PRESS CONFERENCE BY SECURITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT

PRESS CONFERENCE BY SECURITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT

Briefing correspondents on the Security Council’s programme of work for October, Kenzo Oshima, Japan’s Ambassador to the United Nations and the Council’s President for the month, said the selection of the United Nations next Secretary-General would be one of the most important tasks awaiting Council action.

October promised to be another important and intense month for the Council, he said.  This morning, Council members had decided that, following the results of yesterday’s “straw poll four”, it would hold a private meeting on Monday, 9 October at 9:30 a.m. to make a formal decision on the matter.  That decision would then be conveyed to the General Assembly’s President and the United Nations membership at large.

He said that an issue not on the Council’s programme of work, but one that had been discussed this morning, was today’s statement by the Foreign Minister of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  The matter had been raised in this morning’s consultations.  Several members had spoken on the matter, all expressing serious concern at the statement and indicating that an appropriate response by the Council would be necessary.  The Council would further discuss the matter during consultations tomorrow morning.

Among other important items on the Council’s agenda was the issue of the Sudan, he said.  The Council would need to decide on the mandate of the United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS), whose mandate was set to expire on 8 October.  A number of diplomatic initiatives were currently under way on that difficult issue.  At some point in time, he expected that the Sudan would come up for discussion in the Council.

Another issue was that of Côte d’Ivoire and the scheduling of a new date for presidential elections there, he said.  Consultations would be held on 25 October.  On the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Council members would be updated on the security situation, as well as on the state of preparations for the run-off elections, scheduled for 29 October.

Regarding the issue of Lebanon, he noted that the Council would hold consultations on 30 October on the report of Special Envoy Terje Roed-Larsen on the implementation of resolution 1559 (2004).

The Council would also be holding a thematic debate on the issue of women, peace and security, he added.  The Council had debated the issue each year since the adoption of key resolution 1325 in 2000.  This year, the Council would focus on the role of women in the consolidation of peace.  A concept paper to facilitate the discussion would be issued shortly.  The United Kingdom’s delegation was also planning to hold an Arria formula meeting on the issue with non-governmental organizations on 25 October.

What would Japan ask the Council to do regarding the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? a correspondent asked.

Speaking in his national capacity, Mr. Oshima said the matter was obviously one of very serious concern to his country, as one of the countries in the region most immediately and directly affected by any action by the that country, whether it be missile launches or announced possible nuclear testing.  First, Japan would express its deep concern over the statement that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would conduct nuclear testing.

Such testing, if conducted, would cause a serious threat to regional and international peace and security and would, moreover, constitute a grave challenge to non-proliferation, he said.  As such, it was totally unacceptable and constituted a serious challenge to the terms and spirit of Council resolution 1695 of July 2006.  Japan, therefore, strongly urged strongly the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to fully and faithfully implement that resolution and desist from any action that would create tension or provoke any undesirable situation in the region.  Japan, along with other members, wanted the Council to consider the matter promptly and come up with a swift, firm and appropriate response.

Asked whether Japan had this morning circulated a draft presidential statement, he said Japan had not yet circulated any document to the Council.

On the issue of Security Council enlargement, he said Security Council reform was an issue that Japan and other like-minded countries, particularly the G-4, had actively pursued last month.  That basic question remained the same.  Japan was very strongly committed to realizing Security Council reform, including its enlargement.  Japan had advocated the expansion of the Council’s membership in both the permanent and non-permanent categories, and had worked hard to gain support for that proposition.  There were, he realized, other proposals, positions and opinions.  Japan had stressed to the Assembly the need to find a broadly acceptable solution to the issue during the sixty-first session, preferably by the end of the year.  His delegation had also said that it would like to approach the issue innovatively, creatively and with an open mind, in the hope of finding a broadly acceptable solution.

Asked whether the Council intended to send a name to the Assembly on the same day that it formally voted, he said it would depend on the outcome of the formal vote.  As of yesterday, there were six names on the list.  The presidency had, until now, received no formal communication from any of the candidates on the list withdrawing their names.  As things stood now, there were six candidates on the list.  Things might happen in the next few days, however.

