years ago, and had decided to give some of his money to people who needed it more than he did.  Money, he said, was not like eggs:  if you sat on it, it would not hatch. 

Another correspondent asked Mr. Turner about the zero-growth United Nations budget.  Mr. Turner told her that that policy, which was “bad” and “wrong”, had likely been imposed at the insistence of the United States.  The amount of money that the United States had been in arrears to the United Nations had put a terrible strain on the Organization.  The core budget of the United Nations was about $2 billion, which was “far less” than the budget of the New York City Police.  It was simply not enough money to deal with the incredible number of complex problems around the world.  The budget should be increased because resources were not adequate to do the work that needed to be done.  He was proud and happy to be partners with the United Nations.

Mr. Turner was asked for the most specific example of his money making a difference in the life of people overseas.  He explained that, along with a consortium of the World Health Organization (WHO), Rotary International and Gates Foundation, he had helped to raise $700 million of the $1 billion needed to implement a programme to eradicate polio worldwide.  Much of the work of the Better World Fund was like that of the United Nations:  it was hard to pinpoint the progress that had been made.  Some things were very hard to measure, and one could only assume one’s efforts were doing a significant amount of good.

A correspondent asked for comments on the “amazing improvement” in relations between the United States and the United Nations over the past one to two months.  Mr. Wirth responded that the Better World Foundation had pushed hard for the United States to pay its dues and participate in funding peacekeeping.  He hoped the United States would join the world’s commitment to issues like landmines, bio-terrorism, and the Kyoto Protocol.  There were a whole series of issues in which the international community was moving in one direction while the United States said only “maybe” or “no” to those issues.  He said it was his goal to get the United States’ decision-makers over the “want-to” line.  At this juncture, when there was emphasis on building new coalitions, the engagement and leadership of the United States Government was very much needed. 

Mr. Young commented further, saying that there were indeed many problems that the Unites States could deal with alone, but that most of the world’s problems could be better dealt with through the United Nations. Improved relations had begun with the tremendous efforts of Madeleine Albright, Jesse Helms and Kofi Annan.  The United States had not worked to build a good relationship with the United Nations for a long time.  In the days of Ralph Bunche, the connection had been close, behind the scenes and

automatic, but he could not remember if, for example, former Secretary-General Waldheim had been invited to Washington during his tenure.  The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Kofi Annan and the United Nations was recognition of the good work being done to help people and governments understand what was going on in the world.

A correspondent wanted to know how much of the Better World Fund’s money went to helping women.  Mr. Wirth replied that almost half of all the money the Foundation granted went to such projects as reproductive health, and women’s and children’s issues.  Women’s issues were the most common theme in the projects that the Foundation funded, he said.

Mr. Turner was asked if he had ever thought of concentrating his efforts on raising just one country above the poverty line.  He said that yes, he had thought of adopting one country for the “adopt a minefield” campaign to see what impact it would have.  But issues of fairness would arise if he ever did focus on one country.  Money itself was not always the solution.  Education, human rights, and democracy were important preconditions for the success of a contribution.  Adding to those comments, Mr. Wirth explained that the Foundation’s programmes were not focused geographically but thematically, bearing on four areas:  peace and the environment; population and women; children’s health; and peace, security and human rights.

* *** *