What message would it send for advocates of transparency and United Nations reform that the United Nations would be given a Secretary-General chosen in a closed room club with no public discussion? a correspondent asked.

Responding, he said he was aware that there were some criticisms and views on the way in which the selection of the next Secretary-General was conducted.  Great efforts had been made, however, to improve the transparency of the process during the current selection.  It was in the hands of the Security Council, both on the basis of practice and the basis of past resolutions in the Assembly to produce one candidate in a process that largely reflected broad consultations.

This year, he added, the candidates had gone out to regional group meetings at their invitation and had met in other forums, both in and out of the United Nations Headquarters.  While he did not deny that there might be room for improvement, there had been efforts to improve the system.  Concerning the current exercise, to the extent that improvements could be made, improvements had been made.  All of the candidates had taken the opportunity to meet with members in various groups.  Although the system might not be perfect, so far, the process had not been done in a very secretive, closed room manner.  A considerable degree of transparency had been introduced into the process.

On the issue of Iran, was there a move afoot to discuss sanctions? a correspondent asked.

Responding, he said important consultations had been going on between Mr. Solana and Mr. Larijani.  All interested countries had followed the negotiations very closely.  It was possible that the issue might be brought back to the Council in the course of the month.  So far, there had been nothing to justify putting it on the Council’s programme, except to mention the issue of non-proliferation in the footnote.

Asked about the possibility of military action in regard to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, he said it was not the proper time to speculate on what the Council might or might not do.  Council members had agreed to take up the issue and give the matter the attention it deserved.

Responding to questions on Uganda and Somalia, he noted that Somalia was also in the footnote.  Some African Council members had indicated their interest in revisiting the issue and had agreed to receive an updated briefing from the Secretariat at an appropriate time in the month.

On the issue of Uganda and the peace negotiations between the Lords Resistance Army and the Ugandan Government, he said the negotiations were ongoing and the idea of appointing a special representative was also being considered.  The Council would pay close attention to developments and would, if necessary, consider the matter.

Responding to another question on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, he said the Council had, in a preambular section of resolution 1625 (2005), among other things, expressed grave concern at the launch of ballistic missiles by that country, given the potential of such systems to be used as a means to deliver nuclear, chemical or biological payloads.  The Council had also affirmed that such launches jeopardized peace, stability and security in the region and beyond, particularly in light of that country’s claim that it had developed nuclear weapons.  Those paragraphs were highly relevant to the issue at hand.

In the operative part of the text, particularly operative paragraph five, he noted that the Council underlined the need to show restraint and refrain from any action that might aggravate tension, and to continue to work on the resolution of non-proliferation concerns through political and diplomatic efforts.  In light of that decision, the statement made by the Foreign Minister of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Foreign Ministry was a direct provocation, and posed a serious challenge to the terms of resolution 1625.

Asked to comment on the timing of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea announcement in light of Japan’s presidency of the Council and the likely election of a South Korean as the next Secretary-General, he noted that, personally speaking, his immediate reaction had been that there might be elements of “attention grabbing”.  The fact that Japan, as well as other Governments, had taken measures to implement the decisions contained in resolution 1625 sent a message to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  Today’s statement was not a proper response to the language of resolution 1625.

Asked whether he agreed with President George W. Bush that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was part of an “axis of evil”, he said that that was not his description.  Japan had never used that terminology.  That did not, however, indicate the absence of concern.

Asked again about the selection of the next Secretary-General, including whether there was a possibility of another candidate coming forward, he said there were currently six names on the list.  Some candidates might decide to withdraw in light of the results, but it was up to each candidate.  As of now, he had not received any formal communication to that effect.  Regarding Mr. Tharoor, he said it was his understanding that a formal withdrawal notice would need to be given to the Council President.  He would have to check that with the Secretariat, however.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